dirightDigital Law JournalЦифровое право2686-9136Maxim Inozemtsev10.38044/2686-9136-2022-3-2-8-24diright-106Research ArticleARTICLESСТАТЬИInfringement of exclusive rights on the Internet: A comparative analysis of regulation on the applicable lawНарушение исключительных прав в сети Интернет: сравнительный анализ регулирования по вопросу применимого праваТиуноваА. И.TiunovaA. I.

Магистр права, эксперт

1211, Женева, ал. Кёломбэт, 34

Alla I. Tiunova — LLM, Young Expert

34, Colombettes Path, Geneva, 1211

allatiunova19@gmail.comВсемирная организация интеллектуальной собственностиШвейцарияWorld Intellectual Property OrganizationSwitzerland20221807202232824Copyright © Tiunova A.I., 20222022Тиунова А.И.Tiunova A.I.This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.https://www.digitallawjournal.org/jour/article/view/106

The issues on applicable law in cases of infringement of the exclusive rights on the Internet are usually considered through the traditional approach, while the specifics of the Internet as a decentralized and cross-border network are not taken into account. This fact urges to critically rethink and update existing approaches on the applicable law. The subject of the study is the peculiarities of the law applicable to establishing the fact of infringement and the law applicable to the choice for remedies.

The author analyzes acts of various levels (including the Berne Convention, legislation of the European Union, the Russian Federation, Switzerland, the People’s Republic of China, soft law initiatives) and concludes that soft law initiatives contain proposals for more detailed regulation, but due to their nature they are not binding on the law enforcer. It is necessary to define the conditions which the choice of the country for which a person claims protection should correspond to. Thus, the plaintiff should choose the country where the resulting harm for that person is more significant. What is also important is to provide the parties with the opportunity to choose applicable law for remedies after the dispute occurs that will increase legal certainty of legal relations.

Как правило, вопросы определения применимого права в случае нарушения исключительных прав в сети Интернет рассматриваются под призмой традиционного подхода, не учитывая специфику сети Интернет как децентрализованной и трансграничной сети. Данный факт влечет необходимость критически переосмыслить и актуализировать существующие подходы, касающиеся определения применимого права.

Предметом исследования выступают особенности определения права, применимого к установлению факта нарушения исключительных прав, а также права, применимого к способам защиты.

Автор анализирует акты различного уровня (Бернская конвенция, законодательные акты Европейского союза, Российской Федерации, Швейцарии, Китайской Народной Республики, акты «мягкого права») и приходит к выводу о том, что акты «мягкого права» содержат предложения по более детальному регулированию рассматриваемых вопросов, но в силу своей природы не являются обязательными для правоприменителя. Выдвигается предложение о необходимости определения на теоретическом уровне условий, которым должен соответствовать выбор страны, в отношении которой истцом испрашивается защита в случае нарушения исключительных прав в сети Интернет. Так, истцу следует выбирать страну, где последствия нарушения для него наиболее ощутимы. Также важно предоставить сторонам возможность заключить соглашение о выборе применимого права в отношении способов правовой защиты после возникновения спора, что повысит правовую определенность правоотношений.

