|
Intellectual property is an exclusive property but
is confined in terms of territory - the rights are applicable
within the territory of the appropriate state if the latter has
legalised these rights in her internal legislation. This
peculiarity of the intellectual property rights determines the
potential danger of abuse of the principle of free movement of
goods according to Art. 30 of the Treaty, if the rights of
intellectual property in the different states are legalised in a
different way and their protection in some countries is at a low or
insufficient level. This makes it necessary to harmonise
legislation in this field of the individual states and to ensure
equal treatment and hence free movement of goods and services in a
common market which Bulgaria wishes to join in future.
The efforts for the harmonisation of legislation in
the field of intellectual property outside the framework of the EU
are no less ambitious and effective and Bulgaria, by its membership
in the World Organisation for the Protection of the Intellectual
Property of the UN, is taking part in this process. In recent years
the negotiations within the framework of GATT also contributed to
this process and Bulgaria which has expressed its wish to join the
WTO (and of TRIP'S) and is negotiating in this respect. By becoming
a member Bulgaria will adopt the high standards of legal protection
envisaged in this international agreement. Bulgaria is a member of
the major international agreements in the field of the protection
of the intellectual property, namely:
- the Paris convention for the protection of
industrial property;
- the Bern convention for the protection of literary
and artistic work;
- the universal convention on copyright;
- the Madrid agreement on international registration
of trade marks;
- the treaty of patent co-operation;
- the Lisbon agreement for the protection of names
of origin and their international registration;
- the Madrid agreement on persecution of false or
misleading indications of the origins of goods;
- the Budapest treaty of international recognition
of the depositing of micro-organisms in connection with the
procedure of patenting;
- the treaty of Nairobi for the protection of the
Olympic symbol.
The National Assembly of the Republic of Bulgaria
has ratified the Treaty for the protection of artists-performers,
producers of sound recordings, and broadcasting organisations (S.G.
No. 39/28 April 1995) and the International convention for the
protection of artists-performers, producers of sound recordings and
broadcasting organisations (S.G. No. 39/28 April 1995), as well as
the Hague agreement for international registration of industrial
patterns (S.G. 83/11 October 1994).
The participation in these international agreements,
which, by virtue of Art. 5, par.4 of the Constitution become part
of the domestic legislation of the country, is a prerequisite and
testimony for harmonisation of the national legislation in this
field with the international standards for legal protection of the
objects of intellectual property.
In 1993 the National Assembly adopted two
fundamental laws - the Patent Law and the Copyright Law. With the
adoption of these two laws the legal protection of inventions and
of objects of copyright (and neighbouring rights) was introduced
into the country which is adequate to the international standards
(incl. that of TRIP's). The two laws (which as drafts were
discussed with experts from WIPO) were highly evaluated by the
organisation, and the Patent law was highly evaluated by experts of
the German Patent Office.
The major legislation for the protection of the
objects of intellectual property are:
- the Patent Law of 1993 (S.G. No. 27/2 April
1993)
- the Law on Copyright and Neighbouring Rights of
1993 (S.G. No.56/1993)
- the Law on Trade Marks and Industrial Patterns of
1967 (S.G. No. 95/67)
- Instruction on the application of the LTMIP (S.G.
No. 26/1969).
- Rule on the representatives of industrial property
(S.G. No. 65/1993)
- Rule on the secret patents (S.G. No. 81/1993)
By ratifying the EA, Bulgaria has assumed the
obligation by the end of the fifth year from the date of entry into
force to reach a level of protection of intellectual property
similar to that in the EU. An obligation was also taken to join the
Treaty for the protection of artists-performers, producers of sound
recordings and broadcasting organisations, the Protocol to the
Madrid agreement, and within five years from the date of entry into
force to apply for joining the Munich convention (The European
Patent Convention).
Bulgaria has alraedy joined the Treaty for the
protection of artists-performers, producers of sound recordings and
broadcasting organisations. Bulgaria is also member of the Madrid
agreement and the accession to the Protocol to the Madrid agreement
(which has not yet come into force) will not require changes in the
existing internal legislation. The Protocol to the Madrid agreement
aims at making the agreement itself more attractive for the
countries that are not yet parties to it by abolishing (or giving
alternative solutions) of some of the provisions, which are
arguable. For instance, the Madrid agreement foresees the
possibility a given mark to be registered in the International
Bureau only after it is registered in the country of origin. The
Protocol envisages that an international registration can be done
upon application for registration in the country of origin. The
protocol foresees that the application for registration be
considered valid (for the purpose of an international registration)
when it is deposited in a body of the contracting organisation and
not only in a body of the contracting country thus envisaging the
possibility for international registration of marks of the
community (i.e. of marks applied for registration or registered
according to the Regulation on Marks of the Community (EU) No.
