Navigating the Landscape of Intellectual Property Law: Key Insights and Emerging Trends

Лектори докладно проаналізували разом з учасниками ключові висновки та нові тенденції права інтелектуальної власності, а саме:

1. Intellectual property rights in employment relations.

1.1. Інтелектуальна власність в трудовий договорах Великобританії.

1.2. Відомі судові прецеденти щодо прав інтелектуальної власності працівників та роботодавців.

2. Uk copyright law: fundamental legal features.

2.1. Law governing copyright protection in the UK. Some historical reflections (Закон, що регулює захист авторських прав у Великобританії. Деякі історичні рефлексії).

2.2. Types of work protected (Види робіт, що захищаються).

2.3. Court case review: is Bitcoin’s File Format protected in copyright (Огляд судової справи: чи захищено авторським правом Bitcoin’s File Format)?

3. From Distinctiveness to Dilution: Legal English for Trademark Professionals.

3.1. Вступ. Trademark vs brand name vs service mark – в чому різниця? Які є види товарних знаків? Сталі вирази та кліше за темою заходу.

3.2. Distinctiveness and Eligibility. Categories of distinctiveness: arbitrary, suggestive, descriptive, generic. (Розпізнаваність та відповідність для правової охорони. Аналіз основних категорій розпізнаваності. Практичне значення цих категорій для реєстрації товарного знака).

3.3. Trademark Infringement and Enforcement. Key elements of infringement (Порушення прав на товарний знак та правозастосування. Ключові елементи порушення). Likelihood of confusion standard в англоамериканській правовій системі.

4. Contribution of intellectual property to the company's authorized capital.

4.1. Intellectual property.

4.2. The authorized capital.

4.3. Prohibition on the formation of authorized capital through non-monetary contributions.

4.4. How can such a contribution to the authorized capital be made?

4.5. How to document the transfer of rights and valuation of the contribution.

У рамках характеристики права інтелектуальної власності акцентовано на наступному:

1. Intellectual property rights in employment relations.

1.1. Інтелектуальна власність в трудовий договорах Великобританії

IP created by employees in course of their normal working duties belongs to the employer.

11 First ownership of copyright:

1)The author of a work is the first owner of any copyright in it, subject to the following provisions.

2)Where a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work [F 30, or a film,] is made by an employee in the course of his employment, his employer is the first owner of any copyright in the work subject to any agreement to the contrary.

104 Presumptions relevant to literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works.

2)Where a name purporting to be that of the author appeared on copies of the work as published or on the work when it was made, the person whose name appeared shall be presumed, until the contrary is proved:

a)to be the author of the work;

b)to have made it in circumstances not falling within section 11(2), 163, 165 or 168 (works produced in course of employment, Crown copyright, Parliamentary copyright or copyright of certain international organisations).

215 Ownership of design right:

1)The designer is the first owner of any design right in a design which is not created F 686... in the course of employment. …

3)Where F 688... a design is created by an employee in the course of his employment, his employer is the first owner of any design right in the design.

Penhallurick v MD5 Ltd [2021]:

The key IP question was about the ownership of intellectual property created by Mr. Penhallurick during his work with MD5 Ltd. Specifically, whether the IP rights in the work he produced belonged to the company or remained with him.

Background: Mr. Penhallurick had been variously researching and working on his VFC method since 2002. He began his employment with MD5, a digital forensics company, on 6 November 2006. During his employment he developed a fully automated version of the VFC method and further upgraded versions. Both parties claimed they owned the copyright in eight works relating to the VFC technique and that their copyright was infringed by the other party. MD5 also claimed the claimant was in breach of his employment contract.

1.2. Відомі судові прецеденти щодо прав інтелектуальної власності працівників та роботодавців

Assessing whether a work is done in the course of an employee’s employment requires a multi-factorial assessment.

