Bibliographie sélective OHADA

Generative AI has heralded a new age of possibilities and significantly altered the landscape of creation. What was once a niche tool has quickly become a de facto tool that everyday users employ to express themselves, particularly due to the rapid integration of such models into popular digital platforms. Accompanying the extensive usage of Generative AI are concerns from rightsholders regarding the tool’s ability to facilitate rapid and extensive copyright infringement. While complete regurgitation has clear copyright infringement concerns, the precise legality remains unclear for AI-generated output that has the potential to benefit from copyright exceptions and limitations. In efforts to reduce its liability, Generative AI models have introduced safety ‘guardrails’ to prevent, restrict, or alter prompts that it deems would generate output that might infringe copyright. While guardrails serve an important purpose in the face of blatant infringement, these also block or revise prompts which may benefit from exceptions and limitations, and therefore do not infringe copyright. Given these developments, the question of whether AI-generated output can benefit from exceptions and limitations to copyright becomes pertinent. Particularly in the realm of parody and pastiche, restrictions on such output pose serious freedom of expression concerns. This paper first explains how the applicability of these exceptions to GenAI output is independent from the questions of legality in the input stage, and ought to be kept that way. Thereafter, it examines the question of whether these exceptions of parody and pastiche under the EU’s copyright regime can apply to AI-generated outputs, and to what extent they apply.

Non-fungible tokens (NFTs) now attract personal property rights but continue to challenge existing copyright law. NFTs consist of a digital file, which is either linked to or embedded within a CryptoToken. Copyright in a digital file is, as information only, exploited via communication to the public and making available, whereas a protected work incorporated in a tangible object, i.e. a painting, is exploited via distribution. So, where does this leave protected work incorporated within an NFT, and in particular CryptoArt? What is the nature of a CryptoToken and how does this relate to the underlying digital art file? The landmark case Osbourne v Persons Unknown & Ors [2023] EWHC 340 (KB) confirmed that NFTs are personal property, but the nature of such property rights remains unclear. Drawing on empirical evidence, this paper advocates how copyright law should be interpreted so as to treat NFTs as tangible CryptoAssets, with protected work, whether linked or embedded within the NFT, as incorporated within the CryptoToken. This would equate CryptoArt NFTs to paintings, enabling the distribution of copyright and legitimising secondary markets, which are central to the value and purpose of such NFTs. This reflects the position in practice, is technologically neutral and allows for technological development. It would also provide legal clarity, bolster business confidence, and ensure consumer protection in a rapidly evolving digital landscape. This paper also critiques the Property (Digital Assets etc) Act 2025, arguing that the creation of a third category of ‘thing’ in terms of property rights adds further complexity and challenge from a copyright perspective.

Scholarship on Artificial Intelligence (AI) and copyright tends to frame its inquiry around Turing's question — 'Can machines think?' — and the normative challenges of the new Spring of AI. This paper asks instead whether the governance challenges of Generative AI (GenAI) are genuinely unprecedented, or a new iteration of the endogenous self-structuration processes that have historically linked technological innovation and intellectual property law. Tracing the evolution of creative guilds — from the Stationers' Company to the decentralised guilds of the digital economy — it shows that clashes between creative industries and emergent technologies have consistently been resolved through lex mercatoria before sovereign regulation crystallised. It then argues that GenAI's architecture introduces a collective-moral dimension to authorship that copyright frameworks built around individual creativity cannot accommodate. The paper advances two contributions: pictographic AI-specific licensing instruments modelled on Creative Commons, and protection of complex prompts as copyrightable expression. GenAI's diffusion, it concludes, calls for adaptive governance rather than systemic disruption.

The rapid proliferation of generative artificial intelligence has forced a fundamental re-examination of a question copyright law has never had to answer: can authorship exist without a human author? This article undertakes a comparative analysis of the international copyright frameworks operative in five jurisdictions — the United States, the European Union, the United Kingdom, Japan, and the People's Republic of China — set against the foundational international instruments of global copyright protection: the Berne Convention, the TRIPS Agreement, and the WIPO Copyright Treaty. Drawing on landmark judicial decisions including Thaler v. Perlmutter (D.C. Circuit, 2025), Li Yunkai v. Liu Yuanchun (Beijing Internet Court, 2023), and the CJEU's Infopaq line of cases, as well as the U.S. Copyright Office's January 2025 Part 2 Report on Copyrightability, this article demonstrates that the current international legal architecture is anchored to a human-centred conception of authorship that precludes autonomous AI systems from holding copyright. It further identifies significant and growing divergence in how jurisdictions treat the human-AI collaborative spectrum, and argues that this fragmentation creates regulatory arbitrage, impedes cross-border creative industries, and demands multilateral reform. The article concludes with a proposal for a WIPO-led harmonisation instrument built on the concept of qualified human creative control.

