scholarly journals The Essence of Intellectual Property Rights Under Article 17(2) of the EU Charter

2019 ◽  
Vol 20 (6) ◽  
pp. 840-863 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martin Husovec
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
The Other ◽  
Charter Of Fundamental Rights ◽  
The Absolute ◽  
Legislative Changes ◽  
Relative Theory ◽  
The Eu

AbstractSmoking kills. It is also very costly, which is why many governments try to change the habits of their citizens, including by changing the packaging of the products they buy. Of course, tobacco firms are pushing against such laws. They see their rights, in particular, rights to intellectual property, violated. They argue that such legislative changes take away the essence of their hard-earned IP rights and should not be permissible. They point out that the CJEU is allegedly redefining the “essence” of fundamental rights and its function in the system of limitations and developing a set of core inviolable rights.How justified are these arguments? The absolute theory of essence says that the essence of rights cannot be interfered with or taken away, including by the legislator. The relative theory of essence, on the other hand, claims that interference with essence is just a more serious interference which is still subject to the typical proportionality analysis. Therefore, the adoption of either of these two theories has profound consequences. What might constitute the essence of intellectual property rights? When are legislators touching upon it? Is the CJEU really advancing a notion of essence that can prevent legislative changes, or at least make them very difficult? The answer to all these questions depends on our understanding of what constitutes the “essence” of intellectual property rights, and what consequences this notion has under Article 17(2) of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.

scholarly journals Is the EU human rights legal framework able to cope with discriminatory AI?

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-14
Author(s):  
Pablo Martínez Ramil
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Training Data ◽  
Machine Learning Techniques ◽  
Indirect Discrimination ◽  
Proportionality Test ◽  
The Eu

The challenges introduced by AI for the EU anti-discrimination legal framework have been a widely discussed topic among the doctrine. In the light of the 20th anniversary of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, the Commission released a regulatory proposal to tackle AI. This paper seeks to determine whether the proposal successfully addresses the existent pitfalls of the EU framework. First, this paper explores the functioning of AI systems that employ machine learning techniques and determines how discrimination takes place. Second, the article examines intellectual property rights as one of the main barriers for accountability and redressal of violations committed by an AI system. Third, the state of the discussion concerning the pitfalls of the existent EU approach towards non-discrimination is addressed. The available academic literature suggests that discriminatory outputs produced by an AI will amount to indirect discrimination in most scenarios. In this sense, cases of indirect proxy discrimination will likely pass the proportionality test, therefore justifying the discriminatory output. The last section of this article studies the Commission’s regulatory proposal. Although the document seems to effectively tackle discrimination caused by biased training data sets, this paper concludes that intellectual property rights and proxy discrimination still constitute significant barriers for the enforcement of anti-discrimination law.

Intellectual Property Rights and Integration by Conflict: The Past, Present and Future

2016 ◽  
Vol 18 ◽  
pp. 239-269 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martin HUSOVEC
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Free Movement ◽  
The European Union ◽  
The Past ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Exceptions And Limitations ◽  
The Eu

AbstractThis paper analyses how the Court of Justice of the European Union resolves conflicting situations surrounding intellectual property rights (IPR). More specifically, it looks into how it approaches clashes of IPR with other fundamental rights and economic freedoms and with what consequences. Building upon previous literature, I advance the argument that the resolution of the conflict, by means of the proportionality interest-balancing exercise, pursues a pro-harmonisation agenda not only in the obvious context of free movement, but also in the setting of fundamental rights. I show that the recent Coty Germany ruling is likely to accelerate this trend because of its recognition of positive obligations of the Member States in the context of fundamental rights. It is argued that this could also be used by national courts to improve an existing IPR framework, in particular by filing preliminary references that question legislators’ choices such as non-implementation of permissible exceptions and limitations. After highlighting the importance of maintaining a separation between different policy levels (secondary law vs Charter), I outline why Coty Germany is a very worrying reading of Article 17(2) of the EU Charter, and suggest that this could be remedied by synchronising its interpretation with the Court’s doctrine of ‘specific subject matter’ in the context of free movement.

