53

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION, SCIENCE, YOUTH AND SPORTS OF UKRAINE

NATIONAL UNIVERSITY «ODESA ACADEMY OF LAW»

A.V.KIRILYUK, A.V. BIGNYAK

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHT

METHODOLOGICAL MANUAL

on the course of lectures in English

for Law students and post-graduates

of National University «Odesa Academy of Law»

Odesa 2012

The author’s appreciation goes to the President of the National

University «Odesa Academy of Law», Academician Sergiy V. Kivalov

for the encouragement and development of the project of studying Legal

disciplines in English and for publishing this methodological manual

Discussed and approved at the meeting of the Academic Council of National University «Odesa Academy of Law», protocol № , 2012.

Kirilyuk A.V., Bignyak A.V. Intellectual property right : methodological manual / A.V. Kirilyuk, A.V. Bignyak // National University «Odesa Academy of Law ». – Odesa : Feniks, 2012. - p.

Introduction

During the whole period of human history outcome of human creative activity – works of literature, art, architecture, pieces of music and later on scientific works as well – has constituted eternal values favoring the progressive development of humanity. Since the time of industrial revolution of the 19^th century the list of socially helpful results of creative activity has been complemented with such an element as technical invention. Further social and economic development of the world community resulted in the appearance of new objects as the outcome of creative activity such as trademarks, brands, and in the latest times – computer software, integral micro schemes, information resources and domains’ names.

With the course of the time all these objects of human intellectual activity were being increasingly involved directly into the economic turnover alongside with traditional objects of material sphere and, consequently, the problem of the right of property on such objects became even more urgent. Thus, alongside with the traditional concept of property as of legal relationships where the object is a material substance and the subject is the owner of this substance exercising its ownership, usage and disposal, quite naturally there appears the concept of intellectual property as of the legal relationship where the object is the outcome of human creative activity and the subject is the creator of this outcome (the author) or another owner of the rights who has obtained the rights of the outcome of the intellectual activity on legal grounds.

Legislation on protection of different objects of intellectual property was developing gradually. Due to rapid scientific and technical, economic and social development under the conditions of international division of labor the significance of objects of intellectual property in these processes has increased repeatedly, and, consequently, the importance of international cooperation in elaboration and application of mutually agreed national legislations in the sphere of intellectual property legal safeguard and corresponding international agreements and multilateral covenants in this sphere has increased as well. Certain «world standards» of legal norms in this sphere stated both in national legislations of developed countries and in some international conventions have been established by nowadays.

Lectures course theme 1. IntEllectual property, its concept and importance

1. Concept of intellectual property.

2. The World Intellectual Property Organization.

3. Differentiation between the intellectual property right and the right of property.

4. Outcome of intellectual activity as the object of Civil Law.

5. System of sources legal regulation of relationships in the sphere of intellectual property.

6. Ukrainian legislation in the domain of intellectual property legal safeguard.

7. International agreements as legal sources of intellectual property right.

8. Classification of outcome of intellectual activity as of object of legal safeguard.

9. International agreements on intellectual property rights.

10. Major institutions of Intellectual Property Law.

The intellectual property right has its own history of origin, background of the emergence and legalization at the level of a legal category, both in the international and in the domestic law.

The history of intellectual property and intellectual property rights is often narrated in ideological terms as part of the struggle for hegemony. Some trace IP back to the «economic secrets» of primitive societies about where to find the best sites for hunting and gathering; others ground it in evolutionary psychology or philosophical anthropology, citing children’s love of keeping secrets. Likewise, ancient Greece and Rome are said to illustrate respect for industrial property right in the form of customary law and for intellectual property through ethical obligations to the authors of ideas. Later precursors are found in the medieval guild system, which allegedly protected IP through its social enclosure of trade secrets. Repeating such stories disguises the specific nature and functions of IPRs in capitalism and tends to naturalize and legitimate them.

