Keywords

JEL Classification

1 Introduction

Rights to legally protected results of intellectual activity are territorial in nature, even when they are granted as a package of national rights existing in several different jurisdictions. Consequently, intellectual property is not protected solely by international law acts. The result of intellectual property or means of individualization is subject to protection at the territory of their use under the national law rules.

However, as evidenced in practice, there is an urgent need to bring into line national laws governing the legal regime of intellectual property objects, as well as legal remedies. The most pressing issues concern determination of jurisdiction in disputes over intellectual property, the applicable law to infringement of the results of intellectual activity, invalidity, and violation of the contract terms, as much as confession and execution of judgments rendered in foreign jurisdictions. In other words, the above issues hinder the establishment of a basis for the emergence and development of the digital economy and the mutually profitable commercialization of exclusive rights (Bliznets et al., 2018).

Efforts to solve the above-indicated problems are taken at various levels of legal governance, including regional international acts. The harmonization of laws and regulations in the field of intellectual property is pursued both in universal and regional international agreements. For example, regional international agreements operate in the states of the European Union, former members of the USSR, Africa, Latin America, the Asia–Pacific region, etc. A striking example of this harmonization is cooperation in the field of regulatory practices of the CIS member states.

Kashkin and Chetverikov (2015) rightly point out that almost all integration organizations today function in particular regions of the world, and it means that they act as regional integration organizations. We agree with this thought and believe that due to the interpenetration of various national economies within integration organizations unification of intellectual property law rules gains special importance.

2 Materials and Method

In the course of this study, we employed general and specific methods of scientific research, in particular, comparison, description, interpretation, formal and dialectical logic, legal-dogmatic method, modeling, system-functional method, induction and deduction, formal logic method, systemic approach.

The methodological background of this study is made up of general and specific methods of scientific research. The comparative-law method allowed us to compare the legal rules of various universal and regional (within the CIS) international treaties governing intellectual property issues; the historical method made it possible to track the evolution of legal rules and organizational decisions on the topic of research; an empirical method enabled the study of the laws and exercise of intellectual rights to the results of creative activity and individualization means of goods, works, services, and enterprises equivalent to them; the method of systemic analysis, analogies, formal-law, and logical methods helped us to classify the available empirical data as well as detail findings attained in the course of this study for their further use.

3 Findings

Economic and legal integration of the CIS countries in the field of intellectual property was in full swing in the 90s of the twentieth century and resulted in the conclusion of Eurasian Patent Convention on August 12, 1995 (Rospatent., 1994). This international treaty has built a unified Eurasian patent system (regional organization). Thereby, now it is possible to get a Eurasian patent that is a title of protection granting legal safeguard of inventions within the territory of all parties thereof. Originally, the instrument was signed by the Republic of Azerbaijan, Georgia, the Kyrgyz Republic, the Republic of Armenia, the Republic of Belarus, the Republic of Kazakhstan, the Republic of Moldova, the Republic of Tajikistan, the Russian Federation, and Ukraine. However, this convention calls for ratification, but Georgia and Ukraine failed to do this.

For the full-fledged performance of the unified patent system of the Eurasian space, the Eurasian Patent Organization, a body that would grant titles of protection and record patent applications was instituted. It consists of the Eurasian Patent Office and Administrative Council. The Administrative Council is a representative body where the representatives of the Eurasian Patent Convention member states take a seat. The council mainly discharges a political function. The Eurasian Patent Office records patent applications, allows/declines them, and issue Eurasian patents.

The Commonwealth of Independent States (hereinafter—the CIS) attaches high importance to the legal regulation of intellectual property. For some historical reasons, the CIS countries have always been close in the socio-economic area. After the collapse of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (hereinafter referred to as the USSR) and the emergence of independent sovereign states in the post-Soviet space, the CIS faced the need to harmonize the laws and regulations of the CIS member states in the field of intellectual property in view to recovering civil commerce in the CIS space, developing cultural exchange and cementing equitable interstate trade and economic ties. Recognizing the contribution of the CIS to sustainable development, Shugurov (Shugurov, 2018, 2019; Shugurov & Shugurova, 2019) emphasizes that the CIS integration processes are a good footing for a single Eurasian market.

Along with bilateral international agreements between individual states on the legal protection of intellectual property, within the CIS, there are also international agreements of regional character.

For example, Agreement on Cooperation to Repress Offenses in the Field of Intellectual Property (1998), Agreement of the CIS Countries on Cooperation in Protection of Copyright and Associated Rights (1993), Agreement on Mutual Keeping of Interstate Secrets concerning Legal Protection of Inventions in Strict Confidence (1999), Agreement on Measures to Prevent and Combat the Use of False Trademarks and Geographical Indications (1999), Agreement on the Release of a Joint Regional Patent-information Product of the CIS Countries on CD-ROM (2001), etc.

The CIS works much on issues of intellectual property in the post-Soviet space. For dealing with concerns and ongoing matters, the organization established the Interstate Council for Intellectual Property participated by the heads or other representatives of the patent offices of the member states.

The main objective of this agreement is to create a single legal environment in the post-Soviet space by securing the application and execution of rules and standards of the systemically important international agreements on safeguarding copyright and related rights. First and foremost, this goal has been achieved due to the procedure for compliance with the obligations arising out of the USSR’s participation in international conventions and treaties by the member states.

