CONCEPT AND ESSENCE OF INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY RIGHT
Keywords:
intellectual property, industrial property, legal regime, invention, utility model, industrial design, exclusive right, artificial intelligence, subject of lawAbstract
The article analyzes the civil law regime of industrial property objects. The proposed study gives a complete picture of the objects of industrial rights, the content of the legal regime, trends in the development of relations related to objects of industrial property. In recent years, the trend of creating intellectual property in Uzbekistan and issuing documents of legal protection (patents) shows the lack of legal protection for the right holder. At the same time, the conditions for the patentability of industrial property objects, and the complexity of the conditions for issuing a title of protection make it difficult to implement legal protection. In exercising their rights, right holders inefficiently use the opportunities to protect not only national legislation but also international legal norms. An analysis of the legal regime of industrial property objects shows that these objects in Uzbekistan can be adequately protected by the use of specific legal measures and mechanisms. For the legislative settlement of these issues, it is necessary to bring the legislation of Uzbekistan in the field of intellectual property in line with international requirements and ensure the protection of the right to objects of industrial property. The author firmly adheres to the position that the main direction in the search for a legal solution to these issues should be the use of information technology and artificial intelligence. But it is too early to recognize the legal personality of artificial intelligence. The article also explores the scientific views of scientists, the strategy of the legislation of the Republic of Uzbekistan in the period of innovative development, and the settlement of disputes over inventions. In conclusion, the author draws certain conclusions.
References
1. Battakhov P.P. Ponyatiye i znacheniye prava promyshlennoy sobstvennosti: zakon i doktrina [The concept and meaning of industrial property law: law and doctrine]. Severo-kavkazskiy yuridicheskiy vestnik – North Caucasian Legal Bulletin, 2013, pp. 53–56.
2. Suleymanov B.B. Metodologicheskiye aspekty pravovoy doktriny. Doktrina prava [Methodological aspects of legal doctrine. Doctrine of law]. Tambov, 2009, p. 23.
3. Matveev A.G., Sinelnikova V.N. Ob`ekty intellektual’noy sobstvennosti, poluchayushiye okhranu v xxi veke [Intellectual Property Objects to be Protected in the 21st Century]. Vestnik permskogo universiteta – Bulletin of the Perm University, 2019, pp. 294–295.
4. Otero L.J.M., Fernández-Nóvoa C., Botana Agra J.M. Manual de la Propiedad Industrial. 3nd ed. Madrid, Marcial Pons, 2017, p. 781.
5. Seuba H. The global regime for the enforcement of intellectual property rights. DOI: 10.1017/9781108231510/. Available at: https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms/.
6. George A. Constructing intellectual property. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9781139035361/. Available at: https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms/.
7. Global Innovation Index 2022: Switzerland, the U.S., and Sweden lead the Global Innovation Ranking; China Approaches Top 10; India and Türkiye Ramping Up Fast; Impact-Driven Innovation Needed in Turbulent Times. Available at: https://www.wipo.int/portal/en/index.html/.
8. Frensis Garri o budushhem intellektualnoy sobstvennosti: vozmozhnosti i problemy [Francis Gurry on the Future of Intellectual Property: Opportunities and Challenges]. Technology Trends WIPO Report 2019 Abstract Artificial Intelligence. 2019, September. Available at: https://www.wipo.int/edocs/pubdocs/ru/wipo_pub_1055_exec_summary.pdf/.
9. Ting-Wei Ch., Xiaoping W. Innovation and patenting activities of Covid-19 vaccines in wto members: analytical review of medicines patent pool (mpp) Covid-19 vaccines patent landscape (vaxpal). Staff Working Paper, ERSD-2022-01, 2022, February 10, p. 41.
10. Patentability of inventions created by AI – the DABUS claims from an Indian perspective. Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, 2020. DOI: 10.1093/jiplp/jpaa146/.
11. Russell L. Parr. Intellectual property valuation, exploitation, and infringement damages. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, New Jersey, 2018, p. 651.
12. Oqyulov O. Intellektual mulkning huquqiy maqomi [Legal status of intellectual property]. Tashkent, TSUL, 2000.
13. Konseptual’no-teoreticheskiye osnovy sovremennogo grazhdanskogo kodeksa Respubliki Uzbekistan [Conceptual and theoretical foundations of the modern civil code of the Republic of Uzbekistan]. Civil legislation of the Republic of Kazakhstan and other post-Soviet countries: past, present, future. Proceedings of the International scientific and practical conference. Almaty, Research Institute of Private Law of the Caspian University, 2017, pp. 66–76.
14. Xodjayev B. Et al. Intellektual faoliyat natijalarini tijoratlashtirish va baholash [Commercialization and evaluation of the results of intellectual activity]. Tashkent, 2021,
pp. 20–21.
15. Mekhmonov K. Issues of legal regulation of relations related to information and communication technologies. Review of law sciences, 2020, p. 17.
16. Madrid (Marks) Notification, no. 169. Available at: https://wipolex.wipo.int/ru/treaties/parties/remarks/UZ/2/.
17. INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY PROTECTION Ministry of Justice. Intellectual property e-state services portal. Available at: http://my.ima.uz/.
18. U.S. Copyright Office. Available at: https://www.copyright.gov/ title17/title17.pdf/.
19. Kravchenko A.A. Pravovoy rezhim internet-sayta kak kompleksnogo ob`yekta prava intellektual’noy sobstvennosti [Legal regime of the Internet site as a complex object of intellectual property rights]. PhD thesis. Moscow, 2015, p. 214.
20. Court of Cassation, Civil Chamber 1, 2006, June 13, 02-44.718. Available at: https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichJuriJudi.do?oldAction=rechJuriJudi&idTexte= JURITEXT00000705 6062&fastReqId=257361910&fastPos=1/.
21. Kecofa/Lancôme. HR, 2006, June 16, LJN AU8940. Available at: https://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/inziendocument?id=ECLI:NL :HR:2006:AU8940/.
22. Court of Cassation, civil, Commercial Chamber, December 10, 2013, 11-19.872. Available at: https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichJuriJudi.do?oldAction=rechJuriJudi&id TexteJURITEXT000028329512&fastReqId= 1235557305&fastPos=1/.
23. Biryukova I.V. Problemy pravovogo regulirovaniya biopatenta i yego sovershenstvovaniye [Problems of legal regulation of biopatent and its improvement]. PhD thesis. Tashkent, 2006, p. 175.
24. Matuzov N.I., Malko A.V. Teoriya gosudarstva i prava [Theory of Government and Rights]. Moskow, 2005, 541 p.
25. Universal Declaration on the Human Genome and Human Rights. Available at: http://www.unesco.ru/ru/?module=news&action=theme&id=116/.
26. International Declaration on Human Genetic Data. Available at: http://www.un.org/ru/documents/decl_conv/declarations/genome_dec.shtml/.
27. Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights. Available at: http://www.un.org/ru/documents/decl_conv/declarations/bioethics_and_hr.shtml/.
28. Global IP Performance: Patent, Trademark and Design Applications Hit Record Levels in 2018. Available at: https://www.wipo.int/pressroom/ru/articles/2019/article_0012.html/.
29. Report on the state of intellectual property in the world. Revolutionary innovation and economic growth. Available at: https://www.wipo.int/edocs/pubdocs/ru/wipo_pub_944_2015.pdf/.
30. Gorbatyuk A., Kovacs A. Patent notice (failure) in the era of patent monetization. 2022, pp. 506-542. DOI: 10.1007/s40319-022-01172-z/.