Fast changing of technology has produced a growing gap between law and technology, in which the legal control is running behind technology. Whereas law is retaliatory, the new technologies, including artificial intelligence, blockchain, biotechnology, and autonomous vehicles, develop in a proactive way and present complex challenges. They are intellectual property rights, privacy, liability, cross-border performance, and ethical uncertainty. Poor time lag in legislation, lack of technical expertise and jurisdictional issues worsen the situation. Possible solutions to such gaps include regulatory sandbox, technology foresight, sunset clauses, and micro-directives. Legal professionals need to be trained interdisciplinarily and interacted with experts on a constant basis. To control the multinational technological development there is the need to have global coordination. Active and adaptive systems are capable of defending rights and also facilitate innovation. Reactive to anticipatory governance should be altered in order to make sure that law is up-to-date with the societal and technological advancements.

Artificial Intelligence's (AI) technology growing rapidly has caused the newly added layer of complexity to copyright. It makes humans the essentials of the law swooshing in almost impossible,Who is the one who is going to be liable for posting? The paper describes the AI-produced content which has been available to the user like never before and it gives an in-depth analysis of the matter where the examples of legal uncertainties include authorship, ownership, infringement, and moral rights. The article is a comparative study of the legal systems in the US, the UK, and the European Union in the context of their AI works regulations and exposes the non-conformities and gaps in the existing rules on AI-generated works. The work is a discussion about the new approaches that are being implemented and the worldwide perspectives that are being explored in connection with computerized content phenomena, both from a regulatory aspect and through the new business model. The study is about the suggestions for the intellectual property field that is both open and supportive of the argument that the innovation should still be protected humanly and is capable of dealing with the existing AI-related problems up till now along with the chances that can arise in the future.

Trademarks are economic tools that aid businesses to communicate with their customers and capture a vast section of the population. Trademarks are only useful when used efficiently in the course of trade, meaning the higher the reputation of the mark, the more consumers want to associate themselves to the products or services the mark is affixed upon. This study examines the criteria to own a trademark and how ownership claims are handled between the African Organisation of Intellectual property as known by its French acronym OAPI and the competent domestic courts found at the level of Member States which has become a breathing ground for confusion in the resolution of disputes. Due to both bodies having concurrent jurisdiction in dispute resolution, the cost has become unbearable on trademark owners or beneficiaries of an exclusive license of exploitation, coupled with inconsistency in judgements from the two structures. The article highlights some key improvements expanding trademark subject matter and provides information on how the two institutions cited above handle matters of jurisdiction based on case law. The article also brings to the limelight how the OAPI administrative litigation bodies can collaborate with the competent domestic courts to arrive at clear and concise decisions. In conclusion the paper provides some recommendations on bridging the gap between both jurisdictions in order to attain the objectives of all parties involved.

The present article explores the implication of fairness as a regulatory and competition law concept applied to digital and Artificial Intelligence markets, in light of recent law and policy developments targeting the interaction between data, market power and competition law. Much of the policy discussions, legislative proposals as well some emerging case law elevate the matter of “fairness” in the context of digital markets and AI, creating both a novel regulatory framework as well as encouraging competition law to curb “unfairness” of said markets and related “unfair practices”. The interface between intellectual property rights and competition law is of utmost importance in this context, where we might find similar analogous insights as we can find regarding the matter of fairness within traditional EU competition law. Further, the question remains whether the “fairness norm” expressed in regulatory acts such Digital Markets Act, EU AI Act and the EU Data Act are akin to the “fairness” norms found in Union competition law, mainly under Article 102 Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU).