scholarly journals Against the dehumanisation of decision-making. Algorithmic decisions at the crossroads of intellectual property, data protection, and freedom of information

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Guido Noto La Diega
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Data Protection ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Freedom Of Information ◽  
Property Data ◽  
The Eu

This work presents ten arguments against algorithmic decision-making. These re-volve around the concepts of ubiquitous discretionary interpretation, holistic intu-ition, algorithmic bias, the three black boxes, psychology of conformity, power of sanctions, civilising force of hypocrisy, pluralism, empathy, and technocracy. Nowadays algorithms can decide if one can get a loan, is allowed to cross a bor-der, or must go to prison. Artificial intelligence techniques (natural language pro-cessing and machine learning in the first place) enable private and public deci-sion-makers to analyse big data in order to build profiles, which are used to make decisions in an automated way. The lack of transparency of the algorithmic deci-sion-making process does not stem merely from the characteristics of the relevant techniques used, which can make it impossible to access the rationale of the deci-sion. It depends also on the abuse of and overlap between intellectual property rights (the “legal black box”). In the US, nearly half a million patented inventions concern algorithms; more than 67% of the algorithm-related patents were issued over the last ten years and the trend is increasing. To counter the increased mo-nopolisation of algorithms by means of intellectual property rights (with trade se-crets leading the way), this paper presents three legal routes that enable citizens to ‘open’ the algorithms. First, copyright and patent exceptions, as well as trade se-crets are discussed. Second, the EU General Data Protection Regulation is critical-ly assessed. In principle, data controllers are not allowed to use algorithms to take decisions that have legal effects on the data subject’s life or similarly significantly affect them. However, when they are allowed to do so, the data subject still has the right to obtain human intervention, to express their point of view, as well as to contest the decision. Additionally, the data controller shall provide meaningful in-formation about the logic involved in the algorithmic decision. Third, this paper critically analyses the first known case of a court using the access right under the freedom of information regime to grant an injunction to release the source code of the computer program that implements an algorithm. Only an integrated ap-proach – which takes into account intellectual property, data protection, and free-dom of information – may provide the citizen affected by an algorithmic decision of an effective remedy as required by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU and the European Convention on Human Rights.

The Protection of Intellectual Property in International Human Rights Law

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Henning Grosse Ruse-Khan
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
European Convention ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
Cultural Rights ◽  
Core Subject ◽  
Charter Of Fundamental Rights ◽  
The Eu

This chapter examines the human rights system and the way it deals with human creations and innovations that are the traditional core subject matter of intellectual property (IP) rights. It begins by reviewing the scope for protection under Article 27 (2) Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and Article 15 (1) (c) of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR). The chapter moves on to the protection of property in human rights law, especially on the regional, European level. It examines how IP can be protected as property under the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) and under the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights (EU Charter). Finally, the chapter looks at some of the overlaps with international IP rules and the conflict norms in the human rights system to address such overlaps.

Article 262 TFEU

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bernhard Schima
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
European Parliament ◽  
The Other ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Legislative Procedure

Article 229a EC Without prejudice to the other provisions of the Treaties, the Council, acting unanimously in accordance with a special legislative procedure and after consulting the European Parliament, may adopt provisions to confer jurisdiction, to the extent that it shall determine, on the Court of Justice of the European Union in disputes relating to the application of acts adopted on the basis of the Treaties which create European intellectual property rights. These provisions shall enter into force after their approval by the Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements.

scholarly journals Transatlantic trade and investment partnership (TTIP) and the spill overs effects on the Gulf – cooperation council

2017 ◽  
Vol 59 (1) ◽  
pp. 35-51
Author(s):  
Nadia Naim
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Trade Agreement ◽  
Global Trade ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Transatlantic Trade ◽  
The Usa ◽  
Trade And Investment ◽  
The Eu

