ПОНЯТИЕ, ПРАВОВОЕ ОБЕСПЕЧЕНИЕ И РЕАЛИЗАЦИЯ ПРАВА НА ДОМЕННОЕ ИМЯ
The article analyzes the essence of the domain name, its legal nature, the role and place in the system of objects of civil rights. The problems of law enforcement practice on domain disputes in the field of substantive and procedural law are considered. The article also contains recommendations for preventing violations of domain name rights.
The comment to the civil code of the Russian Federation parts of the fourth (Volume 2)
The relevance of the topic is determined by the growing importance of intellectual property for the development of society and economy, as well as contradictorytrends in the legal regulation of this sphere in the information society. Constitutional justice is becoming an important element that ensures balanced development of intellectual property rights at the present stage.
Intellectual property law enshrines the monopoly of the copyright holder. It is absolutely necessary that this monopolism of the right holder does not contradict the public interest. The sphere of private and public relations in intellectual property law is currently one of the most relevant in the world. It causes interest in Russia. Separate articles have been published on this topic, but in the form of a monograph it is presented for the first time in this collected articles. Under the cover of this work are collected the articles of the authors whose views, academic schools, the practical experience are differ. We believe that this is an advantage of this collected articles, because it gives an idea of how difficult it is to achieve a balance between the monopolism of the right holder and the public interest.
Introduction: efficient legal protection of intellectual outputs is essential for the dynamic development of modern society. The list of intellectual property objects is not intended to be exhaustive, separate outputs lose their relevance and become excluded from the list of protected objects, while new ones, on the contrary, are added to it. Purpose: this work aims to identify the tendencies regarding the extension of the range of intellectual property objects at the beginning of the 21st century, and to define the scientific and technological progress results that were granted protection under the influence of the Fourth Industrial Revolution and other factors. Methods: the method of formal logic, historical, comparative legal, systemic structural and formal dogmatic methods were used in course of the analysis. Results: international legal regulation does not provide clearly-defined guidelines to restrict the sphere of intellectual property. This factor undoubtedly contributes to expanding the list of its objects. At the beginning of the 21st century, law-based lists of copyrighted works did not include any new items. The institute of neighboring rights is most dynamically developing in the Law of the European Union. The Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market proposes recognizing two new neighboring rights. One of them is the right of the press publishers for online use of their publications by the news aggregators. The other neighboring right included into the draft Directive was the right to coverage of sporting events. However, in February, 2019, the provisions on this right were excluded from the Directive. In our opinion, biomedical cell products constitute new objects of civil circulation that require their own legal regulation as intellectual property constituents. Conclusions: intellectual property law cannot and should not undergo changes with the emergence of every new kind of objects. The contemporary challenge facing civil jurisprudence and the legislature is to formulate universal regulations that would make it possible to protect the rights of authors and developers of technological solutions even at the stage of experiments.
Companies are increasingly paying close attention to the IP portfolio, which is a key competitive advantage, so patents and patent applications, as well as analysis and identification of future trends, become one of the important and strategic components of a business strategy. We argue that the problems of identifying and predicting trends or entities, as well as the search for technical features, can be solved with the help of easily accessible Big Data technologies, machine learning and predictive analytics, thereby offering an effective plan for development and progress. The purpose of this study is twofold, the first is an identification of technological trends, the second is an identification of application areas and/or that are most promising in terms of technology development and investment. The research was based on methods of clustering, processing of large text files and search queries in patent databases. The suggested approach is considered on the basis of experimental data in the field of moving connected UAVs and passive acoustic ecology control.
Introduction: the paper analyzes the influence of changing legislation in the sphere of protection and use of intellectual property upon legal regulation and practice of its application in the field of intellectual activity. Legislation changes in the intellectual property sphere have contradictory influence upon the regulation of the relevant legal relationship. That is why analysis of the dynamics of intellectual activity development and its dependence on changing legal norms and constructions is of great importance. Purpose: to analyze the existing civil legislation in order to work out practical recommendations on how to improve the efficiency of protection of intellectual activity results. Methods: methods of analysis and synthesis, methods of micro- and macroeconomic analysis of legal facts and events, interdisciplinary approach are used in the paper. Results: it has been revealed that current Russian legislation in the sphere of intellectual property protection is rather contradictory. It incorporates collusions and does not provide economic activity with secure non-contradictory legal regulation. There are collusions between the existing national legislation norms in the sphere of intellectual property protection and general international norms and principles. An attempt to bring norms of Russian legislation into line with norms and principles of international law has not been successful. Conclusions: it is important to bring national Russian legislation in the sphere of intellectual property protection into line with conventional international norms and principles. The specific features of Russian practice of conducting scientific activity ought to be taken into account. It is strongly recommended to change civil legislation with regard to the patenting system in force and methods of intellectual property registration existing in Russian patent practice.