Refine
Document Type
- Working Paper (3)
- Doctoral Thesis (1)
Language
- English (4)
Has Fulltext
- yes (4) (remove)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (4)
Keywords
- intellectual property (4) (remove)
Institute
- Rechtswissenschaft (4) (remove)
This article provides a novel explanation for the global intellectual property (IP) paradox, i.e. the consistent growth of the multilateral IP system in spite of mounting evidence that its effects are at best neutral if not disadvantageous for low-income and most middleincome countries and thus the majority of contracting states. It demonstrates that the multilateral IP system is deliberately structured as a virtual network that exhibits network effects similar to a social media platform, for example. The more members an IP treaty has, the more IP protection acceding states can secure for their nationals. Conversely, every accession enlarges the territory in which nationals of previous members can enjoy protection. Due to these increasing returns to adoption, signing up to and remaining part of the global IP network is attractive, irrespective of the immediate effects of a treaty.
According to the standard account, IPRs allocate objects to owners, just like ownership allocates real property. In this paper, I explain that this simplistic paradigm operates on the basis of three fictions: The first – truly Polanyian – fiction concerns IP subject matter that was originally not produced for sale but created for other purposes, e.g. private pleasure. The second fiction is that IP is treated as a marketable good whereas much IP, in particular works and signs, are embedded in communication. Finally, IP is a fictitious concept in that we speak of works, inventions, and other IP objects as of tangible commodities, where in fact IP objects only exist insofar and because we speak and regulate as if they exist as abstract “goods” of value.
The long-standing battle between economic nationalism and globalism has again taken center stage in geopolitics. This article applies this dichotomy to the law and policy of international intellectual property (IP). Most commentators see IP as a prime example of globalization. The article challenges this view on several levels. In a nutshell, it claims that economic nationalist concerns about domestic industries and economic development lie at the heart of the global IP system. To support this argument, the article summarizes and categorizes IP policies adopted by selected European countries, the European Union, and the U.S. Section I presents three types of inbound IP policies that aim to foster local economic development and innovation. Section II adds three versions of outbound IP policies that, in contrast, target foreign countries and markets. Concluding section III traces a dialectic virtuous circle of economic nationalist motives leading to global legal structures and identifies the function and legal structure of IP as the reason for the resilience and even dominance of economic nationalist motives in international IP politics. IP concerns exclusive private rights that are territorially limited creatures of (supra-)national statutes. These legal structures make up the economic nationalist DNA of IP.
A sound and well-functioning legal system will encourage growth in investment and create opportunities for investors. Trademarks as part of intellectual property play an important role in the future development of a country. A mark or symbol is needed in order to give products and services identity and to distinguish them and their qualities from identical or similar products and services of a competitor.
This research studies, examines and analyses the degree, nature and function of trademark protection within the legal system of Afghanistan and compare them with the Paris, Madrid and TRIPs agreements. It has been divided into four chapters: Chapter one provides general information and an overview of the current legal system of Afghanistan. Chapter two studies and analyses international agreements pertaining to the legal protection of trademark. It also critically assesses the ATML compatibility with these agreements: and answers the research question of to what extent the ATML provisions are compatible with them. Chapter three provides information on the different purposes of trademarks from a development perspective and compares the purposes provided by the ATML. Finally, chapter four assesses and examines the acquisition, assignment and termination of trademarks. The conclusions and findings of the thesis are the final section of this research.
Afghanistan, as a transitioning economy, has not developed a solid legal and practical foundation for providing comprehensive protection mechanisms for trademarks as have been articulated in developed countries and international agreements. Accordingly, the Afghan government has not entirely integrated these needs into its legal system and there are some inconsistencies of the ATML with these agreements.
One more challenge is the lack of appropriate legal institutions for issuing, managing, administering and protecting of trademarks. The establishment of a well-functioning administrative institution will serve to fulfil the objectives of the laws. Therefore, the CBR office holds the administrative responsibility for processing the registration of trademarks.
However, the methods and facilities of the CBR office remain outdated, and the office does not have the capacity to provide applicants with up-to-date administrative and technical facilities.
Therefore, legal protection of trademark in Afghanistan is linked not only to the existence of a well functioning of laws, regulations, clear procedures, mechanism and guidelines but also to an efficient and well-functioning administrative office.