40/94 of 20 December 1993). The territory of application of this
regulation (the member states of the EU) is considered a territory
of a contracting party and the validity of the international
registration is in force throughout it when the member state of the
Protocol to the Madrid Agreement has indicated this territory in
the registration. In this way a connection is realised between the
Regulation on marks in the Community and the Protocol of the Madrid
Agreement. The Protocol deals with the notions of national and
international registration also in the cases of registration
substitution considered in Art. 4 of the Madrid Agreement. The
Protocol of the Madrid Agreement admits reserves by the ratifying
states on Art. 5, par.2, sub-par."b" and "c" and continuation of
the refusal of registration between 1 year to 18 months, i.e.
lengthening of the period of expertise by the national patent body.
The protocol limits the dependence of the international
registration on the basic application or registration envisaged in
Art. 6 of the Madrid Agreement and provides for a possibility to
transform the international registration into national or regional
application in the cases of annulment of the international
registration. The amendments foreseen in the Protocol to the Madrid
Agreement are in the interest of both the applicants (incl. the
Bulgarian applicants who register trade marks pursuant to this
Agreement) and of the national patent offices, the joining of
Bulgaria would be in the interest of the country. The question
should be discussed by the Patent Agency and the Foreign Ministry,
which should come up with a specific proposal.
Accession to the Munich Agreement is not a
unilateral act of the Bulgarian party. The Republic of Bulgaria can
make the necessary steps in this direction but the final decision
remains with the member states of the European Patent Convention.
In 1994, the European Patent Convention concluded agreements for
the extension of the applications for European patents (the
so-called extension agreements) with Lithuania and Slovenia. Such
agreements have been concluded with Romania and Latvia too (albeit
not ratified by the parliaments of these countries) and a similar
agreement has been proposed to Bulgaria. In similar agreements the
EU sees a first stage of the accession of the associated states to
full membership in the European Patent Convention. The signing of a
similar convention must be discussed seriously by the competent
bodies and, should they find it appropriate, a text must be
proposed for ratificationt taking into account the interests of the
local applicants and industries. For instance, special attention
should be given to the question of whether by issuing a Bulgarian
patent on the basis of a European patent, the Bulgarian Patent
Agency should require a translation not only of the patent claims
but also of the description of the patent. A description in
Bulgarian, which serves as an interpretation of the patent claims,
would offer to the Bulgarian inventors and eventual users of the
patent more complete information about the real scope of protection
and the level of invention. In any case, Bulgaria should strive at
full participation in the European Patent Convention and, should
the signing of an extension agreement be considered a necessary
stage in this process, the latter should be signed in keeping with
the principles of equality and taking into account the interests of
the local patent applicants and users.
Annex XV to the Interim Agreement provides a list of
Community legislative acts which are considered crucial for the
harmonisation of laws protecting intellectual property of the EU
member states, with which the internal legislation of the Republic
of Bulgaria should be harmonised. After the signing of the EA, the
European Council adopted some regulations and directives which are
part of the so-called legislation on a community level in the field
of intellectual property, which should also be taken into
consideration and therefore be considered in this paper. In so far
as the legislation explicitly listed in the EA (respectively in the
Interim Agreement) has a mandatory nature for Bulgaria as a
contracting party, they will be given priority in the present
paper.
1. First Directive of the Council 89/104/EEC of
21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States
relating to trade marks.
The Directive refers to trade marks and services
marks and it introduces the following basic principles for
protection of this object of intellectual property:
- recognition of the legal protection of the
registered trade marks, i.e. recognition of the fact that a
registration of the mark in an authorised office in any country
induces legal effect;
- legal definition of the trade mark;
- definition of the absolute and relative grounds
for refusal and annulment of a given sign as a trade mark;
- definition of the scope of right over a given
mark;
- regulation of the restriction and termination of
the right on a mark;
- introduction of the obligation for use of the mark
by the registered owner or licensee (legal consequences from
non-use of the mark);
- regulation of the free disposal with the right on
a mark (transfer, concession of licence)
The Bulgarian Law on Trade Marks and Industrial
Patterns (LTMIP) corresponds to the basic principles of Directive
89/104/EEC. According to LTMIP, the exclusive right on a trade mark
originates with the registration of the mark in the Patent Agency.
