Intelektinės nuosavybės teisės klausimai Lietuvos Respublikos Konstitucinio Teismo praktikoje.

This article focuses on the analysis of the main positions of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania in the cases of intellectual property law. In the article three judgments and the positions of the Constitutional Court extracted therefrom are analysed. The Constitutional Court has formed several important positions with reference to intellectual property law regarding usage of property protection norms for the protection of intellectual property, requirements of application of compensation as an alternative to damages compensation and the calculation of criterions thereof as well as functional legal protection of trademarks. It should be noted that Article 23(1) of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania has extended protection to property and, as the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania has noted, the constitutional protection of property covers not only the protection of tangible, but also of intellectual property. In the same judgment, the Constitutional Court stated another important intellectual property related rule, namely that constitutionally established property protection rights have to be implemented regardless of whether a corresponding international treaty has not been ratified, as protection of authors’ rights is granted under Articles 23 and 42(3) of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania. However, the second position stating that the rights of foreign subjects are to be implemented even though a corresponding international treaty has not been signed is to be criticised as by coming to such a conclusion the Constitutional Court has ignored the otherwise generally recognised principle of territoriality of intellectual property rights. In two other cases the Constitutional Court has made important statements relevant to intellectual property law. First of all, the Court stated that compensation instead of claiming actual damages is constitutional. By analysing the positions formulated by the Court, an indirect conclusion can be made to the effect that compensation instead of claiming actual damages is necessary in order to ensure effective protection of intellectual property rights. In other words, the purposes of compensation can be recognised: restoring (compensating) the infringed interests of the injured party; simplifying judicial proceedings, whereby faster proceedings (litigation) and easier substantiation is sought; and the preventive purpose (strong preventive effect). However, the Court’s argument regarding the criterion of compensation calculation, saying that the damages incurred by the intellectual property rights owner depend on the sale value of the product concerned is criticisable, as it is rarely the case that the licence fee or profit acquired in the result of unauthorised use of intellectual property objects is calculated with reference to the final sale price of the product. Notwithstanding the arguably weak argument of the Court, the Court’s position regarding the criterion of final sale price itself does not preclude the possibility of reaching a fair final decision.Finally, the Court acknowledged that trademark protection was limited to the economic functions of the trademark and the full protection thereof.Straipsnyje analizuojami Lietuvos Respublikos Konstitucinio Teismo nutarimai, kuriuose buvo vertinamos intelektinės nuosavybės teisės ir jų gynimą reguliuojančių ordinarinių įstatymų normų atitikties Lietuvos Respublikos Konstitucijai klausimai. Skiriamos kelios pagrindinės Konstitucinio Teismo pozicijos: dėl intelektinės nuosavybės apsaugos vadovaujantis teisės į nuosavybę nuostatomis, dėl kompensacijos kaip alternatyvaus žalos atlyginimui gynimo būdo taikymo sąlygų ir apskaičiavimo kriterijų, taip pat dėl prekių ženklų funkcionalios teisinės apsaugos paskirties. Konstitucinis Teismas savo praktikoje yra konstatavęs labai svarbius dalykus, reikšmingus intelektinės nuosavybės teisių apsaugai: intelektinės nuosavybės ir materialinės nuosavybės autonomiškumą, alternatyvių žalos kompensavimo būdų (pvz., kompensacijos vietoj nuostolių) numatymo galimybę atsižvelgiant į intelektinės nuosavybės teisių specifiką, prekių ženklų apsaugos tikslų įtaką teisių į juos apsaugos apimčiai ir turiniui

Neue Rechtsvorschriften Im Gemeinscahftsrecht überr die Durchsetzung der Rechte an geistigem Eigentum: Richtlinie 2004/48/Eg – Materialietuvos Respublikosechtliche Rechtsbehelfe ohne kompensatorischen Charakter

The article examines the Directive 2004/48 / EC of 29 April 2004 by the European Parliament and Council on the provisions for the protection of intellectual property rights; it provides material means for protection of rights without compensatory effects. The provisions of the Directive which provide material legal means for protection are analysed, other than those related to the breach of the rights for intellectual property with compensation for damages. It also discusses the means for the removal of the infringing actions (remedial means), alternative means, and the publication topic of decisions of courts on the rights for intellectual property. In summary of the provisions of Directive 2004/48/EC and the Lithuanian law rules on the rights for intellectual property, the following conclusions can be drawn: First, in principle, most discussed provisions of the Directive, by its nature, were still in force in Lithuanian civil law. Second, Lithuania took the opportunity in accordance with Article 16 of Directive, which grants the right to provide more favorable defense measures to possessors of rights such as preventive action governed separately and additional measures securing the obligation to suspend the enforcement of illegality. Third, Lithuania has not used the possibility of more detailed regulation of prohibitions applicable to mediators and their liability in the area of issues of copyright and related rights. Fourth, the majority of the rules of Directive 2004/48/EC which regulate the means of right protection described in this Article available under the content and the meaning of the relevant provisions of the TRIPS Agreement

Neturtinės žalos atlyginimas už autorių ir atlikėjų teisių pažeidimą

Reikšminiai žodžiai: Neturtinė žala; Autorių teisės; Non-pecuniary damage; Copyrigh

Theoretical and Practical Aspects of the Protection and Enforcement of Copyright and other Intellectual Property Rights

