Advanced

Den territoriella begränsningen och extraterritoriella tillämpningen inom immaterialrätten och den internationella privat- och processrätten

Rättzén, Mattias LU (2015) LAGM01 20151
Department of Law
Abstract (Swedish)
Det internationella immaterialrättsliga rättssystemet har etablerats på grundsatsen att immaterialrättigheter är territoriella och därmed begränsade sett till innehåll och omfång till respektive skyddsland. Den territoriella begränsningen bekräftas av bl.a. Bernkonventionen och Pariskonventionen på området och är väl förankrad i svensk rätt, dock väldigt sällan i lagtext. Eftersom immaterialrättigheter per definition är ogripbara kan de med lätthet exploateras över gränser. Globaliseringen och framväxten av internet har påskyndat och ytterligare underlättat denna spridning. En intrångshandling kan, utan hinder av gränser, företas i ett land och få effekt i ett annat. Att immaterialrättigheter trots denna utveckling kvarstår som... (More)
Det internationella immaterialrättsliga rättssystemet har etablerats på grundsatsen att immaterialrättigheter är territoriella och därmed begränsade sett till innehåll och omfång till respektive skyddsland. Den territoriella begränsningen bekräftas av bl.a. Bernkonventionen och Pariskonventionen på området och är väl förankrad i svensk rätt, dock väldigt sällan i lagtext. Eftersom immaterialrättigheter per definition är ogripbara kan de med lätthet exploateras över gränser. Globaliseringen och framväxten av internet har påskyndat och ytterligare underlättat denna spridning. En intrångshandling kan, utan hinder av gränser, företas i ett land och få effekt i ett annat. Att immaterialrättigheter trots denna utveckling kvarstår som territoriella har inneburit såväl praktiska som rättsliga svårigheter. Den territoriella begränsningen har setts som ett hinder för beivrandet av gränsöverskridande immaterialrättsintrång, något som kommit till uttryck i både den materiella rätten och den internationella privat- och processrätten. Rättsläget har bidragit till ett behov av en internationell harmonisering inom immaterialrätten, vilket inom EU har särskilt resulterat i inrättandet av gemenskapsrättigheter.


Följden av territorialitet har inom den internationella privat- och processrätten blivit en fragmenterad processföring och en distributiv tillämpning av olika länders lagar. Immaterialrättsintrång måste i stor utsträckning prövas av domstolarna i respektive skyddsland. Någon möjlighet till konsolidering av intrångsprocesser saknas ofta. När intrång är ubikvitära och begås i flera länder samtidigt kan den praktiska konsekvensen bli höga rättegångskostnader, tidsödande rättsprocesser och motstridiga avgöranden i olika domstolar. Samtidigt måste i de flesta fall skyddslandets lag tillämpas för immaterialrättsintrång. Även i dessa fall uppstår betungande praktiska svårigheter när flera länders lagar behöver tillämpas. Det vore dock felaktigt att utifrån detta tolka territorialitetsprincipen som att innebära en exklusivitet inom den internationella privat- och processrätten. På flera håll kan det också identifieras fall då undantag har gjorts från en strikt territorialitet. Slutsatsen blir att territorialitet som en i huvudsak materiellrättslig princip inte i sig har någon betydelse i den internationella privat- och processrätten, utan det är snarare dess relevans som ett lämplighetsskäl som får en inverkan. Konsekvensen blir att om en svensk domstol finner andra lämplighetsskäl än territorialitet som talar för en annan närmare koppling till tvisten ifråga, bör det principiellt sett inte finnas något hinder för att avvika från territorialitetsprincipen.


En liknande slutsats kan dras i den materiella rätten. Någon strikt territorialitet existerar inte och det finns inget hinder för att låta utländska förhållanden beaktas i materiellrättsliga bedömningar. Ställningstagandet blir av väsentlig betydelse för lokaliseringen av intrång, som i sin tur blir av stor vikt för den internationella privat- och processrätten som ett materiellrättsligt lämplighetsskäl. När gränsöverskridande immaterialrättsintrång begås, där en intrångshandling företas i ett land och får effekt i ett annat, är en extraterritoriell tillämpning i viss mån nödvändig för att ett intrång överhuvudtaget ska anses begås. Lokaliseringsbedömningen innebär i dessa fall att en svensk domstol, i den mån EU-domstolen inte givit några uttalanden, har en valfrihet att välja var intrånget begås. Ju fler gränsöverskridande förhållanden som inryms i lokaliseringsbedömningen desto svårare blir det att precisera var ett specifikt intrång kan ske. Det finns då en betydande risk för att tillämpligheten av nationella immaterialrättigheter utsträcks i för omfattande utsträckning på förhållanden utomlands, ofta till syfte att skydda nationella intressen, utan att ta hänsyn till de risker som detta innebär. För att undvika en alltför vidsträckt extraterritoriell tillämpning till nackdel för andra stater och potentiella utländska intrångsgörare har det dragits slutsatsen att lämplighetsskäl även här måste beaktas och att en stor försiktighet är berättigad.


