Ukraine still does not have a specialised intellectual property court
This is stated in an article in the *Judicial and Legal Gazette*, citing the position of Supreme Court judge Ihor Benedysyuk.
In Ukraine, the lack of a specialised court remains one of the main challenges in the field of intellectual property rights protection. Its establishment was envisaged as far back as the 2016 judicial reform.
This was emphasised by the Supreme Court judge during a discussion on the development of the intellectual property rights protection system.
According to Ihor Benedysyuk, Secretary of the Judicial Chamber for Intellectual Property Rights Protection, as well as cases related to antitrust and competition law, at the Commercial Court of Cassation within the Supreme Court, Ukrainian legislation has already been partially adapted to facilitate the creation of a separate intellectual property court.
In particular, a specialised chamber has been established within the structure of the Commercial Cassation Court within the Supreme Court to hear such disputes.
However, despite the existence of such a chamber, some cases continue to be heard by civil courts that do not have a narrow specialisation in the field of intellectual property.
This situation leads to problems in determining the proper jurisdiction. It also complicates the formation of a uniform judicial practice in intellectual property disputes.
As an example, the judge cited a dispute concerning the use of a trade mark between individual entrepreneurs. In this case, courts at various levels differed in determining whether it should be heard in civil or commercial proceedings.
According to Benedysyuk, most intellectual property is created for commercial use. This, in his view, justifies the appropriateness of hearing such disputes specifically within commercial jurisdiction.
Separately, the Supreme Court drew attention to the need to improve procedural legislation. In particular, the current provisions of the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine do not fully take into account the specific nature of disputes in the field of intellectual property.
This concerns the need to develop mechanisms for securing claims, preserving evidence and other procedural tools.
The Supreme Court expressed the view that, should the High Court for Intellectual Property commence operations, it would be necessary to simultaneously develop a separate procedural framework or introduce systemic amendments to the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine.
Such changes should regulate the procedure for hearing disputes of this category.
It is also emphasised that the quality of case handling can be improved even without the creation of a separate court. To this end, it is proposed to introduce narrow specialisation of judges within the commercial courts.
The Supreme Court notes that disputes in the field of intellectual property are complex. They require a high level of professional training and a deep understanding of the specifics of this field.
Among the new challenges, judges cite the rapid development of technology, particularly artificial intelligence. This creates new categories of intellectual property and requires an update to approaches to law enforcement.
Furthermore, the Supreme Court has raised the issue of the difficulty of proving damages in cases involving intellectual property rights infringements.
One possible solution mentioned is the introduction of a mechanism for determining compensation within the limits set by law. This applies particularly to copyright cases, where such an approach is already in use.
As reported by ThePublic, lawyers surveyed by the Interfax-Ukraine agency believe that judicial practice is emerging in Ukraine regarding the application of the lifetime status of a public figure. According to them, the consequences of excessive or erroneous PEP classification and banks’ approaches to financial monitoring are increasingly becoming the subject of disputes.
Follow us on Telegram