More rigorous historians note that the distinction between corporeal and incorporeal objects was first drawn in philosophy by the Stoics, was introduced into legal discourse in the 11th century, and then adapted to bourgeois intellectual property law in the 18^th century. Intellectual property rights certainly did exist before the emergence of a bourgeois legal system based on the abstract, impersonal legal subject. But they belonged to a legal order that involved concrete privileges and freedoms and differentiated rights by status (Pashukanis 1978). For example, the medieval patent was a monopoly privilege used to raise revenue for local rulers and, where it had a direct economic function, it served to circumvent guild control of innovation. Under mercantilism, patents were used to encourage the import of technology and know-how and to promote foreign trade as well as raise revenue for the state. Only in capitalism did patents acquire their main function of guaranteeing monopoly privileges for capital in the commercial exploitation of inventions and other intellectual products. Similarly, whereas copyright served to protect the ‘mistery’ (trade secrets) of the printing trade and to exercise state control over ideas by the licensing of publishers, it later became a means of establishing the automatic right of authors to the fruits of their labour and, with the formal and real subsumption of intellectual labour under capitalist relations of production, a means of protecting the markets of the culture industries. A key turning point in this development were struggles in the eighteenth century over the ownership of the products of innovative mental labour as an activity now clearly distinguished from manual labour and entitled to its own rewards (Sherman and Bently 1999). Tracing the genealogies of different legal forms of intellectual property and the economic, political, and ideological struggles around each of them would show how a still far from coherent system of IPR developed through the gradual extension of the scope of IPRs and their growing systematization. There have been three main, albeit overlapping, stages in the development of bourgeois IP regimes from the industrial capitalist period onwards: (a) national regimes, (b) bi- and multilateral international regimes; and (c) global regimes.

Global regimes have been promoted from the 1970s onwards by the United States above all to consolidate its economic hegemony and favour its knowledge-intensive industries (Drahos and Braithwaite 2002).

Bourgeois intellectual property rights have been justified and attacked on several grounds. The five most important and influential justifications for intellectual property right all derive from various philosophical reflections on mental labour, the subject, and property that emerged in the Enlightenment or in reaction to it. The first justification generally extends the Lockean notion of the right to the fruits of one's own material labour by arguing that ideas and inventions are products of intellectual or mental labour.

This takes Locke’s arguments much further than he would have done, especially where IPRs involve monopoly privileges created by the state that undermine the Lockean requirement that ‘enough and as good be left in common for others’. The Kantian and Hegelian justification is rooted in the rights of moral personhood and personal expression. Thus Kant argued that literary products of the mind were part of the author’s person and hence inalienable; others had a ‘natural obligation’ to respect the author’s ownership of his speech and its expression. Hegel’s approach was more instrumental, arguing that property rights enabled the exercise of subjective freedom and the will to artistic expression. In contrast to Kant, he distinguished between mental ability as inalienable and its expression as external to the self. The latter could become the basis of property rights. This emphasis on personhood is being revived today in controversies over property rights in body parts, cell lines and other body products. Utilitarian justifications for IPRs emphasized their role in maximizing wealth or utility by striking the right dynamic balance between real but limited incentives for authors and inventors and the securing of some collective benefit from their creativity. For example, Adam Smith was generally opposed to monopoly but supported limited monopolies to promote innovation and commerce requiring substantial initial investments and risk. Bentham and John Stuart Mill argued along similar lines. Utilitarianism provides the core for most of the economic analysis that has been undertaken on intellectual property and the most appropriate IP regimes. Claims to property in the products of the intellect have been strongly criticized by libertarians from right and left, who argue that ideas are not inherently scarce and belong in the commons and that intellectual property depends on monopolies granted by governments. An additional criticism refers to the conflict between freedom of expression and intellectual property as a form of censorship.

