Formative Assessment 2 for: Research Methodology - Critically Evaluate and Analyse Which Between the Two Jurisdictions is More Tolerant of Ip Protection

Abstract

The strength of intellectual property (IP) rights will depend on the national law that grants them. However, different jurisdictions vary in the extent of IP safeguard they offer due to cultural standards, local laws, judicial interpretations and enforcement mechanisms. This research utilises a positivist epitisimological approach to explore and discuss the European Union (EU) and the United Kingdom’s (UK) intellectual property law systems.  The aim is to critically evaluate and analyse which between the two jurisdictions is more tolerant of IP protection and which is more compliant with IP international agreements and conventions.

Introduction

The need for IP protection has become apparent now more than ever. From the first multinational endeavour to provide creators assurance that their ideas would be safe from being stolen or exploited in other countries,  to the present times when IP laws are vital for business survival.  Despite its evolution and development, IP rights remain to be under the umbrella of national territory, save for limited exceptions.   Even if IP springs from the deepest personal source, that is, a person’s intellect, the value of its existence and scope of its application are contingent on universal validation.

Considerable efforts for a uniform IP framework have been initiated among nations. Specifically, the Patent Cooperation Theory (1970)  laid out a system for patents, while the Madrid Agreement of International Registration of Trade Marks (1891) and the Madrid Protocol (1989) advance the same structure for trade marks,  and the Hague Agreement of Deposit of International Designs (1925) permits a single design application that will be recognised on all the countries that are signatories to it.  The common denominator for all these international agreements, however, is the governing force of the national law of the individual states which has the last say on the enforcement and application of the IP law on their respective jurisdictions.  

Because IP law is driven by supranational clout from the international sphere,  the EU endeavoured to harmonise critical areas of IP law by creating a centralised union-wide framework to have an unvarying application and enforcement across borders.  However, domestic courts, especially the UK, are often seen to restrict worldwide influence in the interpretation of IP principles, and one notable example is in the area of internationally recognised human rights law.  Based on this premise, my research aims to accomplish the following objectives: 

• Gather data from case laws and other reliable sources on the governing laws commonly enforced in the EU and UK;
• Critically evaluate and analyse which between the two jurisdictions is more compliant with international conventions and agreements concerning IP, focusing on the area of human rights law vis-à-vis breach of confidentiality;
• Critically evaluate and analyse the gathered data to evaluate which of the two nations are more tolerant towards IP rights; and
• Critically evaluate and analyse which between the EU and UK offers greater protection to would be and current IP users.