Laikinųjų apsaugos priemonių taikymo intelektinės nuosavybės apsaugos bylose ypatumai

LTStraipsnyje analizuojami laikinųjų apsaugos priemonių taikymo remiantis bendraisiais Civilinio proceso kodekse įtvirtintais pagrindais ir laikinųjų apsaugos priemonių taikymo ypatumų pagal intelektinės nuosavybės apsaugos įstatymus, priimtus įgyvendinant 2004 m. balandžio 29 d. Europos Parlamento ir Tarybos direktyvą 2004/48/EB dėl intelektinės nuosavybės teisių gynimo skirtumai. Straipsnis susideda iš dviejų dalių. Pirmojoje dalyje analizuojamas laikinųjų apsaugos priemonių instituto teisinis reglamentavimas pagal Civilinio proceso kodeksą. Apžvelgiama Lietuvos apeliacinio teismo, kaip teismų praktiką taikant laikinąsias apsaugos priemones formuojančio teismo veikla, aptariamos aplinkybės nustatinėjamos taikant laikinąsias apsaugos priemones. Antrojoje straipsnio dalyje analizuojami intelektinės nuosavybės apsaugos įstatymų pakeitimai, padaryti įgyvendinant minėtą Direktyvą, apibrėžiami jų taikymo pagrindai, tikslai ir aplinkybės, kurias būtina nustatyti taikant laikinąsias apsaugos priemones intelektinės nuosavybės apsaugos bylose. Apžvelgiama teismų praktika, analizuojamos teismų praktikos klaidos. [Iš leidinio]Reikšminiai žodžiai: Laikinosios apsaugos priemonės; Intelektinės nuosavybės apsaugos priemonės; Intelektinės nuosavybės; Teisių gynimo būdai.; Provisional protection measures; Intellectual; Property protection measures; Intellectual property law defense; Methods.

ENThe article analyzes the difference between the usage of provisional protection measures on general basics consolidated in the Civil procedure code and provisional protection measures by the intellectual property enforcement laws, established for the implementation of the Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights. The article consists of two parts. In the first part the institute of provisional protection measures legal regulation by Civil procedure code is analyzed. Reviewed practice of the Court of Appeals of Lithuania as the agency which formulates the whole courts practice of the implementation of provisional protection measures; discussed circumstances which are established in the use of provisional protection measures. According to Civil procedure code the objective of provisional protection measures is to keep the status quo between parties and to secure courts decision's feasibility. By the practice formulated by the Court of Appeals of Lithuania provisional protection measure, which doesn't fit to the plaintiff's demands matter and not bounded up with the courts decision's secure in the concrete case, cannot be applied. Also cannot be applied provisional protection measures if: the matter can be solved substantially by using only these measures and including cases on intellectual property protection, if court decision can be implemented without the usage of provisional protection measures. Lithuanian Republic courts practice, pending the question of provisional protection measures, establishes that the plaint legitimacy has no legal import.These are the most important circumstances found in the usage of provisional protection measures by general Civil procedure code basics. In the second part of the article are discussed intellectual property protection laws' amendments, made implementing mentioned Directive. Defined basics of application, objective and other circumstances established in the use of provisional protection measures. Reviewed court practice, analyzed mistakes. According to new intellectual property protection law regulation the main objective of provisional protection measures usage - promptly determine illegal acts. Intellectual property protection laws not only allow, but also obligate to use provisional protection measures which by it content coincident with the plaint's demands. Instituting new legal regulation in the range of intellectual property by using provisional protection measures arisen new duty to the court - to estimate is there sufficient cause to think of law violation, that is to say in some point to measure plaint's legitimacy. The amendments of Directive and intellectual property protection laws of the Republic of Lithuania determine the need to change the court practice formulated before the enactment of the Directive in the salvation of provisional protection measures usage questions, but the research shows that this time there is no unanimous and adequate to laws changes court practice on this matter. [From the publication]