HARMONIZATION OF NATIONAL PROCEDURAL PROVISIONS CONCERNING THE ENFORCEMENT OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS
This short paper looks at provisions concerning very specific aspects provided for at international, regional and national level and analyzes the level of harmonization between such. Given the importance of provisional measures (and especially of preliminary injunctions) for the protection of intell...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Nicolae Titulescu University Publishing House
2015-07-01
|
| Series: | Challenges of the Knowledge Society |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://cks.univnt.ro/uploads/cks_2015_articles/index.php?dir=04_intellectual_property_law%2F&download=CKS+2015_intellectual_property_law_art.081.pdf |
| _version_ | 1818558675235635200 |
|---|---|
| author | Paul-George BUTA |
| author_facet | Paul-George BUTA |
| author_sort | Paul-George BUTA |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | This short paper looks at provisions concerning very specific aspects provided for at international, regional and national level and analyzes the level of harmonization between such. Given the importance of provisional measures (and especially of preliminary injunctions) for the protection of intellectual property rights, the provisions concerning this subject were the main focus of our analysis. Found in TRIPS, the EU IP Enforcement Directive and national Romanian statutory provisions, we’ve concluded that these are not directly applicable in disputes in Romanian courts and were therefore, as a result of multiple international obligations, supposed to be harmonized. We’ve looked at different aspects in parallel with the development of implementation mechanisms and found that, despite the aforementioned obligations, not even the Directive is fully TRIPS compliant, let alone the Romanian national statutory provisions. We’ve therefore concluded that, even if common sense would dictate that protection at more levels would equal more protection this is not necessarily true, given the fact that multiple harmonization requirements create more opportunity for divergent implementation results – influenced by either benign factors (different national legal traditions, different interpretations) or malign (lack of perspective and/or understanding, rush to implementation). |
| first_indexed | 2024-12-14T00:15:23Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-adfe7447b9f64f7d8a725d3eb8e56745 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2068-7796 2068-7796 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-12-14T00:15:23Z |
| publishDate | 2015-07-01 |
| publisher | Nicolae Titulescu University Publishing House |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Challenges of the Knowledge Society |
| spelling | doaj.art-adfe7447b9f64f7d8a725d3eb8e567452022-12-21T23:25:33ZengNicolae Titulescu University Publishing HouseChallenges of the Knowledge Society2068-77962068-77962015-07-0151557564HARMONIZATION OF NATIONAL PROCEDURAL PROVISIONS CONCERNING THE ENFORCEMENT OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTSPaul-George BUTA0Assistant Professor, PhD, Faculty of Law, ”Nicolae Titulescu” University of Bucharest (e-mail: paul.buta@univnt.ro).This short paper looks at provisions concerning very specific aspects provided for at international, regional and national level and analyzes the level of harmonization between such. Given the importance of provisional measures (and especially of preliminary injunctions) for the protection of intellectual property rights, the provisions concerning this subject were the main focus of our analysis. Found in TRIPS, the EU IP Enforcement Directive and national Romanian statutory provisions, we’ve concluded that these are not directly applicable in disputes in Romanian courts and were therefore, as a result of multiple international obligations, supposed to be harmonized. We’ve looked at different aspects in parallel with the development of implementation mechanisms and found that, despite the aforementioned obligations, not even the Directive is fully TRIPS compliant, let alone the Romanian national statutory provisions. We’ve therefore concluded that, even if common sense would dictate that protection at more levels would equal more protection this is not necessarily true, given the fact that multiple harmonization requirements create more opportunity for divergent implementation results – influenced by either benign factors (different national legal traditions, different interpretations) or malign (lack of perspective and/or understanding, rush to implementation).http://cks.univnt.ro/uploads/cks_2015_articles/index.php?dir=04_intellectual_property_law%2F&download=CKS+2015_intellectual_property_law_art.081.pdfharmonizationintellectual property rightsprovisional measurespreliminary injunctionsTRIPSIP Enforcement Directiveprocedures. |
| spellingShingle | Paul-George BUTA HARMONIZATION OF NATIONAL PROCEDURAL PROVISIONS CONCERNING THE ENFORCEMENT OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS Challenges of the Knowledge Society harmonization intellectual property rights provisional measures preliminary injunctions TRIPS IP Enforcement Directive procedures. |
| title | HARMONIZATION OF NATIONAL PROCEDURAL PROVISIONS CONCERNING THE ENFORCEMENT OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS |
| title_full | HARMONIZATION OF NATIONAL PROCEDURAL PROVISIONS CONCERNING THE ENFORCEMENT OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS |
| title_fullStr | HARMONIZATION OF NATIONAL PROCEDURAL PROVISIONS CONCERNING THE ENFORCEMENT OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS |
| title_full_unstemmed | HARMONIZATION OF NATIONAL PROCEDURAL PROVISIONS CONCERNING THE ENFORCEMENT OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS |
| title_short | HARMONIZATION OF NATIONAL PROCEDURAL PROVISIONS CONCERNING THE ENFORCEMENT OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS |
| title_sort | harmonization of national procedural provisions concerning the enforcement of intellectual property rights |
| topic | harmonization intellectual property rights provisional measures preliminary injunctions TRIPS IP Enforcement Directive procedures. |
| url | http://cks.univnt.ro/uploads/cks_2015_articles/index.php?dir=04_intellectual_property_law%2F&download=CKS+2015_intellectual_property_law_art.081.pdf |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT paulgeorgebuta harmonizationofnationalproceduralprovisionsconcerningtheenforcementofintellectualpropertyrights |