Balance of Interests in the Mechanism of Protection of Industrial Property Rights

  • Iryna KOVAL Department of Civil Law Faculty of Law, Vasyl’ Stus Donetsk National University, Vinnitsia, Ukraine
  • Gulnara DZHUMAGELDIYEVA Department of Law and Law Enforcement Activities, Faculty of Public Administration and Law Zhytomyr State Technological University, Zhytomyr, Ukraine
  • Bogdan DEREVYANKO Department of Economic Law Faculty of Law, Donetsk Law Institute of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Ukraine, Kryvyi Rih, Ukraine
  • Iryna VENEDIKTOVA Department of Civil Law Faculty of Law, V. N. Karazin Kharkiv National University, Ukraine
  • Nino PATSURIIA Department of Economic Law Faculty of LawTaras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv, Ukraine
  • Svitlana PATIUK Department of Civil Law Faculty of Law Vasyl’ Stus Donetsk National University, Ukraine


The research deals with the relationship of private and public interests that are implemented in intellectual property relations and balance of these interests in mechanism of protection.

This study uses the complex of main known methods of scientific knowledge: historical legal, forecasting, hermeneutical semantic, structural functional, logical semantic, dogmatic, complex analysis, system structural, comparative. The purpose of the study is determining the scope, content and relationship of interests in the intellectual property relations, justifying the conceptual foundations of balancing these interests in the management of intellectual capital through the legal regulation and economic mechanisms.

The authors conclude that efficient functioning of intellectual property relations in terms of their scope, content and relationship of interests can be ensured only by means of legal regulation, which organically combines dispositive and imperative principles. The interdependence of such principles determines the key basis of the legal regulation of intellectual property management and should be reflected in all aspects of the development of intellectual property relations, in particular, the grounds for their emergence, change, termination, subject composition, conceptual distinguishing features of legal relations of right holders, etc.


[1] Badaruddin, B., Azis, N., Sofian, H., Basri, H. 2019. Relationship between creativity, business network and independence in entrepreneurship of Aceh Youth. 2019. Theoretical and Practical Research in the Economic Fields. Volume X Issue 1(19) 2019. 74-80.
[2] Chervinsʹka, L.P. 2010. Use of innovative labor activity. Economics, finance, law. No. 2. 3–8.
[3] Chervinsʹka, L.P., Kalʹnitsʹkyy, M.I. 2010. Innovative labor activity: essence and features. Economics, finance, law. No. 9. 11–15.
[4] Council Directive 91/250/EEC of 14 May 1991 on the legal protection of computer programs. Official Journal of the European Communities. L 122, 17.5.1991, 42.
[5] Declaration on the TRIPS agreement and public health, adopted on 14 November 2001. URL:
[6] Demezhanova, S.M., Kaudyrov, T.E., Demidova, G.S. 2019. Analyzing the Litigation Practice Concerned with the Consideration of Intellectual Property Cases in Kazakhstan. Journal of Advanced Research in Law and Economics, Volume X Issue 1(39) Spring 2019. 124–133.
[7] Hansen, C.J. 2018. Permission Impossible: An Exception-Based Legislative Solution for Digitizing Copyright-Protected Works, 17 CHI.–KENT J. INTELL. PROP. 74. Available at:
[8] Harashima, T. 2018. Wage inequality and innovative intelligence-biased technological change. Theoretical and Practical Research in the Economic Fields, IX Issue 1(17) Summer 2018. 17–24.
[9] Heller, M.A. Eisenberg, R.S. 1998. Can Patents Deter Innovation? The Anticommons in Biomedical Research. American Association for the Advancement of Science. Vol. 280. 698–701.Available at:
[10] Intellectual Property Association of European Football Associations: Legal Protection and Protection in Ukraine. 2010. Kyiv: State Department of Intellectual Property: 200.
[11] Maslyukov, P. 2001. Features of legal regulation of employee's inventions in the UK. Analysis of legislation and judicial practice. Intellectual property. Industrial property. No. 9. 64–72.
[12] Naumenko, I.N. 2009. Basic principles in the relationship of public and private interests in civil law. Leningrad Law Journal. 2009. No. 2 (16). 193–199.
[13] Powles, J., Liddicoat, J. 2018. United Kingdom Patent Decisions 2017. International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law. March 2018.Volume 49. Issue 3. 318–323.
[14] Rădoi, M.I., Șerban, R. 2019. Regional Innovation – A Pillar of Regional Competitiveness and an Object of Regional Development Policy. 2019. Journal of Advanced Research in Management, X Issue 1(19) Summer 2019. 35–43.
[15] Kumar, R., Das, A.J. 2016. Scenario of intellectual property right on microorganism and microbiological research: an imperative need to amend. Intеrnational Journal of Intellectual Property Management. Vol. 9. No. 1. 1–4.
[16] Shatkovskaya, T.V., Epifanova, T.V. 2016. Correlation of Private and Public Legal Interests as Theoretical and Scientific and Practical Problem of Modern Law. Journal of Advanced Research in Law and Economics, VII, Issue 3(17), Summer 2016. 625–630.
[17] Shavell, S. 2001. Rewards versus intellectual property rights. J. of law a.economics. Chicago, Vol. 44, № 1. 525–547.
[18] Shishkin, S.N. 2011. Business-legal (economic and legal) bases of state regulation of economy: Monograph.Russian Academy of Sciences. Institute of State and Law.M.: Publishing house Infotropic Media: 328.
[19] Skrypnyuk, O.V. et al. 2008. Political system of Ukraine under conditions of the interaction of civil society and the rule of law. Monograph. Academy of Law Sciences of Ukraine. The Scientific-Research Institute of Private Law and Entrepreneurship. Monograph. Kyiv–Ternopil: Publishing house Textbooks and manuals: 224.
[20] Sudarikov, S.A.; Grek, N.G.; Bahrenʹkova, K.A. 2004. Economics and Intellectual Property. M.: Publishing house of business and educational literature: 512.
[21] The Civil Code of Ukraine. 2003. dated January 16, 2003. No. 435-IV. Retrieved from
[22] Ventose, E.D. 2014. Australian High Court rules on patentability of methods of medical treatment. Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice. URL:
How to Cite
KOVAL, Iryna et al. Balance of Interests in the Mechanism of Protection of Industrial Property Rights. Journal of Advanced Research in Law and Economics, [S.l.], v. 10, n. 3, p. 819-827, june 2019. ISSN 2068-696X. Available at: <>. Date accessed: 18 july 2024. doi: