4. Application of legal norms on intellectual property

Proceedings in the intellectual property sphere are largely related to trademarks. Only as from the end of the 90tieth the court practice acquired certain uniformity. The turning point was a rather high level dispute related to the world famous brand Smirnoff which at that time was owned by the company "IDV North America Inc.". The action was raised against the company "Torgovy Dom Po-tomkov Postavchika Dvora Ego Imperatorskogo Velichestva P.A. Smirnova" to cancel the trademark registration regarding the trademark "Cìèðíîâú âîäêà". The contested trademark was applied for registration in Latvia on November 29, 1994, while some modifications of the claimant's trademark "Smirnoff" were applied for registration before the application date of the respondent's registered trademark, and a part – after this date. The necessity to refer to the status of a well known or, as per the effective law of the Republic of Latvia in 1993 On trademarks" – a generally known trademark (Para 10 of Section 1 of Article 2) was because the respondent's trade mark was similar to the labels of "Smirnoff" vodka which by November 29, 1994 when the respondent's trademark was applied, were not in Latvia either applied or registered, yet wildly advertised and sold. The action was dismissed by the judgment adopted by the Supreme Court of the Republic of Latvia on March 25, 1999. The court established that evidences that the vodka "Smirnoff" was advertised and sold in Latvia already before the independence was regained and also afterwards, were not convincing to recognize the mark "Smirnoff" as generally known. By the judgment adopted by the Senate for the Supreme Court on June 30, 1999 the previous judgment in the "Smirnoff" case was sustained. The Senate ruled that the reference under Para 20 of Section 1 of Article 2 of the law On trademarks" about the generally known nature of the trademark is the establishment of the facts under the appeal proceedings and evaluation of the evidences.

Shortly after these events the diplomatic service of the USA and other countries criticized the judgment in a specially convened conference. A representative of the company "UDV North America Inc." (before 1999 - "IDV North America Inc.") repeatedly applied in the court on November 1998 with a claim against the Russian company "Torgovy Dom Potomkov P. A. Smirnova". On February 9, 2000 the Riga Regional court dismissed also this claim by referring to the above described judgments which, as per the opinion of the Riga Regional court, had a prejudicial meaning and they should not be proved anew when hearing other civil cases. Yet the turning point both in these proceedings and, to a certain extent – in the entire Latvian court practice was that the Supreme Court of the Republic of Latvia satisfied the claim on December 4, 2000. The Civil Case panel recognized that the reference to an enforced judgment in other civil proceedings was not grounded because the facts established by the previous judgment are different from those to be established by the Riga Regional court in the given proceedings."

This diametrical turning point in the court practice signalized about a serious change of attitude with respect the intellectual property rights. In relation to the geographical indications one can mention here a curious situation that according to the Latvian court practice the name champagne" was recognized as a common noun. Such situation was created due to several rulings. The trademark "Ñîâåòñêîå øàìïàíñêîå " was registered on March 20, 1998. On March 2000 its owner JSC "Latvijas Balzams" filed claim against Ltd. "Aroma Floris S" to prohibit distribution of the production manufactured by the respondent - "Ñîâåòñêîå øàìïàíñêîå" - in the territory of Latvia and destruction of the imported production. On May 2000 SIA "Aroma Floris S" filed a counter claim to cancel the trademark "Ñîâåòñêîå øàìïàíñêîå " No M 41 777 since the day of its registration. According to the judgment adopted by Riga Regional court on October 11, 2000 the claim of JSC "Latvijas Balzams" was dismissed, but the counterclaim of Ltd. SIA "Aroma Floris S" was satisfied in part by disclaiming the words sovetskoje shampanskoje in the trademark "Ñîâåòñêîå øàì ïàíñêîå" No M 41 777. The appeal instance court judgment was the same. It recognized that the designation "Ñîâåòñêîå øàìïàíñêîå" was not referring to the producer, but rather to a certain group of the goods. Therefore the designation "Ñîâåòñêîå øàìïàíñêîå" was not securing the trademark function within the meaning of Section 1 of Article 1 of the law On trademarks", i.e. is not securing that the goods of one company are to be distinguished from the goods of another company if the beverage "Ñîâåòñêîå øàìïàíñêîå" is associated by the Latvian consumers with a particular type of the beverage instead of the producer. The court concluded that as Para 5 of Section 1 of Article 2 of the law On trademarks" provides that designations shall not be registered as trademarks that are used to identify, describe or name certain goods, also names of measurements and generally accepted terms and symbols, the designation "Ñîâåòñêîå øàìïàíñêîå", due to these motives, is the one to be used for identification, description or defining of certain goods and therefore this designation cannot be registered as a trademark. The Senate's judgment of May 9, 2001 sustained the earlier judgment adopted by the court of appeal. The Latvian court rulings have avoided establishment that "Ñîâåòñêîå øàìïàíñêîå" has turned into a common noun.30