Resultatet blir att territorialitet och extraterritorialitet påverkar varandra. Förhållandet mellan dem får följden att det varken är lämpligt att låta territorialitet få en strikt eller vidsträckt tillämpning inom både immaterialrätten och den internationella privat- och processrätten. Ett balanserat förhållningssätt är befogat som tar hänsyn till de olika intressen och omständigheter som finns i det enskilda fallet. På det materiellrättsliga planet bör en väsentlig territoriell koppling identifieras och på det internationella privat- och processrättsliga planet bör en nära koppling till tvisten ifråga väljas. Endast då kan territorialitet som ett hinder i det internationella immaterialrättsliga rättssystemet undvikas samtidigt som det respekteras att någon omfattande internationell harmonisering inte existerar eller förväntas att existera inom den närmaste framtiden. (Less)
Abstract
The international intellectual property system has been established on the principle that intellectual property rights are territorial and therefore limited, with respect to content and scope, to the country of protection. The territorial limitation in intellectual property law is enshrined in the Berne Convention and the Paris Convention and is well rooted in Swedish law, albeit to a large extent outside legislation. Since intellectual property rights per definition are intangible they can cross borders without difficulty. Globalisation and the emergence of internet have expedited and further facilitated such dissemination. An act of infringement can be undertaken in one country and result in an effect in another country, regardless of... (More)
The international intellectual property system has been established on the principle that intellectual property rights are territorial and therefore limited, with respect to content and scope, to the country of protection. The territorial limitation in intellectual property law is enshrined in the Berne Convention and the Paris Convention and is well rooted in Swedish law, albeit to a large extent outside legislation. Since intellectual property rights per definition are intangible they can cross borders without difficulty. Globalisation and the emergence of internet have expedited and further facilitated such dissemination. An act of infringement can be undertaken in one country and result in an effect in another country, regardless of the existence of state boundaries between the two. The fact that intellectual property rights despite this remain territorial has amounted to both practical and legal difficulties. Territoriality has been regarded as an obstacle to the litigation of cross-border infringements, which has been reflected in substantive law and private international law. The situation has prompted the need for harmonisation, which in the EU has resulted in the establishment of community rights.


The implications of territoriality in private international law have been a fragmentation of litigation and enforcement and a distributive application of divergent national intellectual property laws. Intellectual property infringements must often be disputed before the courts in the respective country of protection. A possibility for consolidation of proceedings is typically lacking. When infringements are ubiquitous and committed in several countries at the same time, the practical consequence can be high litigation costs, lengthy court proceedings and conflicting decisions from courts in different countries. Furthermore, the law of the country of protection has to be applied in most situations for intellectual property infringements. This in turn results in additional practical difficulties when a multiplicity of laws are applied. It would be incorrect, however, to conclude from this that the territoriality principle implies an exclusivity in private international law. In several cases, exceptions from a strict territorial approach can be found. The conclusion is therefore that territoriality is predominantly a principle of substantive law that has no significance in itself in private international law. Instead, it is its relevance as a connecting factor that has an impact on private international law. The consequence is that, if a Swedish court finds other factors than territoriality that justify a different and closer connection to a dispute, there should in principle be no barrier against a departure from the territoriality principle.


A similar conclusion can be reached in substantive law. A principle of strict territoriality does not exist and there should be no hindrance to let foreign circumstances and activities be taken into account in matters of substantive law. This view is critical to the localisation of infringements, which in turn is of significant importance to the private international law as a substantive connecting factor. When cross-border intellectual property infringements are committed, where an act of infringement is undertaken in one country and has its effect in another country, an extraterritorial application is to a certain extent necessary to find any infringement in any country. The localisation of infringements in these cases means that a Swedish court, to the extent that the European Court of Justice has not spoken on the issue, has a choice to consider where the infringement was committed. The more cross-border activities that are taken into account when localising infringements, the harder it is to pinpoint a single place of infringement. In such cases, there is a significant risk that national intellectual property rights are extended too far to activities abroad, often to protect national interests and without taking any risks into consideration. To avoid an overly far-reaching extraterritorial application to the detriment of other states and potential foreign infringers, it has been concluded that connecting factors have to be considered here as well and with due caution.