The criteria for the assessment of a given mark as a trade mark
valid for registration are compatible, although, in the LTMIP they
are not divided into absolute and relative restrictions for
registration. The practice of the Patent Agency has, however,
evolved through the years and some of the restrictions for
registration of marks listed in Art. 4 of the LTMIP have become
"relative", i.e. they are "inapplicable" under certain conditions.
The LTMIP lacks in relevant provisions concerning the limitation
and termination of the right ensuing from the behaviour of the
bearer of the right. There is no regulation of the collective and
certificate marks.
A working group of the Patent Agency is presently
preparing a draft of a new law on trade marks which will be fully
in line with the new trends in the development of similar
legislation in the industrial states, including the EU. The draft
will be ready by the end of 1995 and, once coordinated with all
interested bodies, it will be presented for approval to the Council
of Ministers and, subsequently, to the National Assembly.
2. Directive 97/54/EEC of 16 December 1986 on the
legal protection of topographies of semiconductor products.
The Directive gives legal definition of the notions,
"semiconductor", "topography" and "commercial use". It introduces
the obligation to give legal protection to the topographies in so
far as the latter are product of intellectual efforts and are not
in common use in the semiconductor industry. The right is granted
alternatively by registration or first use, defining the range of
persons who are entitled to register and protect the topography of
semiconductors. The period of protection is set at 10 years
beginning either from the end of the calendar year in which the
topography has first been used in trade in any part of the world
or, under the registration scheme, from the end of the calendar
year in which the application for registration has been filed.
Within the registration scheme, the right originates from the date
on which the application has been filed.
There is no legislation in Bulgaria on the
topography of semiconductors, i.e. this product is not legally
protected. It is advisable to adopt a special law on the protection
of the topography of semiconductor products, and the protection is
granted through registration by the Patent Agency. The Patent
Agency should prepare such a draft law and should present it to the
Council of Ministers for approval and submission to the National
Assembly.
3. Council Directive 91.250/EEC of 14 May 1991 on
the legal protection of computer programmes.
The Directive binds the Member States to offer
protection through copyright over computer programmes, similar to
literary works in the sense of the Bern Convention. The Directive
defines the author of any computer programme as a natural or legal
person, and recognises the possibility of co-ownership of the
copyright. The scope of the copyrightright is also defined, as well
as the restrictions of the exclusive right. The period of
protection is set at 50 years after the death of the author or of
the last living co-author, and 50 years after the first release in
the case when the author is a legal person. In Bulgaria, computer
programmes are protected by the Copyright Law and related rights.
Like Directive 91/250/EEC, the Bulgarian CLRR recognises as
reproduction of a computer programme, with all the ensuing
consequences, its:
a) loading;
b) screen display;
c) execution;
d) transmission on a distance;
e) storing in the memory of the computer;
f) translation;
g) modification.
Similar to Directive 91/250/EEC, Art. 71 of the CLRR
describes in detail the rights granted to a person who has lawfully
acquired the right to use a computer programme, i.e. what he/she
can do without the knowledge of the copyright owner and without
additional payment. The provisions of the CLRR are adequate both
with regard to the period of protection and the retroactive
validity of the law concerning programmes created before the entry
into force of the law.
At the present stage, the legislation concerning
computer programmes in Bulgaria corresponds to the level of
protection in the EU.
4. Regulation 1768/92/EEC of 18 June 1992
concerning the creation of a supplementary protection certificate
for medicinal products.
The Regulation provides additional protection for
patented pharmaceutical products. The validity period of the patent
has been extended by the amount of time necessary to obtaining a
marketing licence from the competent authorities decreased by 5
years, i.e. this provides for a longer patent protection whereby
the normal 20-year period of validity of the patent may be extended
to at least 25 years.
The patent law provided legal protection to
pharmaceutical products for the first time ever. The possibility to
extend the term of this patent ( now it is valid for 20 years) by
the amount of time necessary to market the products has is not
foreseen in the Patent Law. It is necessary to draft an appropriate
normative act (or proposal for amendment to the Patent Law) which
will provide additional protection to the patents of medical
products. Such provisions would favour the owners of pharmaceutical
product patents and would partly compensate the pharmaceutical
companies for the losses they incur in developing expensive
innovations. Such patent owners do not make full use of the
exclusive rights provided by the patent because of administrative
restrictions and formalities determined by the protection of the
public interest and health. Similar provisions will also be in the
interest of the local pharmaceutical industry. The Patent Agency
should make a proposal for the introduction of a supplementary
protection certificate for medicinal products.