Patent disputes are largely related to acquiring indirect rights where the courts had to examine the content of the employment contracts in order to establish whether the invention is owned by its author – an employee or the employer.31 Disputes about correspondence of an invention to the features of a patent-capable invention mostly refer to the inventions created even before the enforcement of the legislation on the intellectual property.32

In the copyright sphere within the first decade since the legislation on the intellectual property was drafted, the court practice was almost limited with reviewing disputes about defining principles and amount for just remuneration in cases when the work is used without the author's consent. In such disputes one party was usually represented by the organization managing the authors' collective rights AKKA/LAA. 33

The concept of the copyright object has a principally important meaning stating that the first and the most essential precondition is the creative fact of the work per se irrespective of the degree of creativity. There is a judgment adopted by the Senate which contains a thesis that: "The content of the photography and existence of the work confirm the creative activity while making the work when the author of the photography acquires moral and economic rights protected by the Copyright law" (judgment adopted by the Civil Case panel for the Senate of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Latvia on April 19, 2006 in the case no SKC - 266, quoted at www.at.gov.lv).

Also the question about the form of the author's contract has gained a rather wide publicity considering the fact that the Copyright law sets forth much stronger requirements than the Civil law. According to the judgment adopted by the Criminal case panel for the Senate of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Latvia on April 18, 2006 in the case no SKK-213/06 (criminal case no1816002703) the Senate suspended the criminal proceedings and revoked the judgment adopted by Riga Kurzeme district court on June 22, 2005 and Riga Regional court on January 25, 2006 stating that failure to observe the form provided by the Copyright law in which the permission should be obtained to use the author's work, cannot serve as the sole criterion for the criminal liability of a person regarding the copyright infringement.

Finally, quite recently the judgment adopted by the Civil Case department for the Senate has ruled that the intent of the parties may be derived from concluding actions irrespective of whether they were contained in the written author's contract.34

5. Concept of intellectual property

Theoretical preconditions for the development of the intellectual property concept appeared much later as a result of the legal science researches. Intellectual property is a type of ownership rights regulating the rights to intangible property.35 Such rights are expressed as a prohibition to use a person's intellectual property by any other person. Historically there are known legal systems that do not recognize the concept of intellectual property rights, like in the Soviet legal system.

Also in the Latvian legal science there are different opinions about the intellectual property concept. There are authors who think that intangible property cannot be a subject of ownership rights (narrowed understanding of the ownership rights).36 The argument in favour of the narrowed understanding of the ownership rights is that the intellectual property also contains personal or moral rights. The unalienable nature of the moral rights is hard to be combined with the concept of property, however in the Latvian legal science such argument is not researched. The narrowed property concept should be based on absolutely different reasons – that only tangible property may be reclaimed by the ownership claim, which is why only the ownership rights to tangible property may be viewed as a real" ownership rights.37 First, the argumentation based on procedural reasons gives no contribution to the discussion of the concept of the intellectual property as an important legal category. Second, it is archaic in the light of the modern law development tendencies.