The freedom of the parties to choose the applicable law to the merits is often presented as an important benefit of arbitrating disputes involving intellectual property (IP). Yet, the reality is more uncertain and controversial than is commonly assumed. Is party autonomy really permitted in IP arbitration? Should it be? This article answers these questions with regard to patents, trademarks, and copyrights, using recent examples drawn from arbitral practice. It first examines the situation where the parties only made a choice of contract law, and considers in this regard whether that law can and/or should be extended to infringement claims and/or the remedies to infringement, either directly or through the technique of characterization. After discussing the impact of overriding mandatory rules in contractual IP cases, the article then examines the situation where the parties chose a law to govern IP questions, including by way of a broad choice-of-law agreement covering non-contractual problems. It seeks to provide as much guidance as possible to arbitral tribunals, using mainly the distinction among infringement, ownership, and validity issues, and by distinguishing among different scenarios in which party autonomy is more or less acceptable.

One of the issues faced by many creative economy actors in this relatively newly established industry is the lack of supporting infrastructure, such as the limited access to financing and one of the prominent issues is banks’ reluctance to accept intellectual property (“IP”) as collateral to secure loans including problems concerning valuation of IP Asset as Collateral which has implications several regulation concerning Intellectual Property. In the spirit of furthering the creative economy, the Government has recently issued Government Regulation Number 24 of 2022 on Intellectual Property-Based Creative Economy Financing. This matters includes in relation with IP assets that are exposed and exploited their product (goods or services) on the basis of exclusivity in financing and loan contractual scheme as collateral. This article normative legal research in which intended for studies that are literary and practical works which is Intellectual Property (IR) system in relation with valuation and execution as bank collateral either Indonesia prevailing law and Islamic (Syariah) Law. The result of this research that IP owners often deal with complex contractual relationships that involve different forms of cooperation in research, production or commercialization. most important aspect concerning capacity and competency with comprehensive knowledge deal with IP Asset as Collateral before Banks, and others financial institution, execution of guarantees as applied to Islamic banking has adopted many syariah law, in the practice, there are still many problems the implementation of guarantees as applied to Islamic banking has adopted many Islamic laws. However, in the practice, there are still many problems that arise from the Islamic law scope the concept of justice and the philosophy of maslahah.

The OAPI member states constitute a space for theharmonization of copyright in Africa. This harmonizationis yet to be completed, as attested by the conventionalrules relating to the publishing contract. In addition,investigating about the publishing contract in the OAPIspace requires an examination of both the text of theBangui Agreement and that of the national laws of the 17member states. Some differences must be pointed outkeeping in mind the question of possible conflict of laws.

As communication technologies have assisted in the rapid transfer of information and goods across borders, there has been a commensurate rise in transnational intellectual property litigation. In particular, use of the Internet for trade and consumption of information has led to simultaneous infringement of parallel intellectual property rights in multiple States. The chosen forum to resolve such a dispute is perceived to have significant effect upon the outcome of litigation. There is a need to closely evaluate current jurisdiction rules and recent reform proposals to determine the extent to which they facilitate or prevent litigants from making forum choices that can promote efficiency and fairness in the dispute resolution process. However, there is currently no formal international treaty that regulates how litigants may make forum choices during transnational intellectual property litigation. As a result, the range of forum choices available to litigants are determined by divergent domestic rules, meaning that litigants must enforce their intellectual property rights in forums within every State where the rights exist and have been infringed upon. In such as context, a critical issue is to consider is whether an international regulatory framework could be developed to facilitate appropriate forum choices which advances and calibrates efficiency and fairness in transnational intellectual property litigation. As most conceptions of appropriate forums are from a doctrinal perspective, it is necessary to create a theoretical framework to determine what constitutes an appropriate forum choice during a transnational intellectual property dispute. This theoretical framework can then be used to evaluate the merits of current rules on jurisdiction and determine whether they define a suitable range of available forums that allow litigants to make appropriate choices. The forum non conveniens doctrine also needs to be evaluated as it has the most developed case law that considers appropriate forums for civil disputes. Finally, the risks and benefits of developing an international regulatory framework needs to be examined to assess which method would be the most suitable way to facilitate appropriate forum choices. It is hoped that this research will assist courts and legal practitioners when making decisions about complicated jurisdiction issues during transnational intellectual property disputes, as well as enable policy makers to promote reform that facilitates more efficient and fair forum choices.

The study aims to find out how the provisions of the law are in violation of brand rights to nongender products and their protective forms, as well as how legal efforts should be made in violation of their laws. Legal protection for legitimate brands' owners is regulated within brand laws intended to give their owners exclusive rights. Legal measures that rights holders can make on broken brands can be made either by civil law or criminal law. Indonesia's brand registration system is a constituent system, and it is recommended that all efforts be quick to register a trademark or service brand for the creditor of intellectual property rights. The holding of a brand would be wise to appeal to the court immediately if there is any indication that a brand offense is committed by another and the cost is not greater.

