INSTRUMENTS AND METHODS OF PROTECTION OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS IN THE VIEW OF THE PRACTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT

Abstract

Introduction. The consideration and resolution of intellectual property cases have a number of features related to the specifics of the evidentiary tools and procedural aspects applied by courts when examining evidence and making a court decision. In the process of finding the most optimal and effective tools of proof, judicial practice is a priority, demonstrating trends in the procedural aspects of resolving cases and providing an appropriate guideline for the optimal ways to resolve legal disputes. Of course, the judicial precedents of the Supreme Court, as the highest instance of the judicial system, are exemplary and priority in the application of their conclusions, which can be used both as a line of proof of claims and to improve the procedure for considering and resolving the case on the merits. Doctrinal research on this topic through the prism of judicial precedents of the Supreme Court is key in terms of developing a practically effective model of proof in cases of cancellation of a certificate of registration of trademark rights, prohibition of the use of a copyright object included in an official act of a state authority, etc. The fact that a trademark is recognized as well-known does not create the legal consequences of acquiring exclusive rights to such a trademark.

Summary of the main results. Doctrinal research of key decisions of the Supreme Court in the field of intellectual property law provided the opportunity to obtain the following judgments of scientific and applied content: when resolving cases of violation of exclusive rights to a copyright object that is part of a document of a state authority, it is necessary to take into account the evidentiary basis indicating the date of origin of exclusive property rights to the copyright object. The combined combination of a copyright object as part of an act of a state authority does not affect the scope of legal protection of the former; in cases of cancellation of the certificate of intellectual property rights for a trademark, the expert study conducted must be based on a comprehensive methodological study, which includes answers to questions about the similarity of the studied signs in the phonetic, semantic and visual components. The sign of the appropriateness of an expert opinion is confirmed by the correspondence of its conclusions to the intellectual property object that is the subject of the disputed relationship. The content of Article 6 septies of the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property must be assessed as a list of grounds for prohibiting the use of a trademark.

Conclusion. The conducted doctrinal study of the Supreme Court's judicial practice in cases on the protection of intellectual property rights has important applied significance, due to the possibility of improving the tools for forming and proving positions for the protection of violated rights and developing further doctrinal research on the outlined topic.