юрисдикцияприменимое правонарушение исключительных правИнтернетjurisdictionapplicable lawinfringementexclusive rightsInternetReferencesAman, D. M. (2014). Jurisdictional, preliminary, and procedural concerns. In D. M. Amann (Ed.), Benchbook on international law (pp. A-1–A-16). American Society of International Law. www.asil.org/benchbook/jurisdicition.pdfAman, D. M. (2014). Jurisdictional, preliminary, and procedural concerns. In D. M. Amann (Ed.), Benchbook on international law (pp. A-1–A-16). American Society of International Law. www.asil.org/benchbook/jurisdicition.pdfAsoskov, A. (2016). Pravo, primenimoye k dogovornomu obyazatel’stvu: Kommentariy k st. 1211 GK RF [Law applicable to a contractual obligation: Commentary on Art. 1211 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation]. Zakon, (4), 106–120.Asoskov, A. (2016). Pravo, primenimoye k dogovornomu obyazatel’stvu: Kommentariy k st. 1211 GK RF [Law applicable to a contractual obligation: Commentary on Art. 1211 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation]. Zakon, (4), 106–120.Basedow, J. (2010). Foundations of private international law in intellectual property. In J. Basedow, T. Kono & A. Metzger (Eds.), Intellectual property in the global arena jurisdiction, applicable law, and the recognition of judgments in Europe, Japan and the US (pp. 3–30). Mohr Siebeck. https://doi.org/10.1628/978-3-16-151296-4Basedow, J. (2010). Foundations of private international law in intellectual property. In J. Basedow, T. Kono & A. Metzger (Eds.), Intellectual property in the global arena jurisdiction, applicable law, and the recognition of judgments in Europe, Japan and the US (pp. 3–30). Mohr Siebeck. https://doi.org/10.1628/978-3-16-151296-4Basedow, J. (2013). Conflict of laws in intellectual property — The CLIP principles and commentary. Oxford University Press.Basedow, J. (2013). Conflict of laws in intellectual property — The CLIP principles and commentary. Oxford University Press.Boschiero, N. (2009). Infringement of intellectual property rights: A commentary on article 8 of the Rome II regulation. In Volume IX 2007: Volume IX (2007) (pp. 87–114). Otto Schmidt/De Gruyter European Law Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783866537200.1.87Boschiero, N. (2009). Infringement of intellectual property rights: A commentary on article 8 of the Rome II regulation. In Volume IX 2007: Volume IX (2007) (pp. 87–114). Otto Schmidt/De Gruyter European Law Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783866537200.1.87Deeyfuss, R. C., Ginsburg, J. C., & Dessemontet, F. (Ed.). (2008). Principles governing jurisdiction, choice of law, and judgments in intellectual property in transnational disputes. American Law Institute. https://www.ali.org/publications/show/intellectual-property-principles-governing-jurisdiction-choice-law-and-judgments-transnational-disputes/Deeyfuss, R. C., Ginsburg, J. C., & Dessemontet, F. (Ed.). (2008). Principles governing jurisdiction, choice of law, and judgments in intellectual property in transnational disputes. American Law Institute. https://www.ali.org/publications/show/intellectual-property-principles-governing-jurisdiction-choice-law-and-judgments-transnational-disputes/Drexl, J. (2013). Section 3:201: Initial ownership. In Conflict of laws in intellectual property — The CLIP principles and commentary (pp. 236–253). Oxford University Press.Drexl, J. (2013). Section 3:201: Initial ownership. In Conflict of laws in intellectual property — The CLIP principles and commentary (pp. 236–253). Oxford University Press.Hoffmann, B. & Kropholler, J. (2001). J. von Staudingers Kommentar zum Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuch mit Einführungsgesetz und Nebengesetzen [J. von Staudinger‘s commentary on the Civil Code with the introductory law and ancillary laws]. Sellier-de Gruyter.Hoffmann, B. & Kropholler, J. (2001). J. von Staudingers Kommentar zum Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuch mit Einführungsgesetz und Nebengesetzen [J. von Staudinger‘s commentary on the Civil Code with the introductory law and ancillary laws]. Sellier-de Gruyter.Krupko, S. (2018). Deliktnyye obyazatel’stva v sfere intellektual’noy sobstvennosti v mezhdunarodnom chastnom prave [Tort Liabilities in the Field of Intellectual Property in Private International Law]. Statut.Krupko, S. (2018). Deliktnyye