This study analyzes intellectual property rights disputes between PSGlow and MSGlow in terms of Law no. 20 of 2016 concerning Trademarks and Geographical Indications (analysis of case decision number: 2/pdt.sus.HKI/Merek/2022/pn.niaga Sby) which aims to explain and analyze the basic considerations of Surabaya Commercial Court judges in accepting lawsuits, explaining and analyzing how is the legal protection of trademarks that have been registered based on Law No. 20 of 2016 concerning Trademarks and Geographical Indications, explaining and analyzing whether there is an element of passing off between PS Glow and MS Glow based on Case Decision Number: 2/Pdt.Sus.HKI /Merek/2022/PN. Niaga Sby.The legal materials in this research are primary, secondary, and tertiary legal materials using normative research methods.The basis for consideration is that a lawsuit was filed from PS Glow for the use of the brand without rights against MS Glow. and legal protection for brands that have been registered under Law no. 20 of 2016 concerning Marks and Geographical Indications, namely that the penalties that will be imposed on these counterfeiters can be in the form of imprisonment, imprisonment and fines, as referred to in articles 100 to 102 of Law No. 20 of 2016 concerning Marks and Geographical Indications. and between PS Glow and MS Glow there is no element of passing off based on Case Decision Number: 2/Pdt.Sus.HKI/Merek/2022/PN.Niaga Sby, because the MS Glow brand registers its brand in HAKI in class 32 with the classification of powdered drinks and PS Glow registered their brand on Intellectual Property Rights in class 3 with a cosmetic classification.

Competition law and intellectual property law share the objective of incentivising innovation. However, this objective is achieved in different ways, which, at times, can create tension between the two areas of law. It is imperative that this tension at the interface of competition law and intellectual property law is resolved in a manner that encourages innovation. Issues regarding the licensing of intellectual property, Standard Essential Patents, pay-for-delay agreements and no-challenge clauses are instances where the tension between competition law and intellectual property law is especially prevalent. These instances will be discussed in detail, and what is learnt from how the European Union and Australia handles it, will be applied to South Africa. The European Union, Australia and South Africa have different ways of dealing with situations where the exercise of intellectual property rights has an effect on competition. The European Union has block exemptions, which contains “safe havens” for conduct in specific circumstances. The block exemptions are often accompanied by guidelines, providing firms and individuals with greater detail in order to self-assess their compliance with the exemption. Australia has authorisation, notification and class exemption procedures. Firms can apply to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission to authorise conduct that might potentially breach the Competition and Consumer Act 2010. Exemptions may also be granted more broadly by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission in terms of the class exemption procedures. In South Africa, the law concerning the interface between competition law and intellectual property is still in its infancy, and a lot can be learned from jurisdictions like the European Union and Australia regarding the most efficient way to handle this tension. Currently, the Competition Act 89 of 1998 in South Africa contains Section 10(4), the intellectual property exemption clause. A firm can apply to the Competition Commission for an intellectual property exemption from the application of Chapter 2 of the Competition Act “to an agreement or practice, or a category of agreements or practices” which pertains to the exercise of intellectual property rights. However, it is submitted that Section 10(4), by itself, is not the most efficient mechanism to resolve the tension that arises at the interface of competition law and intellectual property law in a way that incentivises innovation. It is proposed that the exemption provision can be made more effective if it is properly applied in conjunction with class exemptions and guidelines.

Indonesia has ratified the WTO/TRIPs Agreement convention and is in full compliance and non-reservation, the insistence of developed countries’ owners of Intellectual Property Rights against Indonesia, and the need for national Intellectual Property Rights. By looking at the above, legal protection is needed for every product and service, especially licenses for trade secrets in the Intellectual Property Rights component. The state imposes criminal sanctions on violators of Trade Secret rights as stipulated in chapter 17 (1) constitution number 30/2000. However, it is also hoped that the act of imposing sanctions by the state will return to the interests of the protected party by making the crime a complaint offense chapter 17 (2) constitution number 30/2000. There are repressive legal actions that can be carried out as chapter 11 constitution number 30/2000 states that the holder of trade secret rights or the licensee may sue anyone who deliberately or without rights commits the actions referred to in the article in the form of (a). Compensations claim and/or; (b). Cessation of all actions referred to in chapter 4 constitution number 30/2000.