Finally, principles of distributive justice have been invoked to protect traditional knowledge and resources against their unfair western scientific and corporate appropriation. Recent examples include farmers’ rights (innovators entitled to intellectual integrity and access to germ plasm and technologies they have developed collectively over generations), traditional music, and biodiversity. Some of these justifications can be turned against the capitalist form of intellectual property right to demand other forms of control over the fruits of intellectual labour, other ways of organizing the general intellect, and new ways of overcoming the information and/or digital divides.

The origin of the very term ‘intellectual property right’ is associated with the French law of the late 18^th century. In France, for instance, there arose a proprietary approach toward the intellectual property right which rested upon the natural law theory; the latter was elaborated in most detail in the works of the French philosophers of the age of Enlightenment, such as Voltaire, Diderot, Goldbach, Helvetius, and Rousseau. According to this theory, the intellectual property right to any result of creative activity belongs to its author and is their integral, intrinsic right that exists irrespective of official recognition thereof by the State. Like any right of ownership, the intellectual property right to a result of intellectual and/or creative activity gives to its creator an exclusive possibility to dispose of the results of their intellectual work at their full discretion.

Modern usage of the term intellectual property goes back at least as far as 1867 with the founding of the North German Confederation whose constitution granted legislative power over the protection of intellectual property (Schutz des geistigen Eigentums) to the confederation. When the administrative secretariats established by the Paris Convention (1883) and the Berne Convention (1886) merged in 1893, they located in Berne, and also adopted the term intellectual property in their new combined title, the United International Bureaux for the Protection of Intellectual Property. The organisation subsequently relocated to Geneva in 1960, and was succeeded in 1967 with the establishment of the World Intellectual Property Organization by treaty as an agency of the United Nations. According to Lemley, it was only at this point that the term really began to be used in the United States (which had not been a party to the Berne Convention), and it did not enter popular usage until passage of the Bayh-Dole Act in 1980.

«The history of patents does not begin with inventions, but rather with royal grants by Queen Elizabeth I (1558-1603) for monopoly privileges... Approximately 200 years after the end of Elizabeth's reign, however, a patent represents a legal [right] obtained by an inventor providing for exclusive control over the production and sale of his mechanical or scientific invention... [demonstrating] the evolution of patents from royal prerogative to common-law doctrine.»

In an 1818 collection of his writings, the French liberal theorist, Benjamin Constant, argued against the recently introduced idea of «property which has been called intellectual.» The term intellectual property can be found used in an October 1845 Massachusetts Circuit Court ruling in the patent case Davoll et al. v. Brown., in which Justice Charles L. Woodbury wrote that «only in this way can we protect intellectual property, the labors of the mind, productions and interests are as much a man's own...as the wheat he cultivates, or the flocks he rears.» The statement that «discoveries are...property» goes back earlier. Section 1 of the French law of 1791 stated, «All new discoveries are the property of the author; to assure the inventor the property and temporary enjoyment of his discovery, there shall be delivered to him a patent for five, ten or fifteen years.» In Europe, French author A. Nion mentioned propriété intellectuelle in his Droits civils des auteurs, artistes et inventeurs, published in 1846.

Until recently, the purpose of intellectual property law was to give as little protection possible in order to encourage innovation. Historically, therefore, they were granted only when they were necessary to encourage invention, limited in time and scope.

The concept's origins can potentially be traced back further. Jewish law includes several considerations whose effects are similar to those of modern intellectual property laws, though the notion of intellectual creations as property does not seem to exist – notably the principle of Hasagat Ge'vul (unfair encroachment) was used to justify limited-term publisher (but not author) copyright in the 16th century.

The World Intellectual Property Organization is one of the specialized agencies of the United Nations (UN) system of organizations. The «Convention Establishing the World Intellectual Property Organization» was signed at Stockholm in 1967 and entered into force in 1970. However, the origins of the World Intellectual Property Organization go back to 1883 and 1886, with the adoption of the Paris Convention and the Berne Convention respectively. Both of these conventions provided for the establishment of international secretariats, and both were placed under the supervision of the Swiss Federal Government. The few officials who were needed to carry out the administration of the two conventions were located in Berne, Switzerland.

