YEARBOOK 2009 / I - AIPPI

The co-owned IP Rights may give the co-owners the dominant position on the market and their
agreement on the co-owned IP Rights (when for example it prohibits the licensing) may also
be seen as eliminating the competitors from the market.
The groups are therefore invited to explain if their national laws had to treat such situations
and what were the solutions adopted in those cases.
Our Law does not treat this specific aspect of IP and Competition Law.
6) The groups are invited to investigate once more the question of the applicable law that could
be used to govern the co-ownership of various rights coexisting in different countries.
This point was left for further study by the paragraph 9 of the resolution adopted in
Singapore.
And more specifically the Groups are requested to indicate if their national laws accept
that the co-ownership of an IP Right, even if there is no contractual agreement between
the co-owners, may be ruled by the national law of the country which presents the closest
connections with the IP Right.
If this is the case, what in the opinion of the Groups would then be the elements to take into
the consideration to assess this connection?
The Groups of the EU Countries are in this context asked to indicate if they consider that
Council Regulation of June 17, 2008 (No 593/2008), so called “Rome I” may be applicable
to the Co-Ownership agreements.
In the absence of an agreement between the co-owners establishing that the co-ownership of
an IP granted in Argentina and other countries will be ruled by a foreign legislation, then the
matter of the co-ownership of the IP right granted in Argentina will be ruled by its laws.
7) Finally, the groups are also invited to present all other issues which appear to be relevant to
the question and which were not discussed neither in these working guidelines, nor in the
previous ones for the 2007 ExCo in Singapore.
No further comments.
II)
Proposal for the future harmonisation
The groups are invited to present any recommendation that can be followed in the view of
the further harmonisation of national laws in the context of co-ownership, specifically on the
points raised by the working guidelines above in relation to the current state of their national
laws.
Freedom of contract should apply in the context of co-ownership but in the absence of
contracts, national laws should apply. In the case of transfer or licensing of partial shares,
such acts should be admitted only with the prior authorization of co-owner. Also, co-owners
should be allowed to contractually choose the applicable laws that will govern matters related
to use, licensing and exploitation. If no agreement exists, then the law of the country in which
the IP right is granted should prevail.
Summary
There are no specific regulations in Argentina regarding the matters raised in the guidelines.
Nevertheless, a general principle admitted by our laws recognizes that most rights can be exploited
or used by any co-owner without having to compensate to the other co-owner. Notwithstanding, the
Argentine group favours that limited restrictions should be established not only to the transfer of the
co-owned rights but also to the licensing of same.
24
022-025_Q194_Argentina.indd 24 28/01/2011 12:22:09