Theory and practice of intellectual property
№ 1 / 2019

ISSN (Print) 2308-0361
ISSN (Online) 2519-2744

PDF (Ukrainian)

DOI: https://doi.org/10.33731/12019.162738

Published      2019-02-28

An injunction as a measure of copyright enforcement

Kostiantyn Zerov
Ukraine

Abstract
The article analyzes the content, peculiarities of application and types of an injunction as a measure of copyright enforcement and its impact on the level of copyright infringement with the use of the Internet. An injunction in copyright cases on works posted online may consist of, for example, removing work from a web page content or in a web-blocking. Since the injunction is a measure of enforcement established by law and therefore meets the first criterion of the permissibility of restricting the right to freedom of expression provided for in Part 2. Art. 10 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. At the same time, the injunction is measure of copyright enforcement and not a measure of liability, and therefore its application does not depend on the fact that the terms of limiting the liability of internet intermediaries and the existence of guilt in their acts are met. The applying for an injunction against intermediaries whose services are used by a third party to infringe an intellectual property right as a measure of copyright enforcement is possible within the scope of current legal regulation in Ukraine, since the possibility of using a an injunction (including web blocking) is expressly provided in the Agreement on the association. The use of web blocking as a type of injunction is an effective way of protecting and enforcing copyright and reduces the total number of visits to blocked sites, as evidenced by statistical studies.

Keywords: copyright protection, web blocking, injunction

References

Штефан А. С. Цивільно-правові способи захисту авторського права і суміжних прав. Теорія і практика інтелектуальної власності. 2009. № 2. С. 41–51.

Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society.
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2001:167:0010:0019:EN:PDF

Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights.
http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2004:195:0016:0025:en:PDF

Association Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and Ukraine, of the other part.
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=OJ:L:2014:161:FULL&from=EN

Про телекомунікації: Закон України № 1280-IV від 18.11.2003 року (зі змінами). Відомості Верховної Ради України. 2004. № 1. Ст. 155.

Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market (Directive on electronic commerce).
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:32000L0031

Зеров К. О. Веб-блокування як спосіб захисту авторських прав на твори, що розміщені в мережі Інтернет. Законодавство України у сфері інтелектуальної власності та його правозастосування: національні, європейські та міжнародні виміри: збірник наукових праць IV Всеукраїнської науково-практичної конференції (м. Київ, 23.09.2016 року). К., 2016. С. 84–93.

Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 19 February 2009. LSG-Gesellschaft zur Wahrnehmung von Leistungsschutzrechten GmbH v Tele2 Telecommunication GmbH. Case C-557/07. ECLI:EU:C:2009:107.
http://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?language=en&num=C-557/07

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber), 27 March 2014 UPC Telekabel Wien GmbH v Constantin Film Verleih GmbH and Wega Filmproduktionsgesellschaft mbH. Case C‑314/12. ECLI:EU:C:2014:192.
http://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?num=C-314/12

Реєстр операторів, провайдерів телекомунікацій.
http://nkrzi.gov.ua/index.php?r=site/index&pg=55&language=uk 

Ltd & Ors v British Sky Broadcasting Ltd & Ors [2014] EWHC 3444 (Ch) (23 October 2014).
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2014/3444.html

Bundesgerichtshof zur Haftung von Access-Providern für Urheberrechtsverletzungen Dritter Urteile vom 26. November 2015 I ZR 3/14 und I ZR 174/14.
http://juris.bundesgerichtshof.de/cgi-bin/rechtsprechung/document.py?Gericht=bgh&Art=en&Datum=Aktuell&nr=72928&linked=pm

Danaher B. Website Blocking Revisited: The Effect of the UK November 2014 Blocks on Consumer Behavior.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2766795

Liveinternet: За год «вечной» блокировки Rutracker потерял более 40% просмотров.
https://vc.ru/21413-rutracker-one-year-block

Feiler L. Website Blocking Injunctions under EU and U.S. Copyright Law—Slow Death of the Global Internet or Emergence of the Rule of National Copyright Law?
https://law.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/default/files/publication/203758/doc/slspublic/feiler_wp13.pdf

Case of Akdeniz v. Turkey (dec.), Application no 20877/10.
http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=002-9493 

Case of Ahmet Yıldırım v. Turkey, Application no 3111/10. ECLI:CE:ECHR:2012:1218JUD000311110.
http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-115705

Case of Cengiz and others v. Turkey, applications nos. 48226/10 and 14027/11. ECLI:CE:ECHR:2015.
http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-159188

Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp v British Telecommunications Plc [2011] EWHC 1981 (Ch) (28 July 2011).
https://bbc.in/2P1oFa0

Wang F. Site-blocking Orders in the EU: Justifications and Feasibility.
https://bit.ly/2AyZMcE