نوع مقاله : مقاله علمی - پژوهشی

نویسنده

عضو هیأت علمی دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی شهر کرد

چکیده

نظریه‌پردازان حوزه حقوق مالکیت معنوی، همواره بر طبیعت خاص موضوعات مالکیت معنوی و اختلافات مربوط به آنها، تکیه نموده و بر ضرورت پیش‌بینی و تعبیه مکانیزم‌های قضایی و غیرقضایی ویژه این‌گونه موضوعات، تأکید ورزیده‌اند. ایجاد دادگاه‌های تخصصی مالکیت معنوی را باید نتیجه همین امر تلقی نمود.
بررسی‌ها حاکی از ایجاد و شکل‌گیری احساس ضرورت و تمایل وافر در بیشتر سیستم‌های ملّی در جهت ایجاد محاکم مذکور است. با وجود این اگرچه ایجاد محاکم تخصصی در حوزه حقوق مالکیت معنوی ابتکاری بدیع و گامی مؤثر در جهت حمایت از حقوق مذکور می‌باشد، محاکم مذکور در کنار تمام مزایایی که دارند از معایبی نیز برخوردارند. در عین حال ایجاد محاکم تخصصی با موانع جدّی روبه‌رو است که بدون رفع آنها محاکم مذکور را یا نمی‌توان اساساً ایجاد نمود یا در صورت ایجاد، وجود آنها را نمی‌توان در جهت حمایت از حقوق مالکیت معنوی چندان مؤثر تلقی کرد. بنابراین ضروری است کشورها قبل از ایجاد محاکم تخصصی مالکیت معنوی، شرایط لازم را بررسی نموده و مزایا و معایب آنها را با توّجه به موقعیت خود بسنجند، تا از ایجاد زود هنگام و شتابزده محاکم مذکور که نه تنها موجب حمایت از حقوق مالکیت معنوی نمی‌گردد، بلکه آسیب‌های جدّی نیز بدنبال دارد، خوداری نمایند.

کلیدواژه‌ها

عنوان مقاله [English]

A Survey on Specialized Intellectual Property Courts (SIPC)

نویسنده [English]

  • Leila Raeisi

Faculty member of Islamic Azad University of Shahrekord

چکیده [English]

Although neither the WIPO nor the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) requires specialized IP courts, some States have created specialized IP courts as the most appropriate way to implement their duties under international IP instruments. The specialized IP courts have privileges such as better understanding of IP issues by judges, establishment of rules and procedures that are unique to IP issues in nature, i.e. appoint associate judges or assessors to assist and provide technical knowledge, reduced risk of judicial errors, which contributes to the effectiveness of the administration of justice. Of course they have defects also. To help more efficient and effective enforcement of IP rights by specialized IP courts, there are basic questions which must be answered before setting up any specialized IP court. For example, do problems in the
 
officials also benefit from aforementioned immunities while performing the tasks within the sphere of their discretions and authority. Notwithstanding the above, no ranking official may invoke such immunities to evade persecution for acts which amount to serious breach of international law such as genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Imunities
  • High Ranking Political Authorities
  • Geneva Conventions
  • Head of State
  • Head of Governemen
  • Foreign Minister
  • Genocide
  • war crimes
  • Crimes against Humanity
  1. منابع

    الف- فارسی

    1. پورنوری، دکتر، منصور، حقوق مالکیت معنوی در دادگاه علامت تجاری و اختراعات، نشر مهد حقوق، 1383.
      1. Chief Judge Lu Guoqiang, Vice President of Shanghai No. 2 Intermediate People’s Court “Recent Developments in Judicial Protection for,Intellectual property in China Chief Judge Lu Guoqiang”, 2002.
      2. Chapter seven final Report of the commission on Intellectual property Rights , Integrating Intellectuall property Erights and Development policy , London , September 2002. available at www. iprcommission. org / papers / text / final - report / chapter 7 h tm final. htm.
      3. Chapter Seven Final Report of the Commission on Intellectual Property Rights, Integrating Intellectual Property Rights and Development Policy, London, Sptember 2002, available at www.iprcommission.org/ Papers/tex/Final-report/chapter 7 htmfinal.htm.
      4. Disput Avoidance, And Dispute Resolution in China Technical Advice, by The China Team. 14 EXPORT AMERICA June 2001.
      5. Michael Fysh QC, SC Judge, Patents County Court, London IP Centre, St Peter s College, Oxford, The Work of the Patents County Court, 11 February 2003,p 2.
      6. M. cirrea & Abdulawi A. Yusuf, Intellectual property and International Trade: The Trips Agreement, kluwer Law Internationai, 1998,
      7. Katsumi Shinohara, Chief Judge of the Intellectual Property High Court, Outline of the Intellectual Property High Court of Japan, AIPPI Journal, May 2005 131.
      8. Kan Maerch, ICANN T Use my Domain Name?The Real World Application of ICANNs Uniform Domain- name Dispute Resolution Policy, 34 J.Marshall L. Rev.1027, Summer, 2001.
      9. .Jerom H. Reichman, Universal Minimum Standards oF Intellectual Property Protection Under the TRIPS Component of the WTO Agreement; in Carlos.Joshua S Gans, Phihip L Williams and David Briggs, intellectual Property Rights: a Grant of Monopoly or an Aid to Competition? Intellectual Property Research Institute of Australia. Working Paper No. 07/02, 5Dsecember 2002.,
      10. J, Bruce Robertson, Law Commission of New Zealand, Report No, 85 Justice For All: A Vision for New Zealand Courts and Tribunals (2004) available at htt/P://www.Lawcom.Govt. nz/
      11. Jennifer Widner, Are Specialized Courts the Right Approach to Effective Adjudication of Commercial Disputes in Developing Areas? University of Michigan, February 2000.
      12. Quinn emanuel urquhart oliver & hedges, llp business litigation report, "Specialized IP Trial Courts Around the World" 6 may 2006.
      13. Rochelle C. Dreyfuss and Jane C. Ginsburg "Draft Convention on Jurisdiction and Rrecognition of Judgments in Intellectual Property Matters" CHICAGO-KENT LAW REVIEW [Vol. 77:1065,
      14. Robert Sherwood, Intellectual property systems and Investment stimulation: The Rationg of systems in Eighteen Developing ? countries , 37 IDEA 261 , 268 (1997).
      15. Raphael V. Lupo and Donna M. Tanguay, What Corporate and general Practitioners should Know about Intellectual Property Litigation, , ALI-ABA, 199.
      16. 301 Report executive summary, about, trade act of 1974, united states, "2005 special".
      17. The International Bar Association intellectual property and entertainment committee,(IBA) “International Survey of Specialized IP Courts and tribunals” London, February 2005, at http://www.comml-iba.org/pdf/ipsurvey.pdf
      18. The Expectation of IP Disputes Database1, by, Judge of the Central IP&IT Court, BankokThailand. This summary paper is prepared for a Symposium “IP Enforcement in Asia” held on Monday, 22nd, March 2004 at International Conference Center of Waseda University, Tokyo
      19. Simmons & Simmons, Litigation of Patents in Europe: the Proposed European Patent Litigation Protocol and the Proposed Community Patent Rowan Freeland 9I/MWD(L010204) LN:1243DAD_5(1) (Offline
      20. State Street Bank & Trust Co. v. Signature Financial Group, Inc., 149 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 1998), cert denied __ U.S. __ (1999).

    ب – لاتین

     

     

CAPTCHA Image