On jurisdiction and cognisance concerning incorporeal rights disputes

The present paper focuses on issues of legal regulation in the sphere ofjurisdiction and cognisance concerning the incorporeal right disputes. They appeared due to the establishing of a brand new body in thecourt system of the Russian Federation, which is the Incorporeal Right Court. The cognisance concerning the incorporeal rights disputesimpacted on expansion of the object authority of the arbitration court. In compliance with the provisions of Paragraph 4.2 Part 1 Section33 of the Russian Federation Arbitration Procedure Code as amended by Federal Law No. 422-FL of December 8, 2011, disputes ondefence of infringement with the participation of organizations dealing with copyright and related rights collective managementcurrently fall within the cognisance of the arbitration courts. These organizations have the right to make demands in court on behalf ofthe right-holder or sui juris. This paper substantiates the statement that when such an organization acts on behalf of the right-holder,public representation takes place. This article also analyses criteria of rating disputes on intellectual rights as those within thejurisdiction of arbitration court. The conclusion is that such a criterion as the type of dispute is not relevant to the decision on choosingthe court, which considers the disputes on incorporeal rights. The subject criterion assumes an intricate configuration. On the one hand,organizations, which are not legal entities, and people, who are not individual entrepreneurs, can now participate in arbitration. On theother hand, an additional condition has been brought in, which is participation in arbitration of an organization managing copyright andrelated rights on collective basis. The court of incorporeal rights considers the cases on defence of infringement, which have alreadybeen considered by the Arbitration Courts of Nisi Prius of the constituent territories of the Russian Federation and arbitration courts ofappeal. In these cases the court of incorporeal rights acts as a court of cassation. The paper examines the situation when an appellantfiles a cassation appeal in a court. The author proposes to solve the problem by amending Paragraph 284 of the Russian FederationArbitration Procedure Code. This amendment would obligate the court to transfer the case to the proper court for considering undercassational procedure.

Keywords

Authors

References