The European Court of Human rights has stated in its judgment in the Anhauzer - Busch Inc. vs. Portugal case that "the case-law has been established that the concept of property" has an independent meaning which is not restricted only by the ownership rights to physical goods and is independent from the classification in the laws of individual states: certain other rights may also be recognized as ownership rights"".38 It should be noted however that with regard to the capacity" of immaterial objects to be the ownership objects, one can see a sceptical attitude also in the Latvian court practice. For example, the court by dismissing the claim of a domain name owner stated that the domain name rights do not cause the ownership rights. Ironically however that the dispute was against another subject of intellectual property - the owner of a trademark, besides the ownership rights of the latter were not disputed by the court.39

In the dispute whether the intellectual property may be recognized as a real" property or just a theoretical property", a poor support to the general understanding of the intellectual property was also enhanced by the fact that historically the Latvian Civil law was the last one among the most known codes of XIX – XX centuries alongside with the laws of France, Germany and Switzerland where the intellectual property is not mentioned. The subsequent legislation sources (except those of the socialistic countries which are characteristic of denying attitude towards the intellectual property concept) staring with the Italian Civil law which was enforced five years after the Latvian Civil law, and to end with the laws adopted already in the recent period i.e. after Latvia regained its de facto independence, the intellectual property takes its due place.40

The literature has also noted that there are provisions for resolving the domain name disputes, yet at the same time the binding nature of these provisions has been disputes as they are not adopted in a form of regulatory acts. The Latvian court practice is also quite limited with this respect (apart from the already mentioned WIPO arbitration court practice with few cases with the respondents whose place of residence or entrepreneurship are related to Latvia). The first Latvian court rulings, e.g. the judgment adopted by the Civil Case panel for the Supreme Court of the Republic of Latvia on October 29, 2003 in the case no PAC - 861, have been justly criticized. Thus for example there is a court judgment stating that "a domain name may not be in the ownership as it does not possess qualities characteristic to a property within the meaning of the Civil law Articles 927, 1129"41. Also the court's statement has been criticized that in the disputes about domain names with one party being the trademark owner, but the other – the domain name owner, the trademark owner always has a legal priority.42

6. Piratism

Simultaneously with the development of the intellectual property evolved the piratism. If by the piratism we understand infringement of the intellectual property rights,43 technically though a person may not be called to criminal liability about the piratism. The legislation providing liability for individual types of the intellectual property infringements, envisages criminal liability only for very specific infringements like the infringement of copyright, neighbouring rights and rights to inventions" which under Article 136 of the Criminal Code was envisaged since 1995.

Only since 1999 Article 206 of the Criminal law of the Republic of Latvia provides liability for the use, forgery of the trademark owned by another person, or the intentional usage or distribution of a forged trademark. It is quite unusual that this offence is not incorporated under Chapter 18 which provides liability for criminal offences against the property, but instead under Chapter 19 which provides liability for Criminal offences in the economics". Criminal liability occurs only for the intentional imitation or forgery of a trademark.

It is exactly TRIPS agreement which has the decisive meaning in the infringements of the trademark rights in the modern law. Article 61 of this agreement provides that it is the duty of the member states to ensure application of the criminal procedure and fines for at least intentional trademark forgeries at commercial scale. The possible legal protection means include imprisonment and fines which are adequate in order to prevent from similar actions according to the amount of the fine to be applicable for the offences of the respective category. The possible legal protection means in the respective cases also include confiscation and destruction of the forged goods and any materials and details that were applied for producing the forged product. Member states may in addition provide other criminal and administrative liability cases to be applicable in infringements of the intellectual property rights, especially if done intentionally and at commercial scale. Although Latvia has formally undertaken these obligations by acceding the WTO, practically however criminalization of the infringements in the intellectual property rights has been implemented insufficiently.

