Intelektinės nuosavybės teisinio reguliavimo ypatumai Lietuvos ir užsienio šalių baudžiamuosiuose įstatymuose

LTStraipsnyje lyginamuoju aspektu analizuojami tarptautiniai baudžiamosios atsakomybės už intelektinės nuosavybės teisės pažeidimus standartai ir nacionalinio reguliavimo ypatumai. Pagrindinis dėmesys skiriamas Lietuvos įstatymų leidėjo pasirinktai nusikaltimų intelektinei nuosavybei sistemai ir iki šiol baudžiamosios teisės doktrinoje atskirai neanalizuotai Lietuvos Respublikos baudžiamojo kodekso XXIX skyriaus „Nusikaltimai intelektinei ir pramoninei nuosavybei“ struktūrai, jo kokybės vertinimui pasitelkiant lyginamąją užsienio valstybių baudžiamųjų įstatymų analizę. [Iš leidinio]Reikšminiai žodžiai: Pramoninė nuosavybė; Autorinės teisės; Baudžiamoji atsakomybė. Keywords: Industrial property; Copyright; Criminal liability.

ENThe non existence of unanimous legal criminal regulation of intellectual property law on international level is caused by historical reasons and the formation of a hardly compatible dualism of copyright protection systems. Therefore criminal legal protection of intellectual property remains mostly a national prerogative. Nevertheless, a proper criminal legal regulation requires taking into account a general intellectual property system and structure, which is divided into two parts: copyright law and industrial property law. Current Lithuanian legislator‘s choice of legal regulation ignores this structure in several ways. Firstly, the title of 29th chapter of Lithuanian Criminal Code is „Crimes Against Intellectual and Industrial Property“, while industrial property is one of two components of intellectual property, therefore the title shall be changed into „Crimes Against Intellectual Property“, as it is named in the vast majority of other countries‘ criminal codes. Secondly, Lithuanian Criminal Code is constructed according to the importance of the values, which it protects: Special part of the Code begins with the most valuable legal goods and ends with less valuable ones. The same structure applies to the formation of all the chapters of Special part, including chapter 29 „Crimes Against Intellectual and Industrial Property“, which begins with a usual droit d‘auteur biggest value – right of authorship in Article 191 „Misappropriation of Authorship“ and ends with Article 195 „Violation of Industrial Property Rights“. Therefore the position of Article 204 „Use of Another‘s Trademark or Service“ is doubtful: currently it is situated in another – 31st chapter – „Crimes and Misdemeanours Against Economy and Business Order“, while trademarks are the objects of intellectual property.Assumingly it should be moved to 29th chapter „Crimes Against Intellectual and Industrial Property“, as other countries‘ criminal codes do not split intellectual property objects‘ regulation into different chapters. Industrial property legal protection in Lithuanian Criminal Code is insufficient: Article 195 „Violation of Industrial Property Rights“ protects only few of industrial property objects, unjustifiably ignoring others. It also does not include the appropriation of unregistered industrial property objects, unlike in other countries‘ criminal laws. Therefore, dangerous criminal acts remain unpunished. Some of the other countries criminalize an act by which a person commits intentional disclosure of an invention or a design without the consent of the owner of the rights thereof prior to the relevant person disclosing the invention or design himself or prior to it be being disclosed with the consent of such persons. This criminal offense by its nature is similar to the disclosure of commercial secrets, therefore the State‘s repressive reaction should be analogous to both of them. However, in some cases of foreign legal regulation it is not. Thus Lithuanian legislator‘s choice not to criminalize such acts at all, limiting criminal liability by an act of disclosure of commercial secrets, is reasonable and sufficient. [From the publication]