The subject matter of the scientific studies comprises a study of key issues of the protection of copyright as well as enforcement of other intellectual property rights. The basic methods of study used in the works are comparative, historical and teleological. The model of legal regulation of the protection of intellectual property rights chosen is the one existing in the states of droit d’ auteur and copyright systems, and based on this model the key issues of copyright protection are analysed by way of comparing and assessing the aspects provided for in the Lithuanian legislation. Lithuania follows the droit d’ auteur system. In general, the Lithuanian copyright law does not reflect any unique tradition. The development of intellectual property rights protection in Lithuania essentially coincided with the accession to international and regional organisations and to international agreements. When Lithuania decisively implemented one of its foreign policy aims — to become a member of the European Union — the approximation of its national law to the European Union legislation commenced in the field of intellectual property law as well as in the whole legal system. The scientific monograph and the few scientific articles analyse the main aspects of the protection of copyright: main principles of copyright, legal sources, subject matter of the protections, the author or other copyright owner, contents of protection (economic rights and moral rights), limitations and exceptions, tendencies, problems and perspectives of the development of copyright. The few scientific articles deal with the analysis of the implementation of the Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights. Legal remedies applied by the court when passing the decision on the merits can in principle be grouped into preventive (including also corrective) measures and compensatory remedies. The first group covers: (1) injunctions, (2) corrective measures, (3) alternative measures, (4) publication of judicial decisions, whereas the second group covers all possible ways of compensating for damages or, otherwise stated, damages. The laws also provide for the right of access to information, which as a copyright protection measure is applied in the course of judicial proceedings and facilitates the application of other measures and remedies. The legislative provisions pertaining to requirements for collecting evidence and provisional measures are also to be attributed to the rules of a procedural nature. Paragraph 1(2)(b) of Article 13 of the Directive provides that the amount of damages can be set as a lump sum on the basis of elements such as at least the amount of royalties or fees that would have been due if the infringer had requested authorisation to use the intellectual property right in question. This provision has been implemented in Lithuanian legal acts, where it is envisaged that instead of requesting compensation for actual damages, right holders may claim royalties or fees which would have been due if the infringer had requested authorisation to use the works or other objects (i.e., had obtained a licence), and if the infringer acted intentionally or with gross negligence, in the amount of up to double such royalties and fees

Intelektinės nuosavybės teisių gynimo reglamentavimo novelos Europos Bendrijos teisėje: pagrindiniai principai

Straipsnyje analizuojamos 2004 m. balandžio 29 d. Europos Parlamento ir Tarybos direktyvos 2004/48/ EB dėl intelektinės nuosavybės teisių gynimo bendrosios nuostatos. Nagrinėjami Direktyvoje numatyti bendrieji įsipareigojimai, Direktyvos taikymo sritis, asmenys, galintys reikšti reikalavimus dėl teisių gynimo priemonių ir būdų, autorių ir teisių turėtojų prezumpcijos. [...] Straipsnyje daromos išvados, kad: pirma, bendrieji principai, kuriais grindžiamas intelektinės nuosavybės teisių gynimo priemonių ir būdų reglamentavimas, iš esmės nesiskiria nuo tarptautinės bendrijos TRIPS sutartyje numatytų bendrųjų įpareigojimų Pasaulio prekybos organizacijos valstybėms narėms; antra, nors Direktyvos priėmimas yra teigiamas reiškinys, tačiau kyla abejonių, ar bus pasiekti keliami pagrindiniai derinimo ir ekonominiai tikslai, ypač dėl Direktyvos 2 straipsnio 1 dalyje numatytos taisyklės, pagal kurią Bendrijos ir valstybių narių vidaus teisės aktuose galės būti nuostatos, kurios numatys palankesnes priemones teisių turėtojams; trečia, siekiant tinkamai įgyvendinti Direktyvos 4 straipsnio (b) punkto nuostatas, reikėtų intelektinės nuosavybės teises reglamentuojančiuose Lietuvos įstatymuose tobulinti klausimo, susijusio su locus standi pripažinimo intelektinės nuosavybės teisių naudotojams, reguliavimą [...]; ketvirta, nepaisant, kad Direktyvos 5 straipsnio (b) punkte numatyta gretutinių teisių turėtojų teisių prezumpcija jų saugomų objektų atžvilgiu, analogiška autorystės teisei, naudinga įrodinėjant teisių turėjimą, tačiau dėl straipsnyje išsakytų argumentų konceptualiai neapgalvota [...].The article analyses the general provisions of Directive 2004/48/EB of the European Parliament and Commission on protection of intellectual property rights dated ape 29, 2004. [...] The article concludes that: first of all, the general principles forming the basis of regulation of instruments and methods protection of intellectual property rights is virtually the same as the common obligations for the members of the WTO as provided in the international community’s TRIPS agreement; second, although the adoption of the Directive is a positive thing, there are doubts as to the attainment of the main goals of harmonisation and economics, especially when it comes to the rule laid down in Article 2.1 of the Directive whereby the legislation of the Community and the Member States may include provisions providing better instruments for holders of rights; third, proper implementation of the provisions of Article 4(b) of the Directive would require improvement of the regulation of the matter related to recognition of locus standi for intellectual rights holders in the Lithuanian laws that regulate intellectual property rights; fourth, in spite of the fact the presumption of rights of parallel rights holders in terms of the subjects they protect as provided in Article 5(b) of the Directive is useful to prove the ownership of rights, due to the arguments laid down in the article it has been conceptually unreasoned [...]