Hacon J identified the non-exhaustive list of factors that may be considered set out in Mei Fields Designs v Saffron Cards and Gifts [2018] EWHC 1332 (IPEC):

a) theterms ofthe contract of employment;

b) wheretheworkwas created;

c) whether the work was created during normal office hours;

d) whoprovidedthe materials for the work to be created;

e) thelevel of direction provided to the author;

f) whether the author can refuse to create the work/s;

g) whether thework is ‘integral’ to the business.

There can be no doubt that making VFC software was the central task for which the claimant was being paid by MD5 from late January to March 2007. That is a very strong indication that the Third and Fourth Works were created in the course of his employment. It seems that the claimant took on the task with enthusiasm, to the extent that he took his work home some of the time.

His staff annual appraisal of August 2007 suggests that much of the work must have been done during working hours at MD5. But whatever the exact proportion done at home, it does not displace the strong and primary indication that it was work done in the course of his employment.

The fact that an employee does work at home is relevant to the question of whether the work is of a nature to fall within the scope of the duties for which he is paid but it may or may not carry much weight.

Where it is otherwise clear that the work is of such a nature, in my view the place where the employee chooses to do the work will not generally make any difference. The same applies to the ownership of the tools the employee chooses to use, here sometimes the claimant’s own computer system.

If it is clear that the employee is being paid to carry out a task as agreed with his employer, he may choose to use tools supplied by his employer or his own tools; either way, the task is carried out in the course of his employment.

It is probable that the claimant wrote a small part of the VFC software before he was given permission by MD5 to devote all or the bulk of his time to writing it and that he did this early work at home on his own computer. But he had already by then demonstrated the manual version to MD5 with an eye to its being exploited by MD5. He must have contemplated that software which made the method automatic would be shown to and exploited by his employer to their mutual benefit.

2. Uk copyright law: fundamental legal features.

2.1. Law governing copyright protection in the UK. Some historical reflections (Закон, що регулює захист авторських прав у Великобританії. Деякі історичні рефлексії)

"An Act for the Encouragement of Learning, by vesting the Copies of Printed Books in the Authors or purchasers of such Copies, during the Times therein mentioned".

The Statute of Anne:

The First Copyright Statute

Named after Anne, Queen of Great Britain, this was the first copyright statute in the Kingdom of Great Britain, and the first full-fledged copyright statute in the world.
It granted publishers of books legal protection for 14 years with the commencement of the statute.
It also granted 21 years of protection for any book already in print.

Recently is governed by:

Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
Case law (e.g., Ladbroke (Football) Ltd v. William Hill (Football) Ltd [1964] 1 All ER 465, See Temple Island Collections Ltd v. New English Teas Ltd [2012] EWPCC 1).

2.2. Types of work protected (Види робіт, що захищаються)

Article 1 The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988:

1) Copyright is a property right which subsists in accordance with this Part in the following descriptions of work—

original literary, dramatic, musical or artistic works,
sound recordings, films [or broadcasts], and
the typographical arrangement of published editions.

Literary, dramatic, musical or artistic works will have copyright protection if they:

Are original - 1 (2) (a) of Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
Are recorded (or fixed) - 3 (2) of Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988:

Copyright does not subsist in a literary, dramatic or musical work unless and until it is recorded, in writing or otherwise; and references in this Part to the time at which such a work is made are to the time at which it is so recorded.

Literary works:

S 3 (1) Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 "literary work" means any work, other than a dramatic or musical work, which is written, spoken or sung, and accordingly includes:

a table or compilation other than a database;
a computer program;
preparatory design material for a computer program;
a database.

Dramatic works:

S 3 (1) Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 "dramatic work" includes a work of dance or mime.

Musical works:

S 3(1) Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 "musical work" means a work consisting of music,

exclusive of any words or action intended to be sung, spoken or performed with the music.

Artistic works:

S 4 (1) Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988

1)In this Part "artistic work" means:

a graphic work, photograph, sculpture or collage, irrespective of artistic quality,
a work of architecture being a building or a model for a building, or (c)a work of artistic craftsmanship.

