Bibliographie sélective OHADA

Patents are considered as investments protected under the International Investment Law. Although, these properties are protected under the principle of territoriality, similar to other investments, they can be expropriated as a result of host states’ regulatory measures inconsistent with protection standards stemming from foreign investment protection regulations and treaties including fair and equitable treatment and legitimate expectations of foreign investors. Considering the fact that few arbitration awards have been issued by arbitration panels in this regard, it is yet difficult to claim there is a strong precedent in International Investment Law. Nevertheless, reflecting the provisions of international regulations, the stance of the domestic law and the most important relevant case, this article provides the most significant elements of indirect expropriation as well as existing doctrines in this respect and further investigates whether invalidation of patents can amount to indirect expropriation. It will also be mentioned that despite the fact that according to several foreign investment protection treaties, invalidation of patents shall not be subject to regulations regarding indirect or creeping expropriation, the final determination lies with the arbitration panel. یکی از مصادیق سرمایه‌گذاری خارجی مورد حمایت در حقوق بین‌الملل سرمایه‌گذاری، اختراعات است. این دسته از دارایی‌ها علی‌رغم به رسمیت شناخته شدن در پرتو اصل سرزمینی بودن حمایت، همانند سایر سرمایه‌گذاری‌ها می‌توانند تحت تدابیر حاکمیتی دول میزبان که مغایر با استانداردهای حمایتی نشأت گرفته از قوانین و معاهدات بین‌المللی حمایت از سرمایه‌گذاری خارجی همچون شرط رفتار عادلانه و منصفانه و صیانت از انتظارات مشروع و معقول سرمایه‌گذار می‌باشند، با خطراتی همچون سلب مالکیت مواجه شوند. نظر به صدور آرای معدود مراجع بین‌المللی در این خصوص، سخن گفتن از شکل‌گیری رویه‌ای متقن در این راستا دشوار می‌باشد. با این حال، در این نوشتار ضمن بررسی مهمترین عناصر متشکله سلب مالکیت غیرمستقیم و دکترین‌های موجود در این زمینه، به بررسی قابلیت تطبیق ابطال گواهی ثبت اختراع با سلب مالکیت غیرمستقیم پرداخته و با تشریح مقررات برخی اسناد بین‌المللی، موضع حقوق داخلی و مهم‌ترین پرونده مربوط به این موضوع در حقوق سرمایه‌گذاری خارجی در ابعاد گوناگون آن مداقه نموده و در نهایت به این نتیجه خواهیم رسید که حتی در صورت مستثنی نمودن ابطال گواهی ثبت اختراع از مقررات مربوط به سلب مالکیت در معاهدات حمایت از سرمایه‌گذاری خارجی، تشخیص نهایی تحقق سلب مالکیت با دیوان داوری است.

Le droit de la propriété intellectuelle français constitue un régime de droit spécial des biens. Si les conditions d’appropriation sont spécifi ques et ne s’appuient guère sur le droit civil, le régime de la propriété, la circulation et l’exploitation des biens intellectuels font, en revanche, largement appel au droit commun civil, princi palement par le biais d’un mécanisme supplétif et, parfois, par le biais d’un renvoi express. Cet article propose quelques illustrations de ce lien constant qui permet, d’une part, d’apporter à la propriété intellectuelle les compléments de régime dont elle a impérativement besoin et, d’autre part, de confronter les solutions du droit civil aux meubles incorporels.

The right to health and the right to development are intertwined socio-economic rights that affect the well being and growth of a country’s populace. Most developing and least developed countries face challenges in ensuring access to essential medicines vis a vis the realisation of the right to health and full potential of development. Patents, provided for under the TRIPS Agreement are partly to blame for the lack of access to essential medicines as they account for the excessive pricing of medicines. Zimbabwe being a developing country currently facing dire economic and political challenges but being obliged under the International and Regional Human Rights Conventions it subscribed to, has to ensure the progressive realisation of the right to health and development. However, as a member of the TRIPS Agreement, there are limitations to the country’s ability to ensure access to medicines and healthcare for developmental purposes. This thesis has outlined the problematic provisions of the TRIPS Agreement and Zimbabwe’s attempt to use the flexibilities provided to its advantage. Zimbabwe has only put into use the flexibility of compulsory licensing and parallel importation to a limited extent; hence the recommendation that even though the country has domesticated the Agreement to its advantage, the country needs to explore other flexibilities comprehensively and promote the realisation of the rights to health and development.

La fabrication, l’utilisation et la vente aux États-Unis d’un produit couvert par un brevet américain, sans l’autorisation du breveté, constitue une contrefaçon de ce brevet. Toutefois, certains développements législatifs et des décisions de justice rendues ces dernières années ont montré que la portée d’un brevet américain pouvait être étendue à des activités se produisant en dehors du territoire américain. The unauthorized making use or sale within the United States of a product covered by a U.S. patent infringes the patent. However, in many cases damages and liability for infringing U.S. patents can extend beyond purely domestic uses to cover activities taking place far outside the United States. U.S. patents may cover activities that have little or nothing to do with the United States. Many companies are unaware of this surprisingly broad geographic reach. This article reviews such activities.

Le présent travail propose une étude approfondie de la définition de la marque renommée et de la protection dont elle bénéficie à l’heure actuelle au niveau national, à la lumière du nouveau contexte européen et international.

Comment les droits de propriété intellectuelle (DPI), création de l’esprit, reflet de la personnalité du créateur, attachés à celui-ci ne s’éteignent pas simultanément lorsque cesse la vie de la personne par laquelle ils existent ? Telle est la question qui anime souvent les esprits lorsqu’on parle de dévolution successorale des DPI. Et pourtant, cette transmission a sa raison d’être. Elle a été consacrée par divers textes internationaux et nationaux. Mais en l’absence des règles spécifiques en la matière, il est généralement fait recours au droit commun des successions. Cependant, certains pays ont institué sans réserve au profit du conjoint survivant la totalité de l’usufruit sur le droit de suite. Or, celui-ci est la plus importante des prérogatives en matière d’arts graphiques et plastiques. C’est la seule qui rapporte des revenus à leurs titulaires et il n’est pas rare que certaines personnes aient investi exclusivement dans ces domaines. Les prérogatives patrimoniales étant temporaires, la question de savoir si l’usufruit du conjoint survivant ne porterait pas atteinte à la réserve héréditaire à toute sa logique. De cette analyse, il nous apparaît que la réserve héréditaire n’est pas garantie dans la dévolution successorale des DPI du fait de la vigueur de l’usufruit du conjoint survivant. Il s’avère alors nécessaire d’adopter des règles adaptées aux spécifiques des DPI. How the intellectual property rights (IPR), creation of the mind, reflection of the personality of the creator, attached to this one do not extinguish simultaneously when the life of the person by whom they exist ceases? This is the question that animates generally people's minds when it comes to the inheritance of IPRs. And yet, this transmission has its raison d'être. It has been consecrated by various international and national texts. But in the absence of specific rules in this area, recourse is generally had to the common law of inheritance. However, some countries have instituted the entire usufruct on the resale right for the benefit of the surviving spouse. However, this is the most important prerogative in terms of graphic and plastic arts. It is the only one that earns income for its holders and it is not uncommon that some people have invested exclusively in these areas. Of view of a temporally character of others attributes of IPRs, the question of whether the usufruct of the surviving spouse would not affect the inheritance reserve in all its logic. From this analysis, it appears to us that the hereditary reserve is not guaranteed in the inheritance of IPRs due to the strength of the usufruct of the surviving spouse. It then becomes necessary to adopt rules adapted to the specifics of IPRs.