Rolul instanţelor judiciare în protecţia mărcilor (studiu asupra unor cazuri judiciare)
Închide
Conţinutul numărului revistei
Articolul precedent
Articolul urmator
823 4
Ultima descărcare din IBN:
2021-05-12 11:41
Căutarea după subiecte
similare conform CZU
347.9:347.772 (1)
Procedură legală. Personal judiciar şi organizare judiciară (946)
Drept comercial. Dreptul societăţilor comerciale (1292)
SM ISO690:2012
CLĂTINICI, Iurie, COŞLEŢ, Valeriu. Rolul instanţelor judiciare în protecţia mărcilor (studiu asupra unor cazuri judiciare). In: Intellectus, 2003, nr. 2, pp. 36-47. ISSN 1810-7079.
EXPORT metadate:
Google Scholar
Crossref
CERIF

DataCite
Dublin Core
Intellectus
Numărul 2 / 2003 / ISSN 1810-7079 /ISSNe 1810-7087

Rolul instanţelor judiciare în protecţia mărcilor (studiu asupra unor cazuri judiciare)
CZU: 347.9:347.772

Pag. 36-47

Clătinici Iurie, Coşleţ Valeriu
 
Agentia de Stat pentru Proprietatea Intelectuala a Republicii Moldova (AGEPI)
 
 
Disponibil în IBN: 17 decembrie 2013


Rezumat

T he legislation of the Republic of Moldova has perfectly been harmonized with the international treaties to which our country is party. The industrial property objects (trade and service marks, inventions etc.) are only registered or refused on the basis of the legislation in force, depending on the examination (searching) results. However, this fact does not prevent the State Agency on Industrial Property Protection from revoking the title of protection under the basis of a reasoned opposition, disclosing new data and circumstances. The AGEPI is a specialized body with unique authority in the Republic of Moldova in the industrial property protection field, elaborating the strategy of development of the industrial property protection system and promoting the state policy in the said field (p. 1,2 and 10 of the Statute). Therefore, in the examination of concrete cases the courts shall take into consideration the position of the AGEPI, of the experts with a wide experience obtained within the Agency, of the Methodical Board and the Appeals Board, acting in the interests of the State. Unfortunately the courts, despite the provisions of the legislation in force, sometimes take contrary decisions, including the international norms. The Supreme Court of Justice does not accept the review of the decisions and the General Prosecutor’s Office refuses to intervene with solicitation in the interests of the law or appeal of revocation. The Article, giving concrete examples, denotes that what is prohibited by Law, can easily be obtained by judgment.