Shortly after joining the EU, Latvia got into the list of infringers of the intellectual property and stayed there quite a long time (2004 -2007).44 Liability for the intellectual property infringements is still too weak. Dissatisfaction has always been expressed publicly.45 Despite the legislative proposals on amendments, they have not left any remarkable consequences. Liability under Article 206 of the Criminal law (Unlawful usage of a trademark, other distinctive sign and a design) occurs only by an accomplished crime which, considering the organized nature of such actions, may only be proved by proving that the individual actions exercised in the entire chain of the crime may be qualified as accomplished" i.e. the collective effort of the criminals were crowned" with the sale of the final product" which is practically impossible to be proved until all engaged parties have been caught that usually act in different spheres and frequently – in different states. Thus despite the relatively high percentage of the forgeries46, the number of the initiated criminal proceedings and the persons called to criminal liability is insignificant (see Diagram no 2).

Diagram no 2

In order to reach progress in this sphere, it is necessary:

  1. to substantially revise the Criminal law norms by placing all norms related to the intellectual property infringements together in a chapter on infringements against the property;
  2. to increase fines until the amount corresponding with the heaviness of the crime, respectively – by imposing liability for such crimes with the first attempt and providing imprisonment until five years.

7. Summary

Intellectual property was consolidated in the Latvian legislation in 1993. Trademark and patent registration was started in 1992. The concept of intellectual property has been analyzed in the Latvian law science since 2000. The court practice has experienced considerable fluctuations, but has become stable at the end of the 90tieth.

Several types of intellectual property are still regulated incompletely (sui generis database rights, protection of commercial secrets) or are not regulated altogether (domain names, rights to an image).

The most important defects are that the registration system does not ensure granting of strong patent, design and trademark rights since it does not require the application expertise in point of fact; criminalization of the intellectual property rights infringements is inefficient as it does not secure effective combat against the piratism. The percentage of the intellectual property rights infringements is inadmissibly high.