Initially there were two secretariats (one for industrial property, one for copyright) for the administration of the two conventions, but in 1893 the two secretariats united. The most recent name of the organization, before it became the World Intellectual Property Organization, was BIRPI, the acronym of the French-language version of the name: United International Bureaux for the Protection of Intellectual Property (in English). In 1960, BIRPI moved from Berne to Geneva.

At the 1967 diplomatic conference in Stockholm, when the World Intellectual Property Organization was established, the administrative and final clauses of all the then existing multilateral treaties administered by BIRPI were revised. They had to be revised because member States wished to assume the position of full governing body of the The World Intellectual Property Organization, thus removing the supervisory authority of the Swiss Government, to give WIPO the same status as all the other comparable intergovernmental organizations and to pave the way for it to become a specialized agency of the United Nations system of organizations.

Most of the intergovernmental organizations now called specialized agencies did not exist before the Second World War. They were created for the specific purpose of dealing with a particular subject or field of activity at the international level. However, some intergovernmental organizations, such as the International Labor Office (ILO), the Universal Postal Union (UPU) and the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) were in existence, and had become the responsible intergovernmental organizations in their respective fields of activity long before the establishment of the United Nations. After the United Nations was established, these organizations became specialized agencies of the United Nations system.

Similarly, long before the United Nations was established, BIRPI was the responsible intergovernmental organization in the field of intellectual property. The World Intellectual Property Organization, the successor to BIRPI, became a specialized agency of the United Nations when an agreement was signed to that end between the United Nations and the World Intellectual Property Organization which came into effect on December 17, 1974.

A specialized agency, although it belongs to the family of United Nations organizations, retains its independence. Each specialized agency has its own membership. All member States of the United Nations are entitled to become members of all the specialized agencies, but in fact not all member States of the United Nations are members of all the specialized agencies. Each State decides for itself whether it wants, or does not want, to become a member of any particular specialized agency. Each specialized agency has its own constitution, its own governing bodies, its own elected executive head, its own income, its own budget, its own staff, its own programs and activities. Machinery exists for coordinating the activities of all the specialized agencies, among themselves and with the United Nations, but basically each agency remains responsible, under its own constitution, to its own governing bodies, which are the States members of the organization.

The agreement between the United Nations and the World Intellectual Property Organization recognizes that the World Intellectual Property Organization is, subject to the competence of the United Nations and its organs, responsible for taking appropriate action in accordance with its basic instrument and the treaties and agreements administered by it, inter alia, for promoting creative intellectual activity and for facilitating the transfer of technology related to

industrial property to developing countries in order to accelerate economic, social and cultural development.

Intellectual property law – is a complex of legal norms, regulating relations, which arise because of the creation of intellectual property patents, copyrights, trademarks and trade secret laws; the protection of Intellectual property rights; and the legal pursuit of those who infringe on another’s rights to his/her Intellectual property.

The sources of the intellectual property right are any methods or forms of expression of the state will of the Ukrainian people in respect of which this will becomes a right. Among them are any national enactments and international acts regulating any issues of origin (or acquisition), exercise, and protection of the intellectual property right.

Today the legislation of Ukraine in the field of intellectual property covers all well-known objects of right of intellectual property.

The relationships, connected with Intellectual property are regulated by a significant legislative array.

The legal relationships in this sphere are regulated by separate positions of Constitution of Ukraine, by the norms of Civil, Criminal, Custom codes of Ukraine, the Code of Ukraine about administrative offences, by positions of some laws of Ukraine, and also special laws of Ukraine in the field of intellectual property. That is, the legislative base of Ukraine in the field of defence of intellectual ownership rights is very vast.

