Journal of Comparative Law

Journal of Comparative Law

Comparative Study of Abuse of Rights Doctrine in Intellectual Property in Iranian and American Law

Document Type : Research Article

Authors
Boshra Sadat Emami 1
Mohammad Mahdi Meghdadi 2
1 PhD Student in Private Law, Department of Law, Mofid University, Qom, Iran.
2 Associate Professor, Department of Law, Mofid University, Qom, Iran.
10.22096/law.2023.549369.2015
Abstract
Intellectual Property Rights were born to provide maximum and exclusive protection of rights of the creator of intellectual work, but in practice the holder of these rights gains an advantage over others. This is one of the main arguments of the opponents of granting exclusive rights to IP owners, saying monopoly can lead to abuse. This superiority will be desirable as far as protection of the rights of the holder is concerned. But in order to prevent the holder from abusing his rights vis-a-vis the buyer or consumer of intellectual property, a clear theoretical position and appropriate practical tools must be in place so that the rights granted to protect the creator of the intellectual property are not abused against the public interest. This study intends to gather examples of abuse of rights in the field of intellectual property and then infer the function of the doctrine of abuse of rights in these cases. For this purpose, the cases in which the intellectual right holder finds himself in a dominant position or the possibility of abusing his rights based on laws, are examined in two categories of literary and artistic property rights and industrial property rights. Western legal systems, specifically American laws, have been reviewed, and the necessity and possibility of applying this theory to domestic law has been discussed.
Keywords
Intellectual property Rights
Abuse of Rights
La-Zarar Rule
Abuse of Rights Doctrine
Unclean Hands Doctrine

Subjects

Bibliography
Ahmad, Saleh. “Patents: Inventorship Vs Ownership.” Accessed November 21, 2020. https://www.tamimi.com/law-update-articles/patents-inventorship-vs-ownership.
Alcatel USA, Incorporated v. Dgi Technologies, Inc. 166 F.3d 772, 1999.
American Patent Act. 35 United States Code, https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title35-section154&num=0&edition=prelim
Assessment Technologies of WI, LLC v. WIREdata, Inc. 350 F.3d 640, 2003.
Atari Games Corp. v. Nintendo of America Inc. 975 F.2d 832, 1992.
Byers, Michael. “Abuse of Rights: An Old Principle, A New Age.” McGill Law Journal 47 (2002):  389-431. 
Carl Zeiss Stiftung v. VEB Carl Zeiss, Jena, 293 F. Supp. 892, S.D.N.Y. 1968.
Edwin C. Hettinger, “Justifying Intellectual Property.” Philosophy and Public Affairs 18, no. 1 (1989): 25‑31.
Goldstrin, Paul. Goldstein On Copyright.  3rd edition, Boston: Aspen Publishers, 2005.
Hekmatnia, Mahmoud. Principles of Intellectual Property. Tehran: Research Institute for Islamic Culture and Thought, 2007. [In Persian]
 Japanese Law Translation. “Patent Act.” Accessd April 13, 2022. https://www.japaneselawtranslation.go.jp/en/laws/view/3118/en
Justia. “Lasercomb America, Inc. v. Reynolds (1990).” Accessed  January 17, 2020. URL: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/911/970/143762/      
Karimi, Abbas, and Hadi Shabani Kandsari. “The Logical Relationship between No Loss Principle in Islamic Jurisprudence and the Principle of Abuse of Rights in Western Legal Systems.” Comparative Studies on Islamic and Western Law 1, no. 2 (2015): 135-166. [In Persian]
Kobak, James B. Intellectual Property Misuse: Licensing and Litigation. Chicago: American Bar Association, 2000.
Lasercomb America, Inc. v. Reynolds, 911 F.2d 970. 1990.
Lunney, Glynn. “Atari Games v. Nintendo: Does a Closed System Violate the Antitrust Laws.” Berkeley Technology Law Journal 5, no. 1 (1990): 29-73.
M. Witmark and Sons v. Jensen, 80 F. Supp. 843,1948.
Miller, Fredric P., Agnes F. Vandome, and John McBrewster. Anti-copyright: Anti-copyright, Copyright, Internet, Web 2.0, Information technology, Mashup (digital), Anarchist communism, Competition law, Artificial scarcity, Criticism of intellectual property. [N.P]: Alpha Press, 2009. https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1823438.
Mirhosseini, Seyed Hasan. Law of Patents. Tehran: Mizan, 2008. [In Persian]
Moeini, Hamed, and Saiedeh Ghasemipoor. “Doctorin of misuse of right in the literary and artistic property.” Medical Law Journal 6 (2013): 187-208. [In Persian]
Sadeghi, Mahmoud, and Mansour Khakpour. “Grounds for Granting Compulsory Licensing of Intellectual Property Rights.” Human Sciences Modares 11, no. 4 (2009): 131-164. [In Persian]
Sterling, JAL. World Copyright Law. 2nd edition, London: Sweet & Maxwell. 2003.
Stoll, Peter-Tobias, Jan Busche, and Katrin Arend. WTO - Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights. Leiden: Max Planck, 2009.
The Department of Commerce. Copyright Policy, Creativity, and Innovation in the Digital Economy. [N.P]: Createspace Independent, 2014.
Tritton, Guy., and Richard Davis. Intellectual Property in Europe. 3rd edition, London: Sweet & Maxwell, 2007.
Video Pipeline, Inc. v. Buena Vista Home Entm’t, Inc., 342 F.3d 191, 3d Cir. 2003.
Send comment about this article
Enter Name.
Enter a valid email address.
Enter a vaid affiliation.
Enter comments (At leaset 10 words)
CAPTCHA Image
Enter Security Code Correctly.
Journal of Comparative Law
Volume 10, Issue 2 - Serial Number 20
Fall 2023 & Winter 2024-Issue 20
December 2023
Pages 157-178