2) In this Part- "building" includes any fixed structure, and a part of a building or fixed structure;

"graphic work" includes:

any painting, drawing, diagram, map, chart or plan, and
any engraving, etching, lithograph, woodcut or similar work;
"photograph" means a recording of light or other radiation on any medium on which an image is produced or from which an image may by any means be produced, and which is not part of a film;
"sculpture" includes a cast or model made for purposes of sculpture.

2.3. Court case review: is Bitcoin’s File Format protected in copyright

Case review:

Wright & Ors v BTC Core & Ors [2023] EWCA Civ 868. Facts:

In July 2023, the Court of Appeal in Wright & Ors v BTC Core & Ors [2023] EWCA Civ 868. overturned the High Court decision in which Mr Justice Mellor found that the Bitcoin File Format (the "BFF") was not a protectable work in a copyright sense as it did not satisfy the fixation requirement under s.3(2) of the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 (the "Act").

The High Court decision:

In the initial ruling, Mr Justice Mellor determined that the claimants presented no substantial evidence regarding the existence of copyright in the Bitcoin File Format.

In particular, Mellor J disagreed with the claimants' argument that "the requirement for fixation was met automatically when the program was run", and that "this was sufficient to meet the fixation requirements".

MA v JA and the Attorney General [2012]:

The Court of appeal ruling: (The Court of Appeal held that the fixation requirement had been satisfied, emphasising that the first block in the blockchain served to evidence the existence of the Bitcoin File Format and determine the scope of protection.

3. From Distinctiveness to Dilution: Legal English for Trademark Professionals.

3.1. Вступ. Trademark vs brand name vs service mark – в чому різниця? Які є види товарних знаків? Сталі вирази та кліше за темою заходу

Key Features of a Trademark:

It distinguishes goods or services in the marketplace.
It can be a word, logo, slogan, design, shape, sound, or even a color.
It protects brand identity.
It gives the owner exclusive rights to use the mark in connection with specific goods or services.
It can be marked with symbols:–unregistered trademark ® –registered trademark.

Trademark vs Brand Name vs Service Mark:

Definitions of trademark. A trade mark (US: trademark ) is anything that is used to identify anddifferentiate one person or business entity’s products and services from those of any competitors.

Definitions of service mark a sign, symbol, name or other designation used by a business providing a service to show clearly that the service is different from those provided by others. It is used to identify services rather than goods.

Definitions of brand name a particular name or symbol used by a seller to identify goods or services as its own.

Common mistakes fortrademark:

Do not use the term tradename to mean trademark.

A trade name refers to the name of a business or company.

A trademark identifies the source of goods or services.

While a trade name may become a trademark if used to brand products or services, not all trade names are trademarks.

Example:

"Starbucks Corporation" — trade name.
"Starbucks®" on coffee cups — trademark.

Always use "trademark" when referring to legal protection of brand names, logos, or slogans used in commerce.

Legal English Phrases related to Trademarks:

To register a trademark зареєструвати товарний знак;
Trademark infringement порушення прав на товарний знак;
To file a trademark application– подати заявку на реєстрацію;
Well-known trademark добре відомий товарний знак;
Distinctive mark– відмінний товарний знак;
Genericide– втрата прав на знак через перетворення в загальновживане слово (e.g. "aspirin");
To enforce a trademark right реалізувати право на торгову марку;
Trademark dilution розмивання унікальності торгової марки.

3.2. Distinctiveness and Eligibility. Categories of distinctiveness: arbitrary, suggestive, descriptive, generic. (Розпізнаваність та відповідність для правової охорони. Аналіз основних категорій розпізнаваності. Практичне значення цих категорій для реєстрації товарного знака)

Distinctiveness refers to a trademark's ability to identify the source of goods or services and distinguish them from others in the market.

Why it matters:

Only distinctive marks are eligible for protection.
It affects registrability and enforceability.

A mark is eligible for registration if it has distinctive character.

A MARK is either (a)inherently distinctive or (b) not-inherently distinctive.