First of all, the Constitution of Ukraine that establishes a guarantee of freedom of intellectual activity in Ukraine is one of such sources. In the 41 article of the Constitution of Ukraine there has been fastened the right of each person to own, to use and dispose the property, the results of the intellectual, creative activity, and the 54 article guarantees freedom of literary, artistic, scientific activity and technical creation, defence of intellectual property, their copyrights, moral and financial interests which arise up in connection with different types of intellectual activity. It also guarantees the protection of intellectual property, copyright, moral and material interests, which arise in connection with different types of intellectual activity. Every citizen has the right for the results of his intellectual, creative activity; no one may use or distribute them without his consent except for the cases, stipulated by the law.

General points about the right of intellectual property are reflected in the Civil code of Ukraine, namely in fouth Book The «Right of intellectual ownership».

Civil Code of Ukraine among the objects of civil laws fastens the results of intellectual, creative activity and other objects of right of intellectual ownership (article 177, 199 CC of Ukraine). Intellectual property right is the right of a person to the result of intellectual, creative activity or other objects of intellectual property right.

Also, more than 10 special laws and numerous international agreements are used in this sphere.

Intellectual property is divided into two categories:

1) Industrial property, which covers: inventions (patents), trademarks, industrial designs, and geographic indications of source, innovations, plant breeds, animal breeds, commercial (brand) names, trademarks for goods and services, commercial secrets;

2) Copyright, which includes literary and artistic works such as novels, poems and plays, film, musical works, artistic works such as drawings, paintings, photographs and sculptures, computer programs, data compilations (databases), performances, phonograms, videograms, media broadcasts (programs), scientific discoveries, and architectural designs.

Rights related to copyright include those of performing artists in their performances, producers of phonograms in their recordings, and those of broadcfsters in their radio and television programs.

Results of intellectual, creative activity — are the products of, creative intellectual activity of man that are incarnated in a financial form. They are classified depending on the sphere of activity, in particular: the results of literal-artistic activity, scientific and technical creations.

The main signs of the results of intellectual activity are as follows immaterial nature; possibility of expression is in an objective form, capacity for recreation; accordance to the certain terms of a legal safeguard.

Creative activity is activity, which is peculiar only to the individuals. It can not be adjusted and sometimes can be spontaneous, to taking place as a result of inspiration. Intellectual activity is wider than creation. It is explained that all the results of intellectual activity are created as a result of creative process, but not all of them can be acknowledged as the objects of intellectual property. It happens in connection with the fact that the results of creative activity not in every case can correspond to the criteria of legal safeguard.

The article 418 CC of Ukraine determines the right of intellectual property as the right of a personality the results of intellectual, creative activity or on other object of right of intellectual ownership. The right of intellectual ownership is made by the personal unproperty intellectual ownership rights and (or) property intellectual ownership rights. Nobody can be deprived at the right of intellectual ownership or limited in his realization, except for cases, granted by the law.

The right of intellectual property in the objective sense is a complex of corporate and politic laws, which regulate public relations, connected with the uqwiring of rights on the objects of intellectual property, their usage, granting permission on their use and putting obstacle to illegal use of objects of intellectual property.

The right of intellectual property in the subjective sense is an aggregate of the personal unproperty or property rights of individuals on the corresponding results of intellectual activity.

Intellectual property law – is a complex of legal norms, regulating relation, which arise because of the creation of intellectual property patents, copyrights, trademarks and trade secret laws; the protection of intellectual property rights; and the legal pursuit of those who infringe on another’s rights to his/her intellectual property.

Correlation of the right of intellectual property and the right of property. The article 419 CC of Ukraine which states, that the right of intellectual ownership and the right of ownership are not interdependant. The process of passing of the right to right of intellectual ownership does not mean passing of the right of ownership on anything. The passing of the right of ownership to the thing does not mean the passing of right to the object of right of intellectual ownership. In this aspect it is needed to distinguish the right owners of absolute rights on the objects of intellectual property and proprietors of financial transmitters in which the objects of intellectual property found their realization.

