ON THE ISSUE OF THE LEGAL CHARACTERISATION OF RECENT LEGISLATIVE AMENDMENTS RELATED TO LIABILITY FOR VIOLATIONS OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS IN THE SPHERE OF ECONOMIC ACTIVITY

Abstract

In the article, the author provides a legal characterization of changes in legislation related to the change of name of such an object of intellectual property law as the composition of integrated microcircuits to the composition of semiconductor products. It was concluded that the current Criminal Code of Ukraine does not formally provide for such a crime as the illegal use of a semiconductor product, and criminal liability cannot formally arise for such an act. Therefore, the author proposes to bring this Article 177 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine into compliance with the norms of the Civil Code of Ukraine and the norms of the Law of Ukraine "On the protection of rights to the composition of semiconductor products" in the part of the name of this object of intellectual property rights, and which currently provides for its name as composition semiconductor products, and provide for criminal liability for the illegal use of a semiconductor product. A legal characterization of changes in legislation related to changes in administrative responsibility for infringement of rights to objects of intellectual property rights is given. It was concluded that the legislator changed the disposition and sanction of the rule of administrative law provided for in Article 51-2 of the Code of Ukraine on Administrative Offenses, which defines administrative responsibility for the violation of rights to the object of intellectual property rights, namely, the list of subjects of this administrative law was excluded offense, instead of which the illegal use of any object of intellectual property rights is indicated in general and the administrative responsibility for these administrative offenses is increased by increasing the amount of administrative fines. It was determined that the changes to Article 51-2 of the Code of Ukraine on Administrative Offenses, which consist in the list of subjects of this administrative offense excluded from the norm, can be recognized as appropriate, because this norm will actually provide administrative and legal protection to any object of intellectual property rights. Changes in the part of strengthening administrative responsibility for violation of intellectual property rights other than copyright and related rights are recognized as not appropriate, because they led to the actual, strengthening of responsibility for violation of rights for all objects of intellectual property rights when such strengthening was not purpose of the legislator.