The result is that both territoriality and extraterritoriality influence each other. The mirrored relation between the two suggests that it is undue to let territoriality either have a strict or expansive application in both intellectual property law and private international law. A balanced approach is instead justified and appropriate, which takes into account the divergent interests involved and the particular circumstances in each case. On the level of substantive law, a significant territorial connection should be identified, whereas on the level of private international law, a close connection to the dispute in question should be chosen. Only with such considerations can territoriality as an obstacle in the international intellectual property system be avoided while at the same time respecting the reality that no significant international harmonisation exists or is envisaged to exist in the near future. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
@misc{7762311,
  abstract     = {The international intellectual property system has been established on the principle that intellectual property rights are territorial and therefore limited, with respect to content and scope, to the country of protection. The territorial limitation in intellectual property law is enshrined in the Berne Convention and the Paris Convention and is well rooted in Swedish law, albeit to a large extent outside legislation. Since intellectual property rights per definition are intangible they can cross borders without difficulty. Globalisation and the emergence of internet have expedited and further facilitated such dissemination. An act of infringement can be undertaken in one country and result in an effect in another country, regardless of the existence of state boundaries between the two. The fact that intellectual property rights despite this remain territorial has amounted to both practical and legal difficulties. Territoriality has been regarded as an obstacle to the litigation of cross-border infringements, which has been reflected in substantive law and private international law. The situation has prompted the need for harmonisation, which in the EU has resulted in the establishment of community rights.


The implications of territoriality in private international law have been a fragmentation of litigation and enforcement and a distributive application of divergent national intellectual property laws. Intellectual property infringements must often be disputed before the courts in the respective country of protection. A possibility for consolidation of proceedings is typically lacking. When infringements are ubiquitous and committed in several countries at the same time, the practical consequence can be high litigation costs, lengthy court proceedings and conflicting decisions from courts in different countries. Furthermore, the law of the country of protection has to be applied in most situations for intellectual property infringements. This in turn results in additional practical difficulties when a multiplicity of laws are applied. It would be incorrect, however, to conclude from this that the territoriality principle implies an exclusivity in private international law. In several cases, exceptions from a strict territorial approach can be found. The conclusion is therefore that territoriality is predominantly a principle of substantive law that has no significance in itself in private international law. Instead, it is its relevance as a connecting factor that has an impact on private international law. The consequence is that, if a Swedish court finds other factors than territoriality that justify a different and closer connection to a dispute, there should in principle be no barrier against a departure from the territoriality principle.


A similar conclusion can be reached in substantive law. A principle of strict territoriality does not exist and there should be no hindrance to let foreign circumstances and activities be taken into account in matters of substantive law. This view is critical to the localisation of infringements, which in turn is of significant importance to the private international law as a substantive connecting factor. When cross-border intellectual property infringements are committed, where an act of infringement is undertaken in one country and has its effect in another country, an extraterritorial application is to a certain extent necessary to find any infringement in any country. The localisation of infringements in these cases means that a Swedish court, to the extent that the European Court of Justice has not spoken on the issue, has a choice to consider where the infringement was committed. The more cross-border activities that are taken into account when localising infringements, the harder it is to pinpoint a single place of infringement. In such cases, there is a significant risk that national intellectual property rights are extended too far to activities abroad, often to protect national interests and without taking any risks into consideration. To avoid an overly far-reaching extraterritorial application to the detriment of other states and potential foreign infringers, it has been concluded that connecting factors have to be considered here as well and with due caution.


The result is that both territoriality and extraterritoriality influence each other. The mirrored relation between the two suggests that it is undue to let territoriality either have a strict or expansive application in both intellectual property law and private international law. A balanced approach is instead justified and appropriate, which takes into account the divergent interests involved and the particular circumstances in each case. On the level of substantive law, a significant territorial connection should be identified, whereas on the level of private international law, a close connection to the dispute in question should be chosen. Only with such considerations can territoriality as an obstacle in the international intellectual property system be avoided while at the same time respecting the reality that no significant international harmonisation exists or is envisaged to exist in the near future.},
  author       = {Rättzén, Mattias},
  keyword      = {Territorialitet,Territorialitetsprincipen,Rom II-förordningen,Den territoriella begränsningen,Bryssel I-förordningen,Tillämplig lag,Domsrätt,Gränsdragningen mellan immaterialrätt och internationell privat- och processrätt,Internationell privat- och processrätt,Immaterialrätt,Skyddslandsprincipen,Extraterritorialitet,Extraterritoriell tillämpning,Lokalisering av intrång,Lokalisering,Extraterritoriality and intellectual property law,Intellectual Property Law,Private International Law,Territoriality Principle,Territorial Limitation,Territoriality,Localisation of infringements,Extraterritoriality,Extraterritorial application,Territoriality and intellectual property law},
  language     = {swe},
  note         = {Student Paper},
  title        = {Den territoriella begränsningen och extraterritoriella tillämpningen inom immaterialrätten och den internationella privat- och processrätten},
  year         = {2015},
}