Different regulatory models of transfer of industrial property rights in the Baltic States: A plea for harmonized approach

Abstract

The authors explore different models of transfer of industrial property on a comparative basis. The article demonstrates that these models differ on a country level and several models may be in use in one legal system. The authors analyze strengths and weaknesses and legal implications of these models in the three Baltic States both at the regulatory level and at the practical level through case studies. The authors conclude that would be preferable to use the model under which the register is vested with negative publicity and the transfer of ownership of industrial property is not made dependent on its recordation.

International Technology Transfer measures in an interconnected world

“…In other jurisdictions the law may require that a contract relating to assignment, transfer or sale of patent rights or a license contract be presented to the patent office for registration (WIPO, 2016) either making the actual transfer dependent on registration (the positive publicity of a register) or by stipulating that the fact that is not entered in the register does not bind third parties (the so-called negative publicity) (Kelli et al, 2016) The failure to submit the licensing contract for registration or approval to the appropriate government authorities may entail different legal consequences: the agreement may be rendered void or unenforceable, unenforceable for third parties or the responsible party may be subject to a penalty or the suspension of its right to trade (WIPO, 2004).…”

“…. Kelli et al (2016) report this to be the case in Germany, Sweden, Norway and Denmark, for example, although they also point out that the German Model law proposes to make registration mandatory.…”

Commercialisation of Intellectual Property: A Comparative Analysis of Georgia and Estonia

“…While Estonia has shown a notably high success rate, compared to Georgia, it is important to acknowledge that there is room for further growth and improvement for Estonia as well. Compared to other EU Member States, Estonia's results might not score as the highest and patenting activity in Estonia is considered to be low in comparison (Kelli et al, 2016). In some instances, other Member States, such as Finland, have demonstrated even stronger performance in intellectual property and innovation.…”

Порівняльно-Правовий Аналіз Законодавства В Області Інтелектуальної Власності В Країнах Єс Та Україні

“…Згідно нового законодавства автор може подавати міжнародні заявки на патент відповідно до правил ЄС. При цьому він набуває немайнові права, які передбачають визнання його винахідником патенту, а також він має право відмовитися від права власності на патент [30]. Багато статей даного закону присвячені питанням комерціалізації, а саме можливості продажу об'єктів ІВ та передачі прав авторства, якщо такий об'єкт виконаний за договором.…”