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to examine the transatlantic trade and investment partnership (TTIP). The EU and the USA are negotiating the TTIP, a trade agreement that aims to remove trade barriers across different economic sectors to increase trade between the EU and the USA. The TTIP will have spill over effects on the MENA region, the GCC, Australia and the Asian sub-continent, as it raises key questions for intellectual property and international trade agreements. For instance, will the USA and EU be on an equal footing or will one triumph over the other, will third party countries like the GCC states be expected to adopt new standards. Design/methodology/approach The research design is a paper and online data collection method to find literature to date on intellectual property law development in the GCC states in relation to the three research objectives as set out above. The literature is the population, and this could prove problematic. Different databases have been used to cover all sources where data can be found. Findings As the EU-USA TTIP is aiming to conclude by the end of 2015, the GCC has an opportunity to reassess its relationship with both the EU and GCC. Up until now, the GCC was able to enter into negotiations with the EU and USA relatively independently. However, where the EU and USA can agree, there will be a harmonisation of regulations. This therefore has repercussions for the GCC. The TTIP has three main aims: to increase trade and investment through market access, increase employment and competitiveness and create a harmonised approach to global trade. To harmonise global trade, the EU and USA aim to harmonise their intellectual property rights through an intellectual property rights chapter that deals specifically with enhancing protection and recognition for geographical indications, build on TRIPS and patentability. Research limitations/implications This study is non-empirical. Originality/value The TTIP will have spill over effects for the GCC, as it has yet to finalise the EU-GCC free trade agreement and USA-GCC framework agreement. The power dynamics between the USA and EU will be a deciding factor on the intellectual property chapter in the TTIP in terms of what the provisions for intellectual property will look like and what powers will be available to investors to bring investor-state-dispute settlement claims against foreign countries.

scholarly journals HAK KEKAYAAN INTELEKTUAL SEBAGAI BENDA: PENELUSURAN DASAR PERLINDUNGAN HKI DI INDONESIA

2015 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 133
Author(s):  
Indirani Wauran-Wicaksono
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Civil Law ◽  
The Other ◽  
Legal Authority ◽  
Intellectual Work

<p><strong>Abstrak</strong><br />Hak Kekayaan Intelektual memberikan kewenangan hukum kepada seseorang untuk<br />mendapat keuntungan dari karya intelektual yang diciptakan. Hal ini berimplikasi pihak<br />lain, yang tanpa persetujuan, tidak diperbolehkan untuk mengambil keuntungan dari<br />sebuah karya intelektual. Pengambilan keuntungan berarti mengambil sesuatu, di mana<br />sesuatu tersebut berada dalam hukum sipil yang dikenal dengan properti. Artikel ini<br />menyelidiki kembali perlindungan dasar hak kekayaan intelektual untuk memberikan<br />justifikasi bahwa hak kekayaan intelektual adalah ‘properti’ yang memiliki sifat dasar<br />properti dan faktanya obyek properti memiliki hak milik.<br /><br /></p><p><em><strong>Abstract</strong></em><br />Intellectual Property Rights provides legal authority for a person to reap the rewards of<br />the intellectual work produced. This has a consequence that the other party without consent<br />must not take advantage of an intellectual work. Reap the rewards of means to take<br />something, which in civil law is known as the property. This article retraces the basic<br />protection of intellectual property rights to provide justification that intellectual property<br />rights are ‘a property’ that has the nature of properties and in fact, is the object of property<br />that has proprietary rights.</p>

scholarly journals Pembatalan Hak Merek Yang Telah Dijadikan Jaminan Fidusia

2018 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 1
Author(s):  
Delila Pritaria Cantika
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Registered Trademark ◽  
The Absolute ◽  
The Law ◽  
A Company ◽  
Adequate Evidence

Trademark as a part of intellectual property rights in essence is a sign to identify and distinguishing a product that made by a company with other products in the market. Trademark must be registered to gain a legal recourse in the form of Rights Over Trademark. However a registered trademark can still be nullified, based on a certain adequate evidence the registered trademark cannot fulfilled the absolute grounds or relative grounds. In furtherance, nowadays trademark legally feasible to be registered as a collateral. And as for the most accurate form of the collateral itself according to the law shall be registered fiduciary guaranty.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document