Fatemeh Sadat Iravan Mohajeri
Abstract
The applicable law in intellectual property lawsuits is one of the new topics in the field of conflict of laws and has recently attracted the attention of legal scholars. actually, many of the questions in this field are still vague and controversial, and no precise answer can be found. One of the most ...
Read More
The applicable law in intellectual property lawsuits is one of the new topics in the field of conflict of laws and has recently attracted the attention of legal scholars. actually, many of the questions in this field are still vague and controversial, and no precise answer can be found. One of the most challenging issues related to the applicable law in these lawsuits are the conflict of law rules and in particular “the Lex Loci Protectionis” which is based on the principle of territoriality as the most important feature. Moreover some new questions as to whether the territoriality principle is appropriate for transnational infringment of intellectual property rights were raised.Given the short history of this issue in international legal documents, the lack of relevant legal rules in Iranian law is no surprise .In this article, we seek to answer two main questions. in general, and in accordance with international regulations, is the Lex Loci Protectionis recognized as a general conflict of law rule for intellectual property lawsuits? If so, is such a conflict of law rule appropriate for Iran's legal system as a developing country
Shokat Shayesteh; Mohammad Hbibi Majandeh
Abstract
If there is a foreign factor in intellectual property disputes, then the matter of choice-of-court and choice-of-law will be arisen. The most important question in the parties’ minds is that whether they can choose the competent court and applicable law by agreement and also prevent from the complicated ...
Read More
If there is a foreign factor in intellectual property disputes, then the matter of choice-of-court and choice-of-law will be arisen. The most important question in the parties’ minds is that whether they can choose the competent court and applicable law by agreement and also prevent from the complicated and vague process of the forum interference. The freedom of choice is accepted as a principle in the determination of competent court and applicable law in the intellectual property disputes and there are few exceptions. According to all international documents the choice-of-court agreements will cause exclusive jurisdiction unless otherwise is specified. Those agreements shall govern all rules except those of subject-matter jurisdiction. Choice of law is valid in IP contracts but there are hesitations over the ownership and infringement of IP rights. According to the most acceptable opinion, choice of law on the ownership of intellectual property including existence, validity, duration, infringement, assignment, … is not valid because of imperative nature of regulations over those subjects. Also choice of law on infringement can be enforceable only after the commitment of infringing act.
Homayoun Mafi; Mohammad Hosien Taghipoor
Abstract
In EU and American law, the principle of autonomy has been recognized. For the purpose of unification, Rome 1 Regulation allows parties to choose the law that has no link to the contract. By contrast, in American law, the selected law is required to have a basic or reasonable relationship with the contract. ...
Read More
In EU and American law, the principle of autonomy has been recognized. For the purpose of unification, Rome 1 Regulation allows parties to choose the law that has no link to the contract. By contrast, in American law, the selected law is required to have a basic or reasonable relationship with the contract. According to Rome 1 Regulation, the chosen law does not affect the application of overriding mandatory provisions of the law of the forum and the law of the performance of the contract. In American law, the chosen law should not be in conflict with public policy of the forum and a fundamental policy of a state which has, substantially, greater interest than the chosen state in relation to the determination of a particular issue. This article examines the positions of European Union and American law regarding the determination of applicable law
Seyed Mohammad Tabatabaee nechad
Volume 3, Issue 11 , June 2015, , Pages 101-119
Abstract
The trend of globalization causes an increase in the rapid and convenientmovement of persons, goods and products resulting in legal challenges thatinvolve foreign elements. One of the legal relations is concerned with productliability derived mainly from tort. An increase in the movement of persons andgoods ...
Read More
The trend of globalization causes an increase in the rapid and convenientmovement of persons, goods and products resulting in legal challenges thatinvolve foreign elements. One of the legal relations is concerned with productliability derived mainly from tort. An increase in the movement of persons andgoods lead to an increase in product liability claims, and the frequent shipmentof goods to distant points makes an increase in claims against foreign suppliersinevitable. The choice of law rule applied by courts with respect to claimsarising from a tort committed abroad has remained static for about threequartersof a century. Attempts have been made to find a connecting factor thatwould better fit the circumstances giving rise to such damage claims. The aim ofthis paper is to analyze the surrounding issues and policies that govern productliability action.
