Conflict of Laws in International Intellectual Property Agrements

Document Type : Research Article

Author

Assistant Professor, Department of Intellectual Property, University of Qom, Iran

Abstract

The complexity and diversity of international assignment or license of IPRs and the territoriality principle, makes determining their applicable law difficult. The rules governing IPRs, are distinct from applicable law to contractual issues, hence the importance of characterization in these contracts. Party autonomy and the discretion of courts are faced with restrictions including competition law originating from national or international public policy. In the absence of agreement as to governing law, Rome I Regulation, after stating specific rules for determining the applicable law to certain categories of contracts, has adopted the characteristic performance criterion not applicable to certain IP contracts. Other instruments typically provide for the application of the law of the country with the closest connection with contract. There are different standards to identify such a country, the best of which is presented by Max Planck rules which is based on the analysis of a group of elements. Since Iran is a developing country in need of importing technology, the assignee’s or licensee’s country also deserves attention. The Iranian laws have no specific rule in this regard and the conflict of law rule in article 968 of the Civil Code is not compatible with the characteristics of those contracts.
 

Keywords

References

الماسی، نجادعلی (1384)، تعارض قوانین، چاپ دوازدهم، تهران، مرکز نشر دانشگاهی.
سلجوقی، محمود (1389)، بایسته­های حقوق بین­الملل خصوصی، چاپ دوازدهم، تهران، بنیاد حقوقی میزان.
شریعت باقری، محمدجواد (1391)، «حاکمیت اراده بر قراردادهای بین­المللی خصوصی»، دیدگاه­های حقوقی، شمارة 52، صفحات 140-97.
قانون مدنی.
قانون حمایت از حقوق مؤلفان، مصنفان و هنرمندان 1348.
قانون ثبت اختراعات، طرح­های صنعتی و علائم تجاری 1386.
American Law Institute (2008), Intellectual Property: Principles Governing Jurisdiction, Choiceof Lawand Judgementsin Transnational Disputes (with Comments and Reporters’ Notes).
 
Asensio, Pedro Alberto De Miguel (2013), “The Law Governing International Intellectual property Licensing Agreements (A Conflict of Laws Analysis)”, available at:http://eprints.ucm.es/18063/1/pdemiguelasensio-IP_Licensing_2013.pdf. (Accessed: 1/10/2014).
CLIP, European Max-Planck Group for Conflict of Laws in Intellectual Property (2007), Comments on the European Commission’s Proposal for a Regulation on the Law Applicable  to Contractual Obligations ("Rome I") of December 15, 2005 and the European Parliament Committee on Legal Affairs’ Draft Report on the Proposal of August 22, 2006.
 
CLIP, European Max Planck Group on Conflict of Laws in Intellectual Property(2011),Principles on Conflict of Laws in Intellectual Property, Final Text, 1 December 2011.
 

Fawcett, James J.; Torremans, Paul (2011), “Intellectual Property and Private International Law”, available at:www.books.google.com/books?isbn=019955658X.(Accessed:30/10/2014).

 

Kojima, Ryu, Shimanami, Ryo, Nagata, Mari, (2010) "Applicable Law to Exploitation of Intellectual   Property Rights in the  Transparency  Proposal."  Intellectual   Property in the Global Arena-Jurisdiction, Applicable Law, and the Recognition of Judgments in Europe, Japan and the US.www.tomeika.jur.kyushu-u.ac.jp/ip/pdf/Choice-of-law_Oct_31.pdf.(Accessed: 3/11/2014).
Kono,Toshiyuki (2012), Jurisdiction and Applicable Law in Matters of Intellectual Property, In General Reports of the XVIIIth Congress of the International Academy of Comparative Law/Rapports Généraux du XVIIIème Congrès de l’Académie Internationale de Droit Comparé.393-421.
Kunda, Ivana, (2010), Practical Handbook on European Private International Law, ec.europa.eu/.../practical_handbook_eu_international_law_en.pdf.(Accessed:29/10/2014).
Matulionytė, Rita( 2012),IP and Applicable Law in Recent International Proposals: Report for the International Law Association,Journal of Intellectual Property, Information Technology and Electronic Commerce Law,Volume 3 Issue 3, 2012,263-306.
 
Metzger, Axel,(2010),Applicable Law under the CLIP Principles: a Pragmatic Revaluation of Territoriality, http://metzger.rewi.hu-berlin.de/doc/publikationen/aufsaetze/Metzger-ApplicableLawUnderCLIP2010.pdf.(Accessed:1/9/2014).
 
Torremans, Paul, (2008), Licenses and Assignments of Intellectual Property Rights under the Rome I Regulation, available at:http://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/1693/1/Licences_and_assignments_of_intellectual_property_rights_under_the_Rome_I_Regulation_-_finalx.pdf.(Accessed:20/9/2014).
 
Transparency Proposal on Jurisdiction, Choice of Law, Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Intellectual Property,(October, 2009), available at: http://www.tomeika.jur.kyushu-u.ac.jp/ip/pdf/Transparency%20RULES%20%202009%20Nov1.pdf.(Accessed:24/8/2014).
Waseda University, (2010), Commentary on Principles of Private International Law on Intellectual Property Rights (Joint Proposal Drafted by Members of the Private International Law Association of Korea and Japan), available at: http://www.win-cls.sakura.ne.jp/pdf/28/08.pdf. (Accessed: 22/9/2015).
Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), 1994.
 
Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, 1886.
French Intellectual Property Code, 1992.
Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property, 1883.
Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 of the European Union Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 on the law applicable to contractual obligations (Rome I).
Private Law
Volume 12, Issue 1 - Serial Number 1
Spring & Summer
April 2015
Pages 105-127

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics