A reply to: Chorzów Factory – intellectual property and the continuity of international law in investor-state dispute settlement

IF 0.4 4区 社会学 Q3 LAW
Alexander Ferguson
{"title":"A reply to: Chorzów Factory – intellectual property and the continuity of international law in investor-state dispute settlement","authors":"Alexander Ferguson","doi":"10.4337/qmjip.2021.04.05","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The case involving the nitrate factory at Chorzów, Upper Silesia has been the subject of much academic commentary. Last year the intellectual property aspects of the case were explored in this journal. In this reply, I express doubts about whether the case involved the expropriation of intellectual property rights (IPRs) for two reasons. First, there are grounds to question the existence of IPRs. Second, even if there were IPRs, the Permanent Court of International Justice does not appear to have found that IPRs were taken. Instead, the case serves as a reminder of the importance of identifying the legal status of an IPR in the relevant territory when seeking to protect it under international law.* My thanks to Martyna Mielniczuk-Skibicka and Kacper Górniak. All errors are my own.","PeriodicalId":42155,"journal":{"name":"Queen Mary Journal of Intellectual Property","volume":"16 23-24","pages":"505-510"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Queen Mary Journal of Intellectual Property","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4337/qmjip.2021.04.05","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The case involving the nitrate factory at Chorzów, Upper Silesia has been the subject of much academic commentary. Last year the intellectual property aspects of the case were explored in this journal. In this reply, I express doubts about whether the case involved the expropriation of intellectual property rights (IPRs) for two reasons. First, there are grounds to question the existence of IPRs. Second, even if there were IPRs, the Permanent Court of International Justice does not appear to have found that IPRs were taken. Instead, the case serves as a reminder of the importance of identifying the legal status of an IPR in the relevant territory when seeking to protect it under international law.* My thanks to Martyna Mielniczuk-Skibicka and Kacper Górniak. All errors are my own.
回复:Chorzów工厂-知识产权与投资者-国家争端解决中国际法的连续性
涉及上西里西亚Chorzów硝酸盐工厂的案件一直是许多学术评论的主题。去年,本杂志对该案件的知识产权方面进行了探讨。在本答复中,我对此案是否涉及侵犯知识产权表示怀疑,原因有二。首先,有理由质疑知识产权的存在。其次,即使存在知识产权,常设国际法院似乎也没有发现知识产权被盗用。相反,该案提醒人们,在根据国际法寻求保护知识产权时,确定知识产权在相关领土的法律地位是非常重要的。*我感谢Martyna Mielniczuk-Skibicka和Kacper Górniak。所有的错误都是我自己的。
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
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
10
×
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