The objects of intellectual property rights consist of results of creative, intellectual activity and equal to them of facilities of individualization. The list of objects of right of intellectual ownership is determined at an international level by Convention about foundation of Worldwide organization of intellectual property in 1967. In accordance with an article 2 this Convention to intellectual property includes the rights which belong to : literary, artistic and scientific works; performance activity of artists, audio recording, radio— and TV programs; inventions in all of industries of human activity; scientific discoveries; industrial prototypes; trade marks, brandnames and commercial denotations; protection from unfair competition.

In the national legislation the general list of objects of intellectual property rights , which does not have exhaustive character, fastened in the article 420 CC of Ukraine and includes: literary and artistic works; computer programs; data bases; implementation; phonograms, videograms, transmissions (programs) of organizations of broadcasting; scientific discoveries; inventions, useful models, industrial prototypes; sorts of plants, breed of animals; commercial (brandname) names, trade marks, geographical marks; commercial secrets.

In the international legislation in there should be noted two groups of objects: objects of copyright and contiguous rights and objects of right of industrial ownership.

Some authors distinguish three groups of objects of intellectual property rights: an institute of right of intellectual ownership on the objects of copyright and contiguous rights; an institute of right of intellectual ownership on the results of scientific and technical creation; an institute of right of intellectual ownership on commercial denotations.

Such objects belong to the first institute, as: literary and artistic works, in particular: novels, poems, articles and other writing works; lectures, speeches, sermons and other verbal works; dramatic, musically dramatic works, pantomimes, choreographic, other stage works; pieces of music; audio-visual works; works of painting, architecture, sculpture and graphic arts; photographic works; illustrations, cards, plans, sketches and plastic works, translations, collections of works, phonograms, videograms.

The second institute is made up by such objects, as: inventions, useful models, industrial prototypes, rationalizational suggestions, sorts of plants, breed of animals, scientific discoveries, commercial secrets.

The third institute unites facilities of individualization of participants of civil circulation of commodities and services: commercial names, trade marks and geographical pointings.

Some researchers distinguish the objects of the second institute on the objects of patent right (inventions, useful models, industrial prototypes) and untraditional objects of right of intellectual property (scientific discoveries, rationalizational suggestions, sorts of plants, breed of animals, commercial secrets).

Thus, taking into account the suggested division, it is possible to select basic four groups of objects of right of intellectual property:

objects of copyright and contiguous rights;

objects of patent right;

facilities of individualization of participants of civil circulation of, commodities, works, services;

ntraditional (other) objects of intellectual activity.

In accordance with an article 421 CC of Ukraine legal subjects of intellectual property are: creator (creators) of object of right of intellectual ownership (author, performer, inventor) and some other subjects, to whom belong personal unproperty and (or) property intellectual ownership rights in accordance with CC of Ukraine.

It is necessary to distinguish primary subjects of intellectual property (creators) rights, whom owned the right of intellectual property after creation of object or state registration of rights on the object of right of intellectual ownership and second legal subjects of intellectual property — physical and legal individuals, who got property intellectual ownership rights in the order, set by the law or agreement.

There also distinguished representatives in the field of intellectual property, Government service of intellectual property, courts.

The content of right of intellectual property is made by the personal unproperty rights and (or) property intellectual property rights.

The personal unproperty rights arise up in relation to immaterial blessings and can not be separated from a person and do not have economic maintenance. The personal unproperty rights can belong only directly to the creator of object of right of intellectual ownership. The personal no property intellectual ownership rights do not depend on property intellectual ownership rights, can not be alienated (passed), after the exceptions set by a law and are operating permanently, if other is not set by the law.

Exception wen heirs have the right on the guard of unproperty rights of a dead creator.