Inherently distinctive marks are

fanciful,
arbitrary or
suggestive

in relation to the goods or services with which the mark is used.

Marks that are not-inherently distinctive are afforded less protection.

Landmark case:

Abercrombie & Fitch Co. v. Hunting World, Inc. (2nd Cir., 1976) – The USA.

Facts of the Case: Abercrombie & Fitch Co. v. Hunting World, Inc. (2nd Cir., 1976) – The USA Abercrombie & Fitch Co. had registered the term “Safari” as a trademark for certain clothing items. The company sought to prevent Hunting World, Inc. from using the word "Safari" to market its line of outdoor clothing and gear, arguing that such use infringed on its trademark rights.

Ruling: The Court denied protection of Abercrombie's claim to the word “Safari”, finding that the term had become generic in the context of safari-style clothing and was therefore not protectable under trademark law.

Key Legal Outcome:

Judge Friendly, writing for the court, introduced the now-famous “Abercrombie spectrum of distinctiveness”, classifying trademarks into five categories:

Fanciful (e.g., Kodak) – inherently distinctive;
Arbitrary (e.g., Apple for computers) – inherently distinctive;
Suggestive (e.g., Coppertone) inherently distinctive;
Descriptive (e.g., Quick Print) protectable only with secondary meaning;
Generic (e.g., Milk for milk) – never protectable.

Significance:

This case is the cornerstone of U.S. trademark doctrine, establishing how courts assess whether a mark is distinctive enough to be protected.
It clarified that generic terms cannot be monopolized through trademark registration.
It remains a leading precedent for trademark eligibility and enforcement.

Fanciful marks:

Such marks are prima facie registrable.
Fanciful marks are terms not previously found in any dictionary.
These represent the strongest of all trade marks because there is no reason whatsoever for competitors to use the term.

For example, KODAK had no meaning in any context before it was adopted as a trade mark.

Arbitrary marks:

Arbitrary marks are usually common words used in a meaningless context (e.g., CAMEL for cigarettes or APPLE for computers).

Such marks consist of words or images which have some dictionary meaning but which are used in connection with products or services unrelated to that meaning.

Suggestive marks:

Suggestive marks suggest a quality or a characteristic of the products or services in relation to which they are used, but require imagination on the part of the consumer to identify the characteristic (e.g., GREYHOUND for bus services). Suggestivemarksinvoketheconsumer’s perceptiveimagination.

The following categories are not distinctive and cannotbe trademarked:

Generic trademarks:

Generic – загальний / родовий. Це загальна назва товару або послуги, яку використовують усі в галузі. Ex.: Milk для молока.

Не підлягає реєстрації як торговельна марка, оскільки не може ідентифікувати конкретне джерело товару. Вважається "мертвою" з погляду правового захисту.

If a mark merely consists of a generic term (e.g., “water” or “bread”), it is incapable of becoming a trade mark under any circumstance. Such terms must be free to be used by competitors in order to describe their products and services.

Descriptive marks:

Descriptive – описовий. Це слово або фраза, що прямо описує характеристики, якості, функції або склад продукту. Ex: Quick Print для послуг швидкого друку.

Не підлягає реєстрації, поки не набуде вторинного значення (secondary meaning) — тобто споживачі не почнуть асоціювати цей опис із конкретним брендом.

Marks that are primarily merely surnames (e.g., JOHNSON´S for any good or service) and geographically descriptive (CALIFORNIA SPIRITS for alcoholic beverages) are also deemed not-inherently distinctive.

3.3. Trademark Infringement and Enforcement. Key elements of infringement (Порушення прав на товарний знак та правозастосування. Ключові елементи порушення). Likelihood of confusion standard в англоамериканській правовій системі

Definition: Trademark infringement occurs when a party uses a mark that is identical or confusingly similar to a registered trademark without permission, in a way that may cause consumer confusion about the source of goods or services.

Examples:

A logo that mimics a famous brand.
A nearly identical brand name for a similar product.