List of sources

  1. Grudulis M. Ievads autortiesībās. Rīga: Latvijas Vēstnesis, 2006.
  2. Grudulis M. Par datu bāzēm un to tiesisko aizsardzību//Latvijas Vēstnesis - 2001. gada 13. novembris.
  3. Grūtups A., Kalniņa E. Latvijas Civillikuma komentāri. Īpaaums (927.-1129. p.). R., 2002.
  4. Judinska I. Riņķa dancis ap Riņķa lietu. Izgudrotāja tiesības uz atlīdzību par izgudrojuma izmantoaanu//Likums un tiesības. - 2001. - Nr. 9.
  5. Konradi F., Valters A. (Sast.) Civillikumi ar paskaidrojumiem. Otrā grāmata. Lietu tiesības. Rīga: Grāmatrūpnieks, 1935.
  6. Lībiņa I. Personības tiesību aizsardzības nodroaināaana Latvijas civiltiesību sistēmā I//Likums un Tiesības 9. sēj., Nr. 5 (93), 2007. gada maijs.
  7. Lasmanis J. Aicina bargāk sodīt preču vilstotājus. Dienas Bizness, 2008.gada 19. decembris.
  8. Mantrovs V. ES ģeogrāfisko norā~u aizsardzības sistēma//Likums un Tiesības. 8. sēj. - 2006. Nr. 6 (82).
  9. Novicka A. Kas būs mūsu Nokia: izrāvienu var panākt ar jaunumiem tradicionālajās nozarēs – Diena, 11. Oktobris, 2007.
  10. Ovena L. Literāro darbu autortiesības&licencēaana. Rokasgrāmata Latvijas grāmatizdevējiem. Rīga: Zvaigzne ABC, 2007.
  11. Poļakovs G. Latvijas tiesas nostāja domēna vārdu strīdos ar preču zīmju tiesībām//Likums un Tiesības - 7. sējums. - 2005. - Nr. 9 (732005).
  12. Poļakovs G. Preču zīmju aizsardzības apjoms Latvijas tiesu un Eiropas Kopienu tiesas izpratnē (II)//Likums un tiesības - 6. sēj. - 2004. - Nr. 7 (59).
  13. Priedīte L. SIA TV 3 Latvija" pārkāpis autortiesības un blakustiesības" //http://www.at.gov.lv/information/about-tri-als/2008/marts2008/20080327/
  14. Voroncovs A. Datu bāzu tiesiskās aizsardzības attīstība//Likums un Tiesības. - 8. sēj. - Nr. 11 (87). - 2006. - Novembris. - 342.-348. lpp.
  15. Zemīte I. Pirmais Baltijas kanāls pārsūdzēs tiesas spriedumu par autortiesībām lietā ar AKKA/LAA" //http://www.db.lv/Default2.aspx? Article ID=77e5c7b3-c7aa-4bd6-858e-b192d850efc6.
  16. ASV ziņojums par intelektuālā īpaauma aizsardzību (2007 SPECIAL 301 REPORT, Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) pursuant to Special 301 provisions of the Trade Act of 1974.
  17. Katra treaā pudele – nelegālas izcelsmes – Diena, 2002. gada 13. marts
  18. Latvijas Republikas apelācijas instances civillietu nolēmumu apkopojums 1998.–1999. gads. - R., 2000.
  19. Latvijas Republikas Ministru Padomes lēmums Nr.72, pieņemts 28.02.92, ZIŅOTĀJS, 1992g., Nr. 17.
  20. LETA. No "Pirmā Baltijas kanāla" piedzen Ls 1,12 miljonus par AKKA/LAA pārstāvēto autoru darbu izmantoaanu" //http://wwwnra.lv/zinas/2381-no-pirma-baltijas-kanala-piedzen-ls-1-12-miljonus-par-akkalaa-parstaveto-autoru-darbu-izmantosanu.htm.
  21. Par tiesiska darījuma formu" Augstākās tiesas Senāta Civillietu departamenta spriedums Lietā Nr. SKC–27, 2008. Jurista vārds Nr.47 (552) Otrdiena, 2008. gada 16. decembris.
  22. Ball P. Critical mass how one thing leads to another. Arrow books, 2004.
  23. Betinger T. Domain Name Law and Practice an International Handbook. - Oxford, 2005.
  24. Burrell R., Coleman A. Copyright Exceptions. The Digital Impact. Cambridge studies in Intellectual Property Rights. - Cambridge University Press. - 2005. - P. 10.
  25. Cornish W. R. Intellectual Property: Patents, Copyright, Trade Marks and Allied Rights. Fourth edition.
  26. Cyril P. Rigamonti. Deconstructing Moral Rights. Volume 47, Issue 2, S.J.D., Harward law school, 2006.
  27. O'Conor B. The Law of Geographical Indications. Cameron May: International Law & Policy. - 2003.
  28. Philips J., Furth A. Introduction to Intellectual Property Law. Forth edition. London, Dublin, Edinburgh. 1990.
  29. Rees C, Chalton S. Database law. - Jordans, 1998.
  30. Sodipo B. Piracy and Counterfeiting GATT TRIPS and Developing Countries. London, The Hague, Boston, 1997.
  31. Case of Anhauzer - Busch Inc. vs. Portugal (aplication Nr. 73049/01) judgement.
  32. Антимонов Б.С., Флейшиц Е.А. Изобретательское право. М.: Государственное издательство юридической литературы, 1960.
  33. Патентоведение: Учебник для вузов. Авторский колектив. Под ред. В.А. Рясенцева. 3-е изд., перераб. и доп. М.: Машиностроение, 1984.
  34. Фогель А.Я. Охрана изобретений в области химии. Р.: издательство "Зинатне", 1970.

