Foreing and domestic experience in protecting intellectual property right to jewelry and jewelry ; Иностранный и отечественный опыт защиты прав интеллектуальной собственности на бижутерию и ювелирные изделия ; ІНОЗЕМНИЙ ТА ВІТЧИЗНЯНИЙ ДОСВІД ЗАХИСТУ ПРАВ ІНТЕЛЕКТУАЛЬНОЇ ВЛАСНОСТІ НА БІЖУТЕРІЮ ТА ЮВЕ...
Key words: copyright, jewelry, bijouterie, unfair competition, trademark, litigation Fedorova N. Foreing and domestic experience in protecting intellectual property right to jewelry and jewelry. The article focuses on studying the issue of protecting the design of artistic jewelry and bijouterie. The concept of "functionality" for jewelry is analyzed, namely, it is determined that the «functionality» notion is the quality of servicing the useful purpose. For example, a chair manufacturer cannot claim the four legs of a chair as a copyright. These four legs are a useful and functional aspect of this chair. If a competitor also manufactures a chair with 4 legs, it does not infringe any manufacturer's right, since these legs are for functional purposes only. The concept of«functionality» in jewelry means that the last cannot be protected as a normal work, since it is purely utilitarian. For example, the hands or numbers on the dial of a watch are considered as functional because the exclusive use of these aspects seriously impedes healthy competition in the watch industry. On the other hand, unique jewelry design cannot be considered functional as it has the exclusive use of its particular elements' combination.The analysis of European legislation and US judicial practice is carried out. Under applicable US copyright law, jewelry is a subject to copyright. Under normal circumstances, the law does not require prior registration of jewelry copyright. However, in order to protect jewelry or bijouterie under the US Law on Copyright, it must meet certain conditions. The complaining party must provide evidence of illegal copying of the work and prove copyright infringement. In case of violation of copyright for jewelry, the author or the jewelry house must prove:•the originality of design;•the uniqueness in the elements combination in the process of jewelry design development.The object of an industrial design can be a shape, pattern, color, or their combination that determines the appearance of an industrial product. The main criterion for the industrial design patentability is its novelty. However, in practice, an examination for novelty when registering a designation as an industrial design, according to Alexandra Odinets, is not carried out, and the patent is issued «under the responsibility of the applicant».With regard to unfair competition in the jewelry market, according to the US jurisprudence, it is more often an offense in this context than a violation of trademark rights or copyright infringement. It is unfair competition that misleads a consumer. A competitor, by assigning a good name and an reputation established, is trying to get profit. The definition of unfair competition is carried out in a comprehensive manner, here the court will not focus on one feature of a piece of jewelry but would consider all its inherent features. In particular, it is a combination of unique elements that provide the originality of the product.The article provides recommendations for jewelry and bijouterie authors on copyright protection. 1. Pro avtorski i sumizhni prava : Zakon Ukrainy. URL: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/3792-12#Text. 2. Tomarov I. Fashion Law: kopiiuvaty ne mozhna zaboronyty! Yurydychna hazeta Online. 2017. № 25(575). URL:https://yur-gazeta.com/publications/practice/zahist-intelektualnoyi-vlasnosti-avtorske-pravo/fashion-law-kopiyuvati-ne-mozhna-zaboroniti.html. 3. Herbert Rosenthal Jewelry Corp. v. Kalpakian, 446 F.2d 738 (9th Cir. 1971). 4. Dyrektyva Yevropeiskoho Soiuzu № 98/71. URL: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/994_a88#Text. 5. "Designer" Jewelry vs. "Inspired-by" Jewelry: Intellectual Property Infringement and Unfair Competition Considerations, 34. 6. Davis v. Gap, Inc. - 246 F.3d 152 (2d Cir. 2001). 7. Trifari, Krussman & Fishel, Inc. v Charel Co., 134 F Supp 551 (1955, DC NY). 8. Copyright Law of the United States §102, at 68 (2000). 9. Cprava Vacheron I Constantin-LeCoultreWatches, Inc. proty Benrus Watch Co., Inc. URL: http://saperlaw.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/cba-fashion-presentation-final.pdf (last visited April 19th, 2008). 10. Cosmetic Ideas, Inc. v. IAC/Interactivecorp, CV08-02074 R (C.D. California); Los Angeles Copyright Attorneys File Jewelry Copyright Infringement Lawsuit Over Copying Protected Jewelry Design, available at: http://www.iptrademarkattorney.com/2008/04/copyright-attorneys-jewelry-los-angeles-protected-jewelry-design-lawsuit-copying-copyrights-la.html (last visited April 19th, 2008). 11. Saper Law. "Designer" Jewelry vs. "Inspired-by" Jewelry: Intellectual Property Infringement and Unfair Competition Considerations. 2008. ; Ключові слова: авторське право, ювелірні вироби, біжутерія, недобросовісна конкуренція, торгова марка, судова практика Стаття присвячена дослідженню питань щодо охорони дизайну авторських ювелірних виробів та біжутерії. Проаналізовано поняття «Функціональності», щодо ювелірних виробів а саме, визначено, що ювелірні вироби не можуть охоронятися як звичайний твір, оскільки є винятково утилітарними. Наприклад, стрілки або цифри на циферблаті годинника вважаються функціональними, оскільки ексклюзивне використання цих аспектів серйозно перешкоджатиме здоровій конкуренції в годинниковій галузі. З іншого боку, унікальний дизайн ювелірних виробів не може вважатися функціональним, оскільки має ексклюзивне використання його особливої комбінації елементів. Здійснено аналіз Європейського законодавства та судової практики США. 1. Про авторські і суміжні права : Закон України. URL: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/3792-12#Text. 2. Томаров І. Fashion Law: копіювати не можна заборонити! Юридична газета Online. 2017. № 25(575). URL:https://yur-gazeta.com/publications/practice/zahist-intelektualnoyi-vlasnosti-avtorske-pravo/fashion-law-kopiyuvati-ne-mozhna-zaboroniti.html. 3. Herbert Rosenthal Jewelry Corp. v. Kalpakian, 446 F.2d 738 (9th Cir. 1971). 4. Директива Європейського Союзу № 98/71. URL: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/994_a88#Text. 5. «Designer» Jewelry vs. «Inspired-by» Jewelry: Intellectual Property Infringement and Unfair Competition Considerations, 34. 6. Davis v. Gap, Inc. - 246 F.3d 152 (2d Cir. 2001). 7. Trifari, Krussman & Fishel, Inc. v Charel Co., 134 F Supp 551 (1955, DC NY). 8. Copyright Law of the United States §102, at 68 (2000). 9. Cправa Vacheron I Constantin-LeCoultreWatches, Inc. проти Benrus Watch Co., Inc. URL: http://saperlaw.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/cba-fashion-presentation-final.pdf (last visited April 19th, 2008). 10. Cosmetic Ideas, Inc. v. IAC/Interactivecorp, CV08-02074 R (C.D. California); Los Angeles Copyright Attorneys File Jewelry Copyright Infringement Lawsuit Over Copying Protected Jewelry Design, available at: http://www.iptrademarkattorney.com/2008/04/copyright-attorneys-jewelry-los-angeles-protected-jewelry-design-lawsuit-copying-copyrights-la.html (last visited April 19th, 2008). 11. Saper Law. "Designer" Jewelry vs. "Inspired-by" Jewelry: Intellectual Property Infringement and Unfair Competition Considerations. 2008.