Art. 1 of the copyright agreement sets down that the parties shall take reasonable measures to secure the fulfillment of the obligations imposed by the ratification by the USSR of the Universal Copyright Convention (this matter is touched in Article 2 of the copyright agreement). In other circumstances, the copyright agreement obliges the parties to ensure the compliance of national law rules with international standards, basic international treaties that lay the basis for international legal regulation in the field of protection of copyright and related rights.

As a matter of fact, this agreement is intended to establish a framework for cooperation of the CIS member states in dealing with concerns and urgent issues of safeguarding and protection of copyright and related rights that proved its performance until was valid. However, the instrument has never been amended or supplemented, therefore, there is a need to update it bearing in mind its role for the CIS member states as well as new procedures for the conclusion of new international agreements on the safeguarding of intellectual property.

As communicated by the depository of the CIS Executive Committee as of May 17, 2020, the following countries entered into the copyright agreement (Table 1).

Table 1 Parties to the copyright agreement
Full size table

Since 2016, the protocol to amend the copyright agreement was underway, however, it has not yet been adopted, and no amendments have been made to this agreement. The authors of this article participated in the work on the draft of the above protocol with the team of the Russian Academy of Intellectual Property.

The copyright agreement specifies that the CIS countries are obliged to take reasonable efforts to ensure the elaboration and adoption of national laws that provide for the legal safeguard of copyright and related rights equal to the provisions of several universal international agreements (Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary 2003; Geneva Convention for the Protection of Producers of Phonograms 1999; Rome Convention for the Protection of Performers 2005).

Therefore, the CIS countries brought their national laws and regulations in compliance with the requirements of the copyright agreement provision and acceded to the above international conventions. The Berne Convention admitted a string of countries (as of May 17, 2020) (Table 2).

Table 2 Parties to the copyright agreement of the Berne Convention
Full size table

The below parties to the copyright agreement have acceded to the Geneva Convention (Table 3).

Table 3 Parties to the copyright agreement of the Geneva Convention
Full size table

The following parties to the copyright agreement joined the copyright agreement of the Rome Convention (Table 4).

Table 4 Parties to the copyright agreement of the Rome Convention
Full size table

Thus, most of the state parties have fully complied with the provisions of Article 3 of the copyright agreement.

Thus, the CIS member states have undertaken obligations to comply with the provisions of the main international agreements on the safeguarding of intellectual property. We believe that regional international cooperation can enhance international integration in general, since it implies accession to universal agreements of states that are not yet the parties of the above act but members of regional alliances of countries such as the CIS.

Let us note that the advancement of the international legal regulation of intellectual property safeguard is inconceivable without appropriate amendments to the national laws and regulations of the parties to the agreement.

Thus, since the signature of the CIS copyright agreement, key international treaties that govern the legal safeguard and protection of copyright and related rights have been adopted, namely the World Intellectual Property Organization Treaty on Performances and Phonograms (1996), the World Intellectual Property Organization Treaty on Copyright (1996), Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (1994), Beijing Treaty on Audiovisual Performances (2012), Marrakesh Treaty to Facilitate Access to Published Works by Visually Impaired Persons and Persons with Print Disabilities (2013).

Nowadays, many parties to the agreement have joined some of the above treaties, but it is necessary to attract the remaining states to the accession.

The Marrakesh Treaty underlies the principles of human rights protection announced in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. This is the first copyright treaty to define copyright as a key to broader access to books and other printed works for persons with severe print disabilities.

The Beijing Treaty is aimed at better safeguard and protection of the related rights of singers, musicians, dancers, and film actors (they enjoy the rights to so-called audiovisual performances) compared to the provisions of the Rome Convention for the protection of performers, producers of phonograms, and broadcasting organizations (1961). This improvement of international agreements rules concerns the safeguard of related rights, which are especially important in the terms of the digital economy. The provisions of the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty (1996) that is the key instrument for the protection of performers and producers of phonograms on the Internet have also made a contribution.

Taking into account the above stated, we see advisable to bring the national law and regulations of the parties to the agreement in compliance with the Marrakesh and Beijing treaties.

Under Art. 5 of the copyright agreement, the parties agreed to assist and cooperate in all respects on their territories to the establishment and performance of organizations for the collective management of copyright and related rights, as well as the interaction between them. This rule is aimed to build a system of collective management of rights in the CIS countries and buttress cooperation between these organizations.

4 Conclusion

The digitalization urged the need to update the legal framework of the CIS member states in accordance with modern standards for the safeguard of copyright and related rights set forth by a string of international treaties of the past two decades.

However, amendments to the agreement are designed not only to oblige member states to accede to new international treaties in the field of copyright and related rights protection. Changing the global political landscape, as well as the development of new digital technologies, put on the agenda new issues in the field of intellectual property. In the authors’ opinion, the CIS can resolve these problems provided that the agreements that have already been concluded will be amended according to the needs of time and new treaties will be adopted.

For example, there is a pressing issue of retroactive application of the laws on copyright and related rights of the CIS member states to foreign works, as well as the determination of the jurisdiction of states for the use of protected copyright objects in information and telecommunication networks. The issue of jurisdiction is not of idle interest, since the use of works on the Internet (including unlawful) is extraterritorial in contrast to the issues of liability for such a violation. This is also noted by Bliznets et al. (2017) using the example of photographic works.

Thus, regarding the development of digital technologies and the wide-scale cross-border exercise of intellectual rights, agreements in the field of intellectual property that have been earlier concluded between the CIS countries need to be completely updated. Moreover, this is a standing question on the advantages of participation in regional agreements on intellectual property both former USSR members and other countries of the Eurasian space.