5. Regulation 2081/92/EEC of 14 July 1992 on the
protection of geographic indications and designations of origin for
agricultural products and foodstuffs.
The Regulation is part of the Annex on intellectual
property, although it is part of the agricultural policy of the EU.
It is not included in the section on "Intellectual, Industrial and
Trade Property" of the EU White Paper. It is limited in scope - it
refers to designation of origin and geographic indications only for
certain agricultural products and foodstuffs, such as: beer,
natural mineral and spring water, non-alcoholic beverages of plant
extracts, confectionery and paste products, rubber, resins and
essential oils. There is a possibility to register the geographic
indications of these products with the EU Commission. For
registration to be permitted, the signed product should meet
certain conditions listed in its specification. There is also a
possibility for opposition by interested third parties. Parties
which are not members of the EU may also, at certain conditions,
apply to the Commission for registration of their own geographic
indications and designations of origin. The regulation reproduces
(in a limited manner) some elements of the Lisbon Agreement for
protection of appelations of origin and their international
registration. Well-known are the differences in the approaches
concerning the protection of this object between the Member States
of the EU, exemplified by the fact that only Portugal, France and
Italy are parties of the Lisbon agreement.
The Republic of Bulgaria is a party of the Lisbon
convention while the LTMIP explicitly regulates the appelations of
origin. The protection refers to all types of products which owe
their specific properties or peculiarities to the geographic
environment including natural conditions or production traditions
of a given country, or region whose geographic name is the
appelation of origin for the product. In the draft of a new LTMIP
the provisions of this object will acquire a more detailed nature,
i.e. a conclusion can be made that the protection of this object of
intellectual property is at a higher level than that in the EU.
It is recommended that the Ministry of Agriculture
examine carefully Regulation 2081/92/EEC with a view to the
protection of some Bulgarian products (mineral water, ether oils)
by registration with the EC Commission.
6. Directive 92/100/EEC of 19 November 1992 on
rental right and lending right and on certain rights related to
copyright in the field of intellectual property.
The Directive obliged the member states to foresee
the right to permit or prohibit rental and lending of originals and
copies of authors' works. "Rental" means a possibility to use for a
certain period of time for direct or indirect commercial profit,
and "lending" means a possibility to use for a certain period of
time but not for direct or indirect economic or commercial profit
when the use is effected by places with public access.
The bearers of the right to rent or lend are the
authors, film directors, actor-performers, producers of
audio-recordings and films.
The cession of rights of the actor-performers taking
part in films is provided by special regulations. The possibility
is provided when an author or actor-performer has ceded or
transferred his right to rent or lend audio-recording or original
or copy of a film to retain his right to a fair remuneration. The
right to rental or lending can be given to a collective
organisation for protection of copyright which represent the author
or the actor-performer. The member states can restrict the
exclusive right of lending provided the authors receive a fair
remuneration. Its size is determined freely by the member states
taking into consideration cultural traditions and objectives.
Hypotheses are provided whereby rental, lending, distribution and
reproduction of authors' works is considered legally transferred.
The directive foresees exclusive rights of the actor-performers on
transmission and distribution of their live performance, of
audio-recording or video-recording of the performance and
reproduction of the recordings on audio or video carriers and their
distribution. The right to distribution is exhausted in the
Community when the first sale of the carrier is realised by the
bearer of the right or with his permission.
The period of validity of the rights according to
Directive 92/100/EEC corresponds to the periods provided in the
Bern convention and the Treaty for protection of related
rights.
The provisions of LCRR of 1993 correspond to the
level of protection provided in Directive 92/100/EEC. In par.2.4 of
LCRR is defined the notion "distribution of the work" and it
includes "sale, exchange, donation, rental or lending, exportat and
import of originals and copies of the work". Art. 18, par.2 of
LCRR, which regulates the exclusive rights of the author to use the
work, defines the use and lists the following actions which are
considered use of the work:
- reproduction of the work (fixing of the work or
part of it onto a material carrier, irrespective of the form, in
one or more copies),
- distribution of the work (par. 2.4 of the
additional provisions quotes the definition cited above);
- public presentation and public performance of the
work;
- wireless broadcasting of the work
-transmission of the work by cable or other
technical meaning; ;
- public representation of pieces of fine art and of
pieces, created by photographic or analogical way;
- translation of the piece in other language;
- modifying the piece;
- creation of architectural project by construction
or implementation of the object, it is meant for.