To prove trademark infringement, the plaintiff must show:

1. Valid and protectable trademark.

2. Use of the mark in commerce.

3. Likelihood of confusion among consumers.

Remedies for Infringement:

Damages or account of profits;
Injunction (court order to stop using the mark);
Order to destroy infringing goods;
Legal costs.

4. Contribution of intellectual property to the company's authorized capital.

4.1. Intellectual property

Convention Establishing the World Intellectual Property Organization (1967) “intellectual property" shall include the rights relating to:

literary, artistic and scientific works;
performances of performing artists, phonograms, and broadcasts, inventions in all fields of human endeavor;
scientific discoveries, industrial designs, trademarks, service marks;
commercial protection names and designations, against unfair competition;
all other rights resulting from intellectual actlvtty in the industrial, scientific, literary or artistic fields.

The articles of association- a document outlining the rules governing a company's internal organization.

The equivalent term for an LLC is articles of organization. Roughly equivalent terms operate in other countries, such as Gesellschaftsvertrag in Germany, statuts in France, statut in Poland,Ukrainian: статут (Romanization: statut) in Ukraine, and Jeong gwan in South Korea.

A charter:

an agreement, often international, granting certain rights and duties to an official body by the signatory nations of such agreement;
in the US, one of two documents which form the constitution of a company.

Статутний капітал формується засновниками юридичної особи:

розмір статутного капіталу виражається в грошах незалежно від того, яке саме майно було внеском;
розмір внесків до статутного капіталу визначає обсяг належних учаснику корпоративних прав;
статутний капітал є одним із джерел утворення майна юридичної особи;
«запас».

4.2. The authorized capital

The authorized capital is formed by the founders of the legal entity:

the size of the authorized capital is expressed in money, regardless of what kind of property was a contribution;
the amount of contributions to the authorized capital determines the amount of corporate rights owned by the participant;
authorized capital is one of the sources of formation of the property of a legal entity;
Float, margin, funds, stock.

4.3. Prohibition on the formation of authorized capital through non-monetary contributions

It is prohibited: to form the authorized capital of certain types of business entities through non-monetary contributions:

banks;
credit unions;
pawnshops;
leasing companies;
trust companies;
insurance companies;
accumulative pension institutions;
investment funds and companies and other legal entities whose exclusive activity is the provision of financial services.

4.4. How can such a contribution to the authorized capital be made?

Determine the amount of rights that you want to transfer. The law allows you to contribute to the authorized capital only part of the rights that you own.

Assess the value of the transferred rights and convey this assessment to the general meeting of the company's members. Any contribution to the authorized capital must have a monetary value.

In accordance with Article 9 of the Law of Ukraine "On Valuation of Property, Property Rights and Professional Valuation Activities in Ukraine" and taking into account the requirements of the National Standard No. 4 "Assessment of Intellectual Property Rights," the Methodology for Assessing Intellectual Property Rights was approved.

4.5. How to document the transfer of rights and valuation of the contribution

Thegeneral meeting of participants decides to accept intellectual property rights in the authorized capital and approves their assessment.

Thecompanyenters into an agreement with the shareholder on the transfer of property rights and the act of acceptance and transfer to it.

Minutes of the General Meeting of Participants:

On the transfer of intellectual rights to the authorized capital.

Determining the value of intellectual property rights.

Amendments to the constituent documents.

1.Transfer:

who transmits;
description of rights;
the rights are confirmed…..

2. Install:

• cost of intellectual rights;

• document confirming the assessment.

3. Make:

amendmentstothe constituent documents, in particular to the charter, in connection with the increase in the authorized capital by the amount of the value of the transferred rights.

4. Approve

act of acceptance and transfer of intellectual rights (transfer acceptance certificate).

5. Responsible.

Agreement on the transfer of property rights :

the amount of rights transferred;
territory and terms in respect of which the rights are transferred;
ways of using the object;
the value of the objects specified in the property valuation report;
procedure for disposing of personal non-property rights;
Additional terms and conditions: please specify the specifics of your product and business.