This article explores the issue of trademark co-ownership, which arises due to the contradiction between the individualizing function of a trademark and the proprietary nature of exclusive rights. On the one hand, the single-source doctrine requires that a trademark be associated with a single source in the minds of consumers, preventing consumer confusion. On the other hand, the right of co-ownership allows multiple parties to manage the trademark at their discretion, which can disrupt the connection between the mark and its source. The aim of this study is to determine the extent to which models of trademark co-ownership can maintain a balance between these conflicting interests in the modern economy. The development of digital technologies, global platforms, and joint branding has changed consumer behavior, making consumers more informed and less susceptible to confusion. In this context, strict limitations on trademark co-ownership, based on traditional notions of consumer protection, may require reconsideration. The research methodology includes a comparative legal analysis of case law, legislative provisions, and doctrinal sources, as well as elements of economic analysis of law. The article examines contemporary legal approaches to trademark co-ownership, including U.S. case law precedents such as East West Tea Co., LLC v. Puri, as well as alternative regulatory models in other jurisdictions (for example, the German model, which requires the consent of all co-owners for licensing). The study’s findings indicate that existing approaches to trademark co-ownership in the U.S. provide co-owners with significant freedom but may also create risks of bargaining power imbalances and opportunistic behavior. However, in the digital economy, where consumers are more knowledgeable, strict protections against brand confusion may be losing relevance. This opens the possibility for more flexible regulations, where co-ownership of exclusive trademark rights becomes a more sustainable and predictable ownership model.

The article analyzes two opposing approaches to the liability of marketplaces for the sale of defective products in the U.S. and France. The purpose of the study is to compare these models of regulation and identify the peculiarities of the legal status of online platforms in these jurisdictions. The first part of the paper considers the American approach, according to which marketplaces can be held liable for the goods they sell. Doctrinal arguments that justify the possibility of qualifying marketplaces as responsible actors are presented. At the same time, it is emphasized that this approach has developed mainly at the level of case law and has not yet been reflected in legislation. The second part analyzes the French approach that assigns marketplaces the status of intermediaries who are not responsible for the quality of products sold. The key example is a case in which one of the largest marketplaces in Europe, Fnac, was exempted from liability for selling defective products. The author critically analyzes this decision, noting the paradox of French regulation: initially oriented towards enhanced consumer protection, it tends to weaken it in the context of marketplaces. Special attention is paid to the doctrinal distinction between obligations of results and obligations of means. Applying the criteria developed in the doctrine to the circumstances of the case at hand allows us to conclude that the obligation of the marketplace corresponds to the model of the obligation of results. Finally, based on the comparison of different legal regimes, a conclusion is drawn about the advisability of applying Article 1240 of the French Civil Code as a basis for holding the aggregator liable.

The introduction of modern tools in civil proceedings, providing remote presence and realization of all procedural rights and obligations, suggests that the traditional form of participation of the prosecutor in civil proceedings is undergoing transformation. One of the key technologies that provide the most advanced possibility of participation in the process of proceedings in civil cases is web-conferencing or online meeting. A notable feature of this technology is the ability to participate in a court hearing “in click accessibility” from the comfort of one’s own home. The highlighted characteristics of this technology suggest that there are limited grounds for the prosecutor to apply to the court in defense of citizens and then participate in the court session. Wide opportunities for increasing the publicity and accessibility of justice with the use of the technology under consideration may have a downside, which should be outlined and the problematic points necessary to elaborate the possibility of prosecutor’s participation in civil proceedings in the ongoing and actively developing digitalization. The study aims to identify the nature and direction of the impact of online court technology on the role of the prosecutor applying to the court in defense of the rights, freedoms and legitimate interests of citizens. A key feature of this study is the application of the inductive method, which makes it possible to abstract from other information technologies used in the field of civil procedure. On the contrary, emphasis is placed on a specific technology in order to identify new opportunities and risks offered by the challenges of the new digital reality. In addition, the study used the formal-legal method, which manifested itself in the analysis of the relevant normative regulation, the logical method for the presentation and formation of the results of the conducted analysis. The following conclusions were made based on the results of the analysis: 1) web-conference (online hearing) has a significant impact on the principles of publicity, accessibility and equality; 2) web-conference (online hearing) allows the most sensitive segments of the population to remotely participate in a court hearing, controlling the quality of legal assistance provided by the prosecutor; 3) the optional nature of the use of web-conference (online hearing) does not justify the hypothesis of reducing the categories of citizens in defense of whose interests the prosecutor can appeal to the court; 4) the use of web conferencing (online sessions) increases the publicity of the activities of the prosecutor’s office due to the control by the material plaintiff over the course of the proceedings and the quality of legal assistance.