Footnotes

1. http://www.saeima.lv/steno/ap/st280789.htm

2. Latvijas Republikas Ministru Padomes lēmums Nr.72, pieņemts 28.02.92, ZIŅOTĀJS, 1992g., Nr. 17.

3. Патентоведение: Учебник для вузов. Авторский колектив. Под ред. В.А. Рясенцева. 3-е изд., перераб. и доп. М.: Машиностроение, 1984, с. 46-50.

4. Фогель А.Я. Охрана изобретений в области химии. Р.: издательство "Зинатне", 1970, с. 305

5. Антимонов Б.С., Флейшиц Е.А. Изобретательское право. М.: Государственное издательство юридической литературы, 1960, с. 188.

6. OJL 93/12. - 2006. - 31. mar.

7. O'Conor B. The Law of Geographical Indications. Cameron May: International Law & Policy. - 2003. - P. 38.

8. Mantrovs V. ES ģeogrāfisko norā~u aizsardzības sistēma//Likums un Tiesības. 8. sēj. - 2006. Nr. 6 (82). - 179.-189. lpp.

9. Latvijas Vçstnesis. - 2003. - 17. apr.

10. Philips J., Furth A. Introduction to Intellectual Property Law. Forth edition. London, Dublin, Edinburgh. 1990. P. 16 -17.

11. Burrell R., Coleman A. Copyright Exceptions. The Digital Impact. Cambridge studies in Intellectual Property Rights. - Cambridge University Press. - 2005. - P. 10.

12. Cyril P. Rigamonti. Deconstructing Moral Rights. Volume 47, Issue 2, S. J. D., Harward law school, 2006. Citçts pçc interneta resursa http://www.harvardilj.org/print/58

13. Cyril P. Rigamonti. Deconstructing Moral Rights. Volume 47, Issue 2, S. J. D.,Harward law school, 2006. Citçts pçc interneta resursa http://www.harvardilj.org/print/58

14. Cornish W. R. Intellectual Property: Patents, Copyright, Trade Marks and Allied Rights. Fourth edition. - P. 449.

15. Ovena L. Literāro darbu autortiesības&licencēaana. Rokasgrāmata Latvijas grāmatizdevējiem. Zvaigzne ABC, 2007, 36.lpp.

16. Grudulis M. Ievads autortiesîbâs. - R., 2006. - 107. lpp.

17. Novicka A. Kas bûs mûsu Nokia: izrâvienu var panâkt ar jaunumiem tradicionâlajâs nozarçs – Diena, 11. Oktobris, 2007.

18. Ball P. Critical mass how one thing leads to another. Arrow books. 2004, p. 344

19. Rees C, Chalton S. Database law. - Jordans, 1998. - P. 62

20. Grudulis M. Par datu bāzēm un to tiesisko aizsardzību//Latvijas Vēstnesis. - 2001. 13. novembris.

21. Rees C, Chalton S. Database law. - Jordans, 1998. - P. 62

22. Rees C, Chalton S. Database law. - Jordans, 1998. - P. 62.

23. Rees C, Chalton S. Database law. - Jordans, 1998. - P. 64.

24. Ibid. - P. 62.

25. Voroncovs A. Datu bâzu tiesiskâs aizsardzîbas attîstîba//Likums un Tiesîbas. - 8. sçj. - Nr. 11 (87). - 2006. - Novembris. - 342.-348. lpp.

26. Poļakovs G. Latvijas tiesas nostāja domēna vārdu strīdos ar preču zīmju tiesībām//Likums un Tiesības. - 7. sējums. - 2005. - Nr. 9 (732005). - 291.-292. lpp.

27. Betinger T. Domain Name Law and Practice an International Handbook. - Oxford, 2005. - P. 1227.-1228.

28. Ibid. - P. 62.

29. Lîbiòa I. Personîbas tiesîbu aizsardzîbas nodroðinâðana Latvijas civiltiesîbu sistçmâ.
I//Likums un Tiesîbas. 9. sçj. - 2007.- Nr. 5 (93). - Maijs.- 147. lpp.