The scope of rights, regulated by the Law of
Copyright and Certain Related Rights (LCCRR) is broader than that
of the Directive 92/100/EEC, which is not applicable for
architectural projects and pieces of fine art.
The LCCRR stipulates that in transactions (sales,
changes and grants), which lead to change of ownership of the
original or copies of the work, the copyright expires with the
first, in time, transaction. In case of leasing and renting, which
does not lead to change of ownership, the right of the author to
allow or prohibit the further (in order) leasing or renting, is
preserved, which is explicitly stipulated in the LCCR. The LCCRR
also envisages the right of remuneration of the performing artists
and the directors of audiorecordings for secondary use of the piece
of art. The period of the copyrights, under the LCCRR is in
correspondence with the regulations of the Bern Convention and the
Treaty.
In conclusion, it could be said that the LCCRR
stipulates a level of protection adequate and in certain aspects
broader in range than that in Directive 92/100/ECC.
7. Directive 93/98/EEC of 29-th October 1993 for
harmonising the term of protection of copyright and certain related
rights.
The directive stipulates a term for protection of
copyrights on literary and art pieces of up to 70 years after the
death of the author. The same term is stipulated for
cinematographic and audio-visual pieces of art. For the related
rights the protection term is 50 years.
For pieces of art, originating from non member
states of the EU or by authors who are not member state nationals,
the protection in the EC elapses on the same date as in the country
of origin, but it can never exceed the protection term foreseen in
the EC.
The term of protection of 70 years after the death
of the author is not stipulated in any international treaties in
that field. The Bern Convention envisages a protection term of 50
years granting the right to each of the parties to introduce
prolonged protection term as well as to foresee the possibility for
a given protection term not to exceed the term determined in the
country of origin of the piece of art. The universal Copyright
Convention stipulates a minimum protection term of 25 years after
the death of the author; the Treaty stipulates a minimum protection
term of 20 years and TRIP’s 50 years.
The LCCRR stipulates a term of 50 years after the
death of the author. The question of prolongation of the legal term
of protection from 50 to 70 years (for literary works and pieces of
art) has to be discussed at the Ministry of Culture and by the
concerned organisations. The solution of that problem is not a
priority and we are of the opinion that for the time being the
LCCRR needs no amendment.
8. Directive 93/83/EEC of 27 September 1993 for
co-ordination of certain rules concerning copyrights and rights
related to copyright applicable to satellite broadcasting and cable
re-transmission.
The directive gives definition of "satellite",
"satellite broadcasting", "cable re-transmission", "transmission"
and "collective organisation". The organisations, broadcasting by
satellite should have the permission for broadcasting by the owner
of the copyright of the piece of art. The permission (the
broadcasting right) can be received after contract only. Permission
of the performing artists is required for:
- live satellite broadcasting;
- recording of unrecorded performances;
- playing of recorded performances.
The broadcasting organisations have exclusive rights
on the broadcasting, the recording of the production and on
reproduction of the records of their broadcasting. The member
states may limit the rights allowing or prohibiting the
broadcasting, for example, in cases of use of small pieces in
announcing current news. The directive stipulates also exercising
the broadcasting copyrights by collective organisation, except in
cases when the broadcasting organisation itself has the
broadcasting rights. Participation of mediating organisations in
negotiations for cession of rights is stipulated, whose
participation has advisory nature, as well as arbitration for
disputes concerning cable re-transmission.
The LCCRR regulates the broadcasting organisations'
rights over their programmes as related rights. On the other hand,
the broadcasting organisations are users of foreign copyrights and
for performing their activity they should have the permission by
the author for using these rights. There are three categories of
persons who should have permission - the authors, the performing
artists, the recording directors, i.e. the same persons as those
envisaged in Directive 93/83/EEC. The LCCRR explicitly envisages
that when the programmeme sent by a radio- or TV organisation
through signal to a telecommunication satellite is re-transmitted
or re-broadcast, recorded, replayed or broadcast by other person,
the permission of the broadcasting organisation which has performed
the first broadcasting or transmission of the programme is
required. The LCCRR lacks regulations for a mediator position in
negotiations and arbitration in cases of disputes, therefore it is
advisable that the Ministry of Culture and the Committee for Post
and Telecommunications consider the creation of special norms in
the existing legislation, having estimated the efficiency of the
general provisions for settling of disputes in that specific area.