Personal non-proprietary rights include:

1) right on confession of man by the creator (by an author, performer, inventor and others like that) of object of right of intellectual property;

2) right to hinder to any encroachment on the right of intellectual property, able to do harm to honour or reputation of creator of object of right of intellectual property;

3) other personal no property intellectual property rights set by a law.

Property rights are the rights connected with the use of objects of right of intellectual ownership, and also with those property (material) requirements which arise up between the participants of legal relationships concerning the use of objects of right of intellectual ownership.

The law can set the exceptions and limitations in property intellectual ownership rights on condition that such limitations and exceptions do not create the substantial obstacles for normal realization of property intellectual ownership rights and realization of legal interests of subjects of these rights.

Property intellectual ownership rights are operating during the terms, set by the Civil code, law or agreement and can be halted before the appointed time in cases defind by the legislation.

Property intellectual property rights are:

1) right on the use of object of right of intellectual ownership;

2) exceptional right to allow the use of object of right of intellectual ownership;

3) exceptional right to hinder to the illegal use of object of right of intellectual ownership, in including forbidsng of such use;

4) other property intellectual ownership rights set by the law.

The right of intellectual ownership includes relations, related to confession of authorship; the use of the results of intellectual, creative activity, granting permission on their use and prevention of the illegal use of objects of intellectual property.

The civil code of Ukraine foresees the methods of judicial defence of intellectual ownership rights. So a court in case and in order, set by the law, can decree the decision about:

1) application of immediate measures on prevention of violation of right of intellectual ownership and saving of the proper proofs;

2) the stop of admission through the custom border of Ukraine of commodities, import or export of which is carried out with violation of right of intellectual ownership;

3) exception from civil circulation of the commodities made or entered in civil circulation with violation of right of intellectual ownership;

4) exception from civil circulation of materials and instruments which were used mainly for making of commodities with violation of right of intellectual ownership;

5) application of money penalty for one occasion instead of reimbursement of losses for the illegal use of object of right of intellectual ownership. It is determined size of penalty in accordance with a law taking into account guilt of person and other circumstances which have the substantial value;

6) publishing in the mass medias of information about violation of right of intellectual ownership and maintenance of court decision in relation to such violation.

In 2001 a new Criminal code of Ukraine ( farther - CCU ) was accepted and the row of changes ( last from 20.01.2005 ) was borne in Code of Ukraine about administrative offences ( farther CaAV ). These codes were complemented by the articles which strengthen criminal and administrative responsibility for violation of intellectual ownership rights.

As to CaAV we should state:

1) the article 51 of CaAV foresees responsibility for violation of rights on the object of right of intellectual ownership, that is the illegal use of object of right of intellectual ownership (literary or artistic work, their implementation, phonogram, transmission of organization of broadcasting, computer program, database, scientific opening, invention, useful model, industrial prototype, sign for goods and services, topography of integral microcircuit, rationalization suggestion, sort of plants and others like that), appropriation of authorship on such object or other intentional violation of rights on the object of right of intellectual ownership, that is guarded by the law;

2) the article 164 of CaАV foresees responsibility for unfair competition, namely:

а) illegal copying of form, packing, external registration, and similarly imitation, copying, direct recreation of commodity of other businessman, wilful use of his name;

б) intentional distribution of untruthful or inexact information which can inflict harm to business reputation or property interests of other businessman;

в) receipt, use, disclosure of commercial secret, and also confidential information with the purpose of infliction of harm to business reputation or property of other businessman;

3) the article 164 of CaАV foresees responsibility for illegal distribution of copies of audiovisiual works, phonograms, videogramme, computer programs, databases, that is distribution of copies of audiovisiual works, phonograms, videogramme, computer programs, databases packing of which does not mark by control brands or mark by control brands, that have series or contain information, which do not answer the transmitter of this copy, or number which does not answer information of the Unique register of recipients of control brands;

4) the article 164 of CaАV foresees responsibility for violation of legislation, that regulates production, export, import of disks for the laser systems of reading, export, import of equipment or raw material for their production.