Examining the harmonisation of Intellectual Property policy, law and administration in Africa, this book evaluates the effectiveness of efforts to establish continental Intellectual Property institutions and frameworks. It also considers sub-regional initiatives led by the regional economic communities and the regional Intellectual Property organisations, focusing on relevant protocols and agreements that address Intellectual Property as well as the implementing institutions. The book assesses the progress of such initiatives with particular reference to the current socio-economic status of African states. It argues that that harmonisation initiatives need to be crafted in a way that is supportive of the developmental goals of African states and advocates for due consideration of individual states’ unique conditions and aspirations. This book will be of great relevance to scholars and policy makers with an interest in Intellectual Property law and its harmonisation in Africa.

Conventionally, conflicts over intellectual property rights have been addressed primarily in national courts. Nonetheless, there has been a considerable inclination towards arbitration in recent years. For example, the number of cases decided under the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Rules is constantly increasing, and the number of specific IP-related arbitral institutions is rising as well. This is due, in part, to the territorially limited reach of state court procedures, which no longer match the needs of modern international commercial processes. The transition to arbitration is appropriate since arbitration is particularly well suited to settling intellectual property conflicts. Arbitration is a private process, which is especially beneficial in IP issues due to the sensitive nature of the material involved. Furthermore, specific knowledge is necessary to properly settle technological disputes, a challenge that might be overcome by choosing adequately competent arbitrators.

IKS stakeholders often debate the divide between indigenous and other knowledge systems. IP rightsholders seek advice on how they can strengthen and secure their proprietary rights or broaden the public domain, while other interest groups such as indigenous peoples and local communities want to know how the public domain can be enclosed. One reason for this divide seems to be that the IP regime operates in a sphere where the public domain is demarcated by individual rights, as opposed to the indigenous knowledge systems regime where the public domain is demarcated by social embeddedness and connected to the land on which indigenous peoples and local communities live. This problem manifested itself over centuries of colonialism and technological development worldwide, but also because indigenous worldviews do not share the pre-appropriation narrative of the public domain than technological advanced societies. Within the context of this narrative the research question was posed, namely "what are the appropriate legal instruments for protecting Indigenous Knowledge Systems without compromising the public domain?" To answer this question, the public domain was analysed from three perspectives, namely international law instruments, human rights and IP rights. It was found that none of these perspectives lead to a narrow interpretation of the public domain – in fact, they all aim to broaden the public domain. These early findings on the public domain assisted to apply the fundamentals of the public domain to international law instruments and their application to IKS. In this regard it has been shown that the existing international law instruments, as well as the natural evolvement of these instruments over time, adequately provides for the protection and commercial exploitation of IKS worldwide. There is a proviso, though: IKS need to be viewed through the WIPO lens, which provides for the distinct delineation of categories of IKS, namely traditional knowledge, traditional cultural expressions and genetic resources. For example, the Bern Convention is founded on the three principles of droits des auteurs, droit moral, and domaine public. The boundaries of the public domain within the context of IKS can be reconciled with all three of these principles, and national legislators merely need to apply these principles to national legislation. With these insights gained on international law instruments, a few countries were analysed to ascertain how they address their local challenges pertaining to IKS. The countries that were analysed all aimed to appreciate international law instruments to which they are signatories, while they develop country specific IKS-related jurisprudence, although it cannot be said to be the same in each country. None of the findings pertaining to these countries could provide convincing arguments as to why a sui generis system for IKS can work. The research then moved to a legal analysis of South African legislation in relation to IKS. It has been shown that in general, South African legislation on IP is well aligned with international law instruments. These findings assisted with the research question at hand and was instrumental with coming to the early conclusion that IKS neatly fits into South Africa's current IP regimes and their associated public domains. Throughout the thesis, the rights and obligations of IKS rightsholders were demarcated since no right is absolute, as has been shown when the South African Constitution was discussed. In this regard, the droit moral of individuals from indigenous peoples and local communities, as well as the indigenous peoples and local communities, are to be respected. This approach led to more practical measures to ensure that matters such as prior informed consent, secrecy and sacredness, equity and access to TK, TCE and GR and benefit sharing were all understood within the boundaries of the public domain.