Legal Aspects of International Business for Non-Lawyers: April 2015

1) Who was the original owner of the STOLYCHNAYA trademark? How did it end up in the hands of a private person in most copuntries other than Russia? What are grounds on which Russia claims the mark back?

2) Why are the issues of the trademark ownership decided separately in different jurisdictions? Should they? Perhaps Russian courts’ rulings should be decisive for all countries?

3) What does the human rights court (ECHR) have to do with trademarks? Is the trademark case its business at all?

4) What were the arguments of the parties in the ECHR? What was the Court’s judgment? What was its reasoning?

5) Did the ECHR resolve the trademark ownership issue on the merits?

6) What were central issues of the US litigation? What is “incontestability”? What is the difference between the invalidation of a trademark and the invalidation of its assignment?

7) Which grounds of Russia’s claims were dismissed by US courts? Which ones are still alive? What do you think the probable ultimate outcome is?

8) What were central issues of the Dutch litigation? What was the essence of the “tolerance vs. bad faith” argument in the Supreme Court? Why did the case go back to a first instance court?

9) What was the outcome in the first instance court? What was the court’s reasoning? Do you think the judgment is likely to be final?
10) What do you think would be the fair outcome of the dispute? Why?

Monday, April 13, 2015

Slides - Lecture 2

The second lecture slides (Trade and Trade Finance):
https://yadi.sk/d/0TwRkXdnfwkqF

Soyuzmultfilm Case: Films by Jove v. Berov (a US district court)

Essential reading:

The Battle for Cheburashka: Films by Jove, Inc. v. Berov and Copyright in Soviet Animated Films

https://yadi.sk/i/dDQrH3tNfwcDY

Read pages 343-350, 355-358, 362-364.

Additional reading:

The Battle for Cheburashka…

Read the rest of the article.

Technical reading:

Films by Jove, Inc. v. Berov, 154 F.Supp.2d 432 (E.D.N.Y. 2001).

http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp2/154/432/2429458/

Films by Jove, Inc. v. Berov, 250 F.Supp.2d 156 (E.D.N.Y. 2003).

https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2381043/films-by-jove-inc-v-berov/

Films by Jove, Inc. v. Berov, 341 F.Supp.2d 199 (E.D.N.Y. 2004).

http://www.leagle.com/decision/2004540341FSupp2d199_1523

Issues for discussion:

1) What court resolved the dispute? Who were the parties? What was the subject matter of the dispute?

2) Why did two different Soyuzmultfilms take part in the proceedings? How did they happen to find themselves adverse parties?

3) Which country’s law did the US court apply to decide who the copyright owner was? How did the court determine the meaning of unclear provisions of Russian law?

4) Which of the two Soyuzmultfilms was recognized by the US court as the copyright owner? Why?

5) What was the opinion of the Russian Supreme Arbitrazh Court on the matter? Why did the US court refuse to follow Russian Supreme Arbitrazh Court’s ruling?

6) Was the US court justified in making rulings on Russian law issues contrary to Russian highest court’s opinions? Is it US court’s business at all? Why or why not?

7) What was the outcome of the case? Was it fair as to the US licensee? To the alleged copyright infringer? To the Russian state? To the creator of the animated films? Why?

8) What happened after the judgment? Who currently is the owner of copyrights in old Soviet animated films?

Thursday, April 9, 2015

ECHR: Yukos v Russia

Essential reading:

Wikpedia. Yukos shareholders vs. Russia: Claim in the European Court of Human Rights (EHCR)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yukos_shareholders_vs._Russia#Claim_in_the_European_Court_of_Human_Rights_.28EHCR.29

Russia violated rights of Yukos oil company, rules European court

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/sep/20/russia-violated-yukos-rights-court

Reuters. European court rules Russia must pay Yukos shareholders 1.9 billion euros

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/07/31/uk-russia-yukos-echr-idUKKBN0G00QO20140731

Additional reading:

Analysis of the ECHR judgment in the YUKOS case

http://echrrussia.blogspot.co.uk/2011/09/analysis-of-echr-judgment-in-yukos-case.html

Technical reading:

ECHR. OAO Neftyanaya Kompaniya Yukos v. Russia (Application no. 14902/04).

Judgment (Merits). 20 September 2011.

See, in particular: Partly Dissenting Opinion of Judge Bushev, Joined In Part by Judge Hajiyev

http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/Pages/search.aspx#{"appno":["14902/04"],"itemid":["001-106308"]}

Judgment (Just satisfaction). 31 July 2014.

http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/Pages/search.aspx#{"appno":["14902/04"],"itemid":["001-145730"]}

Issues for discussion:

May a convention on human rights be applicable to a commercial company?
May a company that has already been liquidated be a party to legal proceedings?
What violations of the Convention by Russia were alleged by Yukos?
What violations were found by the Court?
What is the essence of the “expired statute of limitation” argument (by Yukos)? What were counter-arguments of Russia? What has the court decided? Was the decision unanimous?
How much did Yukos ask and how much was awarded to it?
What are the likely consequences if Russia does not comply with the Court decision?
Do you think the outcome is fair? Why or why not?
Do you think Russia must pay the award? Why or why not?

Golan v. Holder: Protection of “Old” Works under the Berne Convention and the WTO Agreements

Essential reading:

Wikipedia: Golan v. Holder

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golan_v._Holder

Supreme Court: Golan v. Holder (read the syllabus)

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-545.pdf

Critical comment: Supreme Court Gets It Wrong in Golan v. Holder, Public Domain Mourns

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/01/supreme-court-gets-it-wrong-golan-v-holder-public-domain-mourns

Additional reading:

Brief for Golan (read pages 14-18):

http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Golan-Merits-Brief-FILED.pdf

Brief for the US (read pages 10-13):

http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Golan-response-for-the-US.pdf

Technical reading (optional):

Berne Convention: Article 18

http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/text.jsp?file_id=283698#P205_40480

TRIPS Agreement: Article 9

https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/trips_e/t_agm3_e.htm#1

Uruguay

Round Agreements Act: Section 514

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Uruguay_Round_Agreements_Act/Title_V#SEC._514._RESTORED_WORKS.

Issues for discussion:

What does the Berne Convention say about the protection of foreign works created before a country joined the convention?
The US joined the Berne Convention in 1989. Why did old foreign works remained to be unprotected? Why the rule was changed in 1994?
Why US musicians were unhappy with the new rule?
What were the major arguments of the musicians in court?
What were the major arguments of their opponents (the government)?
Do you think the copyright law restricts free speech?
What was the decision of the US Supreme Court? What was its reasoning?
What do you think was more beneficial for the US: to be smart and find a way to circumvent the requirements of the international treaty unpleasant for US musicians, or to be honest and comply with international obligations in good faith? Why?

Welcome Message

Dear Students,

This is a blog of the Legal Aspects of International Business for Non-Lawyers class (Spring 2015) at the Faculty of World Economy and International Affairs, the Higher School of Economics, Moscow.

To see the program of the course, follow the link:
https://yadi.sk/i/NKbujLkLfshMq

The first lecture slides (International Business and International Law):
https://yadi.sk/i/PlYE3tEZfshfV

I will post assignments, reading materials, and presentations here.

You may post your comments here or write to me directly.

Sergey Budylin