•  
  •  
 

Review of law sciences

Abstract

The article revealed the legal status of brands, as well as the interpretation of the juridical status of the "brand" in the legislation of some foreign countries, particularly, in the laws of the United States and Great Britain. The court cases related to the "brand" were studied and interpreted.

References

1. «Sozdaniye (ili vozmojnoye razrusheniye) megabrenda» // gazeta “New York Times”, 22 iyulya 2001, obsujdeniye trudnostey, svyazannыx s rasshireniyem ustoyavshegosya brenda na novыe izdeliya. 2. Tomas S. Vurster «Veduщiye brendы: 1925–1985 godы», izdaniye Perspectives, Bostonskaya Konsaltingovaya gruppa 1987. Sm. Takje Koli «Markirovaniye potrebitelskix tovarov s pomoщyu brendov». 3. Derived from Article 2(1)(b)(1) of the WIPO Recommendation. 4. Ibid, derived from Article 2(1)(b)(2). 5. Ibid, derived from Article 2(1)(b)(3). 6. Ibid, derived from Article 2(1)(b)(4). 7. Ibid, derived from Article 2(1)(b)(5). 8. Ibid, derived from Article 2(1)(b)(6). 9. See for example, Maniatis, S, Trade Marks in Europe: A Practical Jurisprudence (London, Sweet & Maxwell, 2009); Tritton, G, Intellectual Property in Europe (London, Sweet & Maxwell, 2007) and Phillips, J, Trade Mark Law: A Practical Anatomy (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2003), WIPO, Introduction to Intellectual Property: Theory and Practice (London, Kluwer Law International, 1997), Cornish, W, and Llewelyn, D, Intellectual Property: Patents, Copyright, Trade Marks and Allied Rights (London, Sweet & Maxwell, 2007). 10. Mc Donald’s Corporation and Mc Donald’s Deutchland v Dieter Rahmer IIC 1999. – V. 30. – P. 326–332. 11. See JPO Protection of Well-Known and Famous Trademarks Japan Patent Office Asia-Pacific Industrial Property Center, JIII, 1999). A full text of this is to be found at (Last accessed on 18 January 2010). 12. The Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights 1994 See Chapter 2, Section 2.3.1.4, and Chapter 3, Section 3.2.2. 13. The WIPO Joint Recommendation concerning Provisions on the Protection of Well-Known Marks. Doc. 833(E). See supra note 14, Chapter 3, Section 3.2.4 for the WIPO Recommendation. 14. Myuller V.K. 70 000 slov i vыrajeniy. Izd. 14-ye, stereotip. – M.: Sovetskaya ensiklopediya, 1969. – S.912. 15. Junqin Z. Protection of well-known in China // China Patents and Trademarks. – 2001. – V. 66. – № 3. – P. 40–44. 16. Ariyevich Ye.A. Patentы i litsenzii. – 2001 g. – № 9. – S.8. 17. Bodenxauzen G. Parijskaya konvensiya po oxrane promыshlennoy sobstvennosti. Komentariy. – M.: Progres, 1977. 18. Svyadoss Yu.I. Pravovaya oxrana tovarnыx znakov v kapitalisticheskix stranax. – M.: SNIIPI. 1969. 19. Afanaseva L. MMK potratil 1,2 mlrl rubley na tovarnыy znak // www.chelpress.ru 20. Zagorskiy L.G. Problemы kommersializatsii ob’ektov intellektualnoye sobstvennosti // www.sumtech.ra 21. Idris K. Intellektualnaya sobstvennost – moщnыy instrument ekonomicheskogo rosti // – S.180. 22. Zotkin A.Yu. Brend kak osnova uspeshnogo sovremennogo biznesa. www.aup.ru 23. Zagorskiy L.G. Problemы kommersializatsii ob’ektov intellektualnoye sobstvennosti // www.sumtech.ra 24. www.en.m.wikipedia.org. “Passing off” delikti – boshqa shaxsning nomidan foydalanib tadbirkorlik faoliyatini amalga oshirish. Bunda tovar belgisidan foydalanib boshqa shaxslarning tovar ishlab chiqarishi va uni realizatsiya qilishi tushuniladi. Ushbu delikt Angliya, Avtraliya va Yangi Zellandiyada keng qo‘llaniladi. 25. Pirogova V. Yevropeskiy opыt oxranы obщeizvestnыx znakov. IS. // Promыshlennaya sobstvennost. – № 3, – 2006. – S.22. 26. Law dated January 4, 1991, codified into Chapter VII of the French Intellectual Property Code, last amended by the Act No. 2003-706 dated August 1, 2003. 27. In March 1995, the Federal Trade mark Dilution Act of 1995 (H.R 1295) was introduced by Representative Carlos J. Moorhead, the chair man of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property. 28. Frederick Mostert, “Famous and Well-known Marks – An international Analysis”, (Butter worths 1997), – P. 18. 29. GRUR. – 1991. – P.863. 30. Pirogova V. Yevropeyskiy opыt oxranы obщeizvestnыx znakov. IS. // Promыshlennaya sobstvennost. – № 3, – 2006. – S.24. 31. Forsyth Em. ECJ provides guidance on what constitutes trade mark dilution in EU // WIPR. – 2009. – V. 23. – № 1. – P.5–7. 32. Molet J., Taro Seo L. The good and bad for well-known and famous marks // Managing Intellectual Property. – 2005. – June. – P. 63–66. 33. Mazkur qoidalar O‘zbekiston Respublikasi Adliya vazirligidan 2009 yil 24 yanvarda 1889-son bilan ro‘yxatga olingan. 34. Solomanidin V. Opыt realizatsii programmы zaщitы tovarnogo znaka «Adidas» v Rossii // «IS. Promыshlennaya sobstvennost», – № 3, – 2003. – S.33. 35. O‘sha joyda. – S.33. Carter T. What price fame? And just what makes a trademark well-known? Trademark World. – 2007. – №195. – P.39.

Share

COinS