Right to Property and Trade Secrets

Tanya Aplin
{"title":"Right to Property and Trade Secrets","authors":"Tanya Aplin","doi":"10.4337/9781783472420.00035","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Trade secrets are valuable assets that are often used in tandem with intellectual property rights such as patents, trade marks, designs and copyright. While Strasbourg has shown a willingness to find that trade marks, patents and copyright fall within Article 1 Protocol 1 of the ECHR and thus that their protection is a type of human right, it does not follow that the same should be the case for trade secrets. Unlike these intellectual property rights, trade secret protection is not recognized as proprietary in the domestic law of signatory states. Article 17 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, in referring to ‘intellectual property’ as a type of possession, does not assist with the enquiry in the EU context because it is unusual for Member States or EU law to characterise trade secrets as intellectual property. As well, TRIPs obligations do not mandate intellectual property protection. If Strasbourg or Luxembourg were nevertheless to find that trade secrets are within the right to property then this would be likely to create pressure to apply strict liability to third parties, interpret exceptions restrictively and provide for strong enforcement measures. Thankfully, the recently proposed EU Trade Secrets Directive rejects a robust property approach to the protection of trade secrets and instead demonstrates a more balanced unfair competition type model. While the benefits of harmonization in this field may be questioned, the movement away from property rights should be welcomed.","PeriodicalId":281274,"journal":{"name":"Edward Elgar Publishing","volume":"13 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"10","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Edward Elgar Publishing","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4337/9781783472420.00035","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 10

Abstract

Trade secrets are valuable assets that are often used in tandem with intellectual property rights such as patents, trade marks, designs and copyright. While Strasbourg has shown a willingness to find that trade marks, patents and copyright fall within Article 1 Protocol 1 of the ECHR and thus that their protection is a type of human right, it does not follow that the same should be the case for trade secrets. Unlike these intellectual property rights, trade secret protection is not recognized as proprietary in the domestic law of signatory states. Article 17 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, in referring to ‘intellectual property’ as a type of possession, does not assist with the enquiry in the EU context because it is unusual for Member States or EU law to characterise trade secrets as intellectual property. As well, TRIPs obligations do not mandate intellectual property protection. If Strasbourg or Luxembourg were nevertheless to find that trade secrets are within the right to property then this would be likely to create pressure to apply strict liability to third parties, interpret exceptions restrictively and provide for strong enforcement measures. Thankfully, the recently proposed EU Trade Secrets Directive rejects a robust property approach to the protection of trade secrets and instead demonstrates a more balanced unfair competition type model. While the benefits of harmonization in this field may be questioned, the movement away from property rights should be welcomed.
财产权和商业秘密权
商业秘密是宝贵的资产,通常与专利、商标、外观设计和版权等知识产权一起使用。尽管斯特拉斯堡表示愿意认定商标、专利和版权属于《欧洲人权公约》第一议定书第1条的范围,因此对它们的保护是一种人权,但这并不意味着商业秘密也应如此。与这些知识产权不同,商业秘密保护在签署国的国内法中不被承认为专有。《欧盟基本权利宪章》第17条将“知识产权”作为一种占有,这对欧盟范围内的调查没有帮助,因为成员国或欧盟法律将商业秘密定性为知识产权是不寻常的。同样,《与贸易有关的知识产权协定》的义务并不强制要求保护知识产权。然而,如果斯特拉斯堡或卢森堡发现商业秘密属于财产权范围,那么这可能会造成对第三方适用严格责任的压力,限制性地解释例外情况并提供强有力的执法措施。值得庆幸的是,最近提出的欧盟商业秘密指令拒绝了一种强有力的财产方法来保护商业秘密,而是展示了一种更平衡的不公平竞争模式。虽然这一领域的协调的好处可能受到质疑,但远离财产权的运动应该受到欢迎。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信