|Commenced in January 2007||Frequency: Monthly||Edition: International||Paper Count: 7|
Article 5(3) of the Brussels I Regulation provides that a person domiciled in a Member State may be sued in another Member State in matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict, in the courts for the place where the harmful events occurred or may occur. For a number of years Article 5 (3) of the Brussels I Regulation has been at the centre of the debate regarding the intellectual property rights infringement over the Internet. Nothing has been done to adapt the provisions relating to non-internet cases of infringement of intellectual property rights to the context of the Internet. The author’s findings indicate that in the case of intellectual property rights infringement on the Internet, the plaintiff has the option to sue either: the court of the Member State of the event giving rise to the damage: where the publisher of the newspaper is established; the court of the Member State where the damage occurred: where defamatory article is distributed. However, it must be admitted that whilst infringement over the Internet has some similarity to multi-State defamation by means of newspapers, the position is not entirely analogous due to the cross-border nature of the Internet. A simple example which may appropriately illustrate its contentious nature is a defamatory statement published on a website accessible in different Member States, and available in different languages. Therefore, we need to answer the question: how these traditional jurisdictional rules apply in the case of intellectual property rights infringement over the Internet? Should these traditional jurisdictional rules be modified?
Part IV of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation dedicated to legal regulation of Intellectual property rights came into force in 2008. It is a first attempt of codification in Intellectual property sphere in Russia. That is why a lot of new norms appeared. The main problem of the Russian Civil Code (part IV) is that many rules (norms of Law) contradict the norms of International Intellectual property Law (i.e. protection of inventions, creations, ideas, know-how, trade secrets, innovations). Intellectual property rights protect innovations and creations and reward innovative and creative activity. Intellectual property rights are international in character and in that respect they fit in rather well with the economic reality of the global economy. Inventors prefer not to take out a patent for inventions because it is a very difficult procedure, it takes a lot of time and is very expensive. That-s why they try to protect their inventions as ideas, know-how, confidential information. An idea is the main element of any object of Intellectual property (creation, invention, innovation, know-how, etc.). But ideas are not protected by Civil Code of Russian Federation. The aim of the paper is to reveal the main problems of legal regulation of Intellectual property in Russia and to suggest possible solutions. The authors of this paper have raised these essential issues through different activities. Through the panel survey, questionnaires which were spread among the participants of intellectual activities the main problems of implementation of innovations, protecting of the ideas and know-how were identified. The implementation of research results will help to solve economic and legal problems of innovations, transfer of innovations and intellectual property.1