知识产权相关国际投资仲裁中的公共政策考量

Simon Klopschinski
{"title":"知识产权相关国际投资仲裁中的公共政策考量","authors":"Simon Klopschinski","doi":"10.4337/9781788977821.00020","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In the investment arbitration Philip Morris v. Uruguay the arbitral tribunal rejected Philip Morris’ claim that Uruguay’s anti-smoking legislation expropriated the tobacco company’s trademarks. In its reasoning the tribunal largely deferred to Uruguay’s policy decision to curtail tobacco companies’ business operations for the purpose of enhancing public health. Philip Morris v. Uruguay raises the question if there are, apart from public health, other public policy considerations which the tribunal should have given more weight to, e.g. the promotion of foreign investment and the protection of intellectual property (IP). The article explores the concept of ‘public policy’ and how IP law, WTO law as well as international investment law, i.e. the legal regimes relevant to IP-related investment arbitration, deal with public policy considerations. The article also reviews the handling of public policy considerations in the IP-related investment arbitrations Philip Morris v. Uruguay, Eli Lilly v. Canada as well as Bridgestone v. Panama.","PeriodicalId":131966,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Dispute Resolution (Topic)","volume":"3 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-10-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Public Policy Considerations in Intellectual Property-Related International Investment Arbitration\",\"authors\":\"Simon Klopschinski\",\"doi\":\"10.4337/9781788977821.00020\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In the investment arbitration Philip Morris v. Uruguay the arbitral tribunal rejected Philip Morris’ claim that Uruguay’s anti-smoking legislation expropriated the tobacco company’s trademarks. In its reasoning the tribunal largely deferred to Uruguay’s policy decision to curtail tobacco companies’ business operations for the purpose of enhancing public health. Philip Morris v. Uruguay raises the question if there are, apart from public health, other public policy considerations which the tribunal should have given more weight to, e.g. the promotion of foreign investment and the protection of intellectual property (IP). The article explores the concept of ‘public policy’ and how IP law, WTO law as well as international investment law, i.e. the legal regimes relevant to IP-related investment arbitration, deal with public policy considerations. The article also reviews the handling of public policy considerations in the IP-related investment arbitrations Philip Morris v. Uruguay, Eli Lilly v. Canada as well as Bridgestone v. Panama.\",\"PeriodicalId\":131966,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"LSN: Dispute Resolution (Topic)\",\"volume\":\"3 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-10-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"LSN: Dispute Resolution (Topic)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4337/9781788977821.00020\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"LSN: Dispute Resolution (Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4337/9781788977821.00020","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在菲利普莫里斯诉乌拉圭投资仲裁案中,仲裁庭驳回了菲利普莫里斯关于乌拉圭反吸烟立法剥夺其烟草公司商标的主张。在其推理中,法庭在很大程度上遵从了乌拉圭为增进公众健康而限制烟草公司业务的政策决定。Philip Morris诉乌拉圭案提出了一个问题,即除了公共卫生之外,是否还有法庭本应更加重视的其他公共政策考虑,例如促进外国投资和保护知识产权。本文探讨了“公共政策”的概念,以及知识产权法、WTO法以及国际投资法(即与知识产权相关的投资仲裁相关的法律制度)如何处理公共政策方面的考虑。本文还回顾了菲利普莫里斯诉乌拉圭案、礼来诉加拿大案以及普利司通诉巴拿马案中知识产权相关投资仲裁中公共政策考量的处理。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Public Policy Considerations in Intellectual Property-Related International Investment Arbitration
In the investment arbitration Philip Morris v. Uruguay the arbitral tribunal rejected Philip Morris’ claim that Uruguay’s anti-smoking legislation expropriated the tobacco company’s trademarks. In its reasoning the tribunal largely deferred to Uruguay’s policy decision to curtail tobacco companies’ business operations for the purpose of enhancing public health. Philip Morris v. Uruguay raises the question if there are, apart from public health, other public policy considerations which the tribunal should have given more weight to, e.g. the promotion of foreign investment and the protection of intellectual property (IP). The article explores the concept of ‘public policy’ and how IP law, WTO law as well as international investment law, i.e. the legal regimes relevant to IP-related investment arbitration, deal with public policy considerations. The article also reviews the handling of public policy considerations in the IP-related investment arbitrations Philip Morris v. Uruguay, Eli Lilly v. Canada as well as Bridgestone v. Panama.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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