Iparjogvédelmi bíráskodás Magyarországon
Under the TRIPS Agreement (Art. 41. para 5) countries are free to decide what types of judicial body or bodies have the jurisdiction to hear IP disputes. Because of the scope of IP jurisdiction and the international undertaking, the following modells can be distinguished in the examined countries: a...
Elmentve itt :
| Szerző: | |
|---|---|
| Dokumentumtípus: | Cikk |
| Megjelent: |
2018
|
| Sorozat: | Acta Universitatis Szegediensis : forum : acta juridica et politica
8 No. 1 |
| Kulcsszavak: | Iparjogvédelem - Magyarország |
| Tárgyszavak: | |
| Online Access: | http://acta.bibl.u-szeged.hu/61933 |
| Tartalmi kivonat: | Under the TRIPS Agreement (Art. 41. para 5) countries are free to decide what types of judicial body or bodies have the jurisdiction to hear IP disputes. Because of the scope of IP jurisdiction and the international undertaking, the following modells can be distinguished in the examined countries: a) Trial Court that Exclusiveliy Hears IPR Cases; b) Specialized IPR Trial Division; c) Commercial Trial Court; d) Administrative Tribunal; e) Specialized IPR Trial Court. Over the last decade number of countries opted for the specialized IP court, therefore the stduy places more emphasis on the English, Finnish, German, Portugese, Swedish, US and Japanese regulations. The study aims to identify the most important national legislations in historical perspective, especeially the hungarian’s evolution. |
|---|---|
| Terjedelem/Fizikai jellemzők: | 227-239 |
| ISSN: | 2063-2525 |