obyazatel’stva v sfere intellektual’noy sobstvennosti v mezhdunarodnom chastnom prave [Tort Liabilities in the Field of Intellectual Property in Private International Law]. Statut.Krupko, S. (2021). Znachimyye kollizionnyye interesy i ikh vliyaniye na formirovaniye kollizionnogo regulirovaniya otnosheniy intellektual’nykh prav [Significant choice-of-law interests and its impact on the formation of choice-of-law regulation in the field of intellectual property]. Gosudarstvo i Pravo, 10, 186–197. https://www.doi.org/10.31857/S102694520017272-0.Krupko, S. (2021). Znachimyye kollizionnyye interesy i ikh vliyaniye na formirovaniye kollizionnogo regulirovaniya otnosheniy intellektual’nykh prav [Significant choice-of-law interests and its impact on the formation of choice-of-law regulation in the field of intellectual property]. Gosudarstvo i Pravo, 10, 186–197. https://www.doi.org/10.31857/S102694520017272-0.Kur, A. & Maunsbach, U. (2019). Choice of law and intellectual property rights. Oslo Law Review, 6(1), 43–61. https://doi.org/10.18261/issn.2387-3299-2019-01-07.Kur, A. & Maunsbach, U. (2019). Choice of law and intellectual property rights. Oslo Law Review, 6(1), 43–61. https://doi.org/10.18261/issn.2387-3299-2019-01-07.Lucas, A. (2005). Applicable law in copyright infringement cases in the digital environment. Copyright Bulletin, (14), Article 0000262612. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000262612Lucas, A. (2005). Applicable law in copyright infringement cases in the digital environment. Copyright Bulletin, (14), Article 0000262612. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000262612Savelyev, A. (2020). Elektronnaya kommertsiya v Rossii i za rubezhom: Pravovoye regulirovaniye [Electronic commerce in Russia and abroad: Legal regulation]. Statut.Savelyev, A. (2020). Elektronnaya kommertsiya v Rossii i za rubezhom: Pravovoye regulirovaniye [Electronic commerce in Russia and abroad: Legal regulation]. Statut.Schaafsma, S. J. (2008). Rome II: Intellectuele eigendom en oneerlijke concurrentie [Rome II: Intellectual property and unfair competition]. Weekblad voor Privaatrecht, Notariaat en Registratie, (6780), 998–1003.Schaafsma, S. J. (2008). Rome II: Intellectuele eigendom en oneerlijke concurrentie [Rome II: Intellectual property and unfair competition]. Weekblad voor Privaatrecht, Notariaat en Registratie, (6780), 998–1003.Schack, H. (2008). Das auf (formlose) Immaterialgüterrechte anwendbare Recht nach Rom II [The law applicable to (informal) intellectual property rights after Rome II]. In D. Baetge, J. von Hein & M. von Hinden (Eds.), Die richtige Ordnung (pp. 641–670). Mohr Siebeck.Schack, H. (2008). Das auf (formlose) Immaterialgüterrechte anwendbare Recht nach Rom II [The law applicable to (informal) intellectual property rights after Rome II]. In D. Baetge, J. von Hein & M. von Hinden (Eds.), Die richtige Ordnung (pp. 641–670). Mohr Siebeck.Schack, H. (2009). The law applicable to unregistered IP rights after Rome II. Ritsumeikan Law Review, (26), 129–144.Schack, H. (2009). The law applicable to unregistered IP rights after Rome II. Ritsumeikan Law Review, (26), 129–144.Strigunova, D. (2014). Dogovor mezhdunarodnogo franchayzinga [International franchising agreement]. Sovremennoye Pravo, (12), 135–141.Strigunova, D. (2014). Dogovor mezhdunarodnogo franchayzinga [International franchising agreement]. Sovremennoye Pravo, (12), 135–141.Vareilles-Sommières, P. (2019). Rationale of the exclusion of choice of law by the parties in articles 6(4) and 8(3) of Rome II Regulation. Oslo Law Review, 6(1), 62–66. https://doi.org/10.18261/issn.2387-3299-2019-01-08Vareilles-Sommières, P. (2019). Rationale of the exclusion of choice of law by the parties in articles 6(4) and 8(3) of Rome II Regulation. Oslo Law Review, 6(1), 62–66. https://doi.org/10.18261/issn.2387-3299-2019-01-08Xalabarder, R. (2002). Copyright: Choice of law and jurisdiction in the digital age. Annual Survey of International & Comparative Law, 8(1), Article 5. http://digitalcommons.law.ggu.edu/annlsurvey/vol8/iss1/5Xalabarder, R. (2002). Copyright: Choice of law and jurisdiction in the digital age. Annual Survey of International & Comparative Law, 8(1), Article 5. http://digitalcommons.law.ggu.edu/annlsurvey/vol8/iss1/5

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest present.