30. Poïakovs G. Preèu zîmju aizsardzîbas apjoms Latvijas tiesu un Eiropas Kopienu tiesas izpratnç (II)//Likums un tiesîbas, 6. sçj. - 2004. - Nr. 7 (59). - 253. lpp

31. Latvijas Republikas apelâcijas instances civillietu nolçmumu apkopojums 1998.–1999. gads. - R., 2000. - 528.-533. lpp.

32. Judinska I. Riòía dancis ap Riòía lietu. Izgudrotâja tiesîbas uz atlîdzîbu par izgudrojuma izmantoðanu//Likums un tiesîbas. - 2001. - Nr. 9.

33. LETA. No "Pirmā Baltijas kanāla" piedzen Ls 1,12 miljonus par AKKA/LAA pārstāvēto autoru darbu izmantoaanu// baltijas-kanala-piedzen-ls-1-12-miljonus-par-akkalaa-parstaveto-autoru-darbu-izmantosanu.htm (aplūkots 30.05.2008.); Priedīte L. SIA TV 3 Latvija" pārkāpis
autortiesības un blakustiesības als/2008/marts2008/20080327/ (aplūkots 30.05.2008.); Zemīte I. Pirmais Baltijas kanāls pārsūdzēs tiesas spriedumu par autortiesībām lietā ar AKKA/LAA// www.db.lv/Default2.aspx? Article ID=77e5c7b3-c7aa-4bd6-858e-b192d850efc6 (aplūkots 30.05.2008.)

34. Par tiesiska darījuma formu Augstākâs tiesas Senâta Civillietu departamenta spriedums Lietā Nr. SKC–27, 2008. Jurista vārds Nr.47 (552) Otrdiena, 2008. gada 16. decembris.

35. Phillips J., Firth A. Introduction to Intellectual Property Law. Second edition. Butterworth. - London, Dublin, Edinburgh, 1990. - P. 3.

36. Grūtups A., Kalniņa E. Latvijas Civillikuma komentāri. Īpaaums (927.-1129. p.). R., 2002. - 20. lpp.

37. Konradi F., Valters A. (Sast.) Civillikumi ar paskaidrojumiem. Otrā grāmata. Lietu tiesības. Rīga: Grāmatrūpnieks, 1935, 72., 73.lpp.

38. Case of Anhauzer - Busch Inc. vs. Portugal (aplication Nr. 73049/01) judgement.

39. Poļakovs G. Latvijas tiesas nostāja domēna vārdu strīdos ar preču zīmju tiesībām//Likums un Tiesības - 7. sējums. - 2005. - Nr. 9 (732005). - 291.-292. lpp.

40. Skat. Itālijas, Igaunijas, Lietuvas Krievijas Federācijas lik.

41. Spriedums nav publicēts. Citēts pēc Poļakovs G. Latvijas tiesas nostāja domēna vārdu strīdos ar preču zīmju tiesībām// Likums un Tiesības. - 7. sējums. - 2005. - Nr. 9 (73). - 293. lpp.

42. Spriedums nav publicçts. Citçts pçc Poïakovs G. Latvijas tiesas nostâja domçna vârdu strîdos ar preèu zîmju tiesîbâm// Likums un Tiesîbas. - 7. sçjums. - 2005. -Nr. 9 (73). - 293. lpp.

43. Sodipo B. Piracy and Counterfeiting GATT TRIPS and Developing Countries. London, The Hague, Boston, 1997., P. 123

44. ASV ziņojums par intelektuālā īpaauma aizsardzību (2007 SPECIAL 301 REPORT, Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) pursuant to Special 301 provisions of the Trade Act of 1974)

45. Lasmanis J. Aicina bargāk sodīt preču vilstotājus. Dienas Bizness, 2008.gada 19. Decembris, 7.lpp.

46. Katra treaā pudele – nelegālas izcelsmes – Diena, 2002. gada 13. Marts.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.