The regulation of the rights and obligations of the broadcasting
organisations in the LCCRR corresponds to the regulations in
Directive 93/83/EEC, but the development of telecommunications and
the complexity of the problem require constant monitoring of the
development of international legislation in the field and prompt
actualisation and amendment of the existing legislation in
Bulgaria.
9. Regulation No3295/94 of 23 December 1994
laying down measures to prohibit the release for free circulation,
export, re-export or entry for a suspensive procedure of
counterfeit and pirated goods.
The Directive is applicable in the member countries
since July 1, 1995. It introduces a procedure for detaining by the
customs authorities of goods illegally bearing a foreign trade mark
or being pirated pieces of art (pieces of art, violating the
copyright). It is foreseen that, following a request by the owners
of the copyright, the customs authorities shall detain under
customs procedures (including not to allow change of the customs
regime of goods, declared at the customs) goods for which there is
information of being counterfeit or pirated copies. The detaining
is possible within 10 working days (with a possibility to be
continued for 10 more) during which the affected person should
submit valid legal title for detaining, retaining, confiscation, or
other action, of those goods. Under certain conditions the customs
authorities are obliged to respond to such a request.The
possibility is also envisaged for requiring the claimant to
guarantee and insure the goods against possible damage caused by
the importer (the owner of the detained goods, respectively).
Explicitly is certified the obligation of the customs
administration (under certain conditions) to submit information to
the owner of the violated copyright about the name and the address
of the importer or his mediator, or the exporter/producer of the
goods, as well as about the quantity of those goods.
The Directive is issued with reference to the TRIP’s
obligations for the introduction of customs measures against
counterfeit or pirated goods.
This type of regulation is not known in the
legislation of the Republic of Bulgaria its speedy introduction is
not only a matter of harmonisation and implementation of the
obligations under the signed international agreements, but also a
matter of safeguarding of the local industry from unlawful
competition of foreign pirate companies and protection of the right
of the users. The introduction of adequate legislative regulation
should be suggested by the competent authorities - Ministry of
Trade and the Patent Agency, in co-ordination with the Customs
Department at the Ministry of Finance.
10 The European Parliament and the Council of EC
have made one proposal for regulation and two proposals for
Directives in the field of protection of intellectual
property.
As far as the texts of those Acts are still not
finalised (the proposal for Regulations for creation of certificate
for additional protection of plants is still not published) they
can be no subject of a conclusive study within the framework of the
present analysis. However, it should be taken into consideration
that as far as the data bases are included in the matters regulated
by the LCCRR, i.e. after issuing of the Directive for legislative
protection of the data bases it should be analysed to what extent
the regulations in Bulgaria correspond to the protection level in
the EC - the existing legal regulations for industrial samples is
obviously not harmonised with that in the EC. The LCCRR stipulates
a term of 5 years for the protection of industrial samples (without
a possibility for prolongation of the term). The Directive for
legislative protection of industrial samples stipulates maximum
term of protection of 25 years. TRIP’s stipulates a protection
period of no less than 10 years. The protection term is only one of
the problems of protection of that type of intellectual property.
Much more important is the legal regulation of the criteria for
allowing protection, as well as of formal requirements for the
applications, the scope of rights, etc. The tendency in the
Directive is toward minimising the formalities for application of
the object. Sufficient criteria are foreseen for allowing
registration and provision of protection: novelty and
individuality. The draft new Law of Industrial Samples, prepared by
the Patent Agency, considerably differs from the draft Directive of
the EC. In case Bulgaria - not in compliance with the international
tendencies - introduces restrictive requirements for legal
protection of that object of intellectual property, this will
create obstacles for the free movement of goods, which in the
countries of the EC will be protected as industrial samples, while
on the Bulgarian territory they will not have such protection.
It is recommended that the Patent Institution study
carefully the draft Directive for legal protection of industrial
samples and the draft bill on Industrial Samples to be in
correspondence with the protection level to be introduced in the
EC. Our national legislation in the field of intellectual property
faces the requirement of offering protection level equal to that
offered in the developed countries (including the EC), that is not
to create for foreign applicants and authors unnecessary hindrances
which are not justified from the standpoint of assumed
international obligations, as well as from the standpoint of the
local industry.
Top of
page
|
