![\"\"](\"https:\/\/inprojournal.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/018-cover-734x1024.jpg\")
<\/figure>\n\n\n\nTheory and practice of intellectual property
\u2116 3 \/ 2019<\/p>\n\n\n\n
ISSN (Print) 2308-0361
ISSN (Online) 2519-2744<\/p>\n\n\n\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/test.inprojournal.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/01\/free-icon-pdf-201153.png\"){kind=icon}
PDF (Ukrainian)<\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\nDOI: https:\/\/doi.org\/10.33731\/32019.173815<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n Published \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a02019-07-19<\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n Multilateral Investment Court: prospects of creation and potential impact on the Ukrainian system of intellectual property rights\u2019 protection and enforcement<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Anastasiia Kyrylenko<\/strong> Abstract Keywords: <\/strong>multilateral investment court, EU investment agreements, international investment law, TRIPS, EU\/Ukraine free trade agreement, EU\/Tunisia free trade agreement<\/p>\n\n\n\n References<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n EU-Canada CET Agreement. Opinion of 30 April 2019 \u2013 Opinion 1\/17. Comprehensive and Economic Trade Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, of one part, and Canada, of the other part. Free Trade Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Singapore. Free Trade Agreement between the European Union and the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam. Draft of the Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, of one part, and Tunisia, of the other part. Investment Chapter. Philip Morris Brands S\u00c0RL, Philip Morris Products S. A. and Abal Hermano S. A. v. Oriental Republic of Uruguay, ICSID Case No ARB\/10\/7, Award, 8 July 2016. Philip Morris Asia Limited (Hong Kong) v. The Commonwealth of Australia, PCA Case No 2012-12, Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility, 17 December 2015. Eli Lilly and Company v. Government of Canada, ICSID Case No UNCT\/14\/2, Award, 16 March 2017. Bridgestone Licensing Services, Inc. and Bridgestone Americas, Inc. v. Republic of Panama, ICSID Case No ARB\/16\/34, Decision on Expedited Objections, 13 December 2017. Peterson L. E., Williams Z. Gilead Pharma corp withdraws investment arbitration after Ukraine agrees to settlement of dispute over monopoly rights to market anti-viral drug. ISDS Platform. Association Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and Ukraine, of the other part. Free Trade Agreement with Singapore. Opinion of 16 May 2017 \u2013 Opinion 2\/15. European Commission. Trade for all. Towards a more responsible trade and investment policy \u20142015. Mercurio B. C. Awakening the Sleeping Giant: Intellectual Property Rights in International Investment Agreements. Journal of International Economic Law. 2012. \u0412\u0438\u043f. 15 (3). \u0421. 871\u2212915.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Klopschinski S. Der Schutz geistigen Eigentums durch v\u00f6lkerrechtliche Investitionsvertr\u00e4ge. K\u00f6ln: Carl Heymanns Verlag, 2011. 583 c.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Grosse Ruse-Khan H. The Protection of Intellectual Property in International Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016. 544 c.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Ho C. M. A Collision Course Between TRIPS Flexibilities and Investor-State Proceedings. UC Irvine Law Review. 2016. \u0412\u0438\u043f. 6(3). \u0421. 395\u2212468.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Geiger C. The TTIP and its Investment Protection: Will the EU Still be Able to Regulate Intellectual Property?. International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law. 2018. \u0412\u0438\u043f. 49(6). \u0421. 631\u2212635.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Treaty for the Promotion and Protection of Investments (with Protocol and Exchange Notes) between Pakistan and Germany. Treaty between the United States of America and Ukraine concerning the Encouragement and Reciprocal Protection of Investment. North American Free Trade Agreement between Canada, Mexico and the United States of America. Fina S., Lentner G. M. The European Union\u2019s New Generation of International Investment Agreements and its Implications for the Protection of Intellectual Property Rights. Journal of World Investment and Trade. 2017. \u0412\u0438\u043f. 18. \u0421. 271\u2212305.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Usynin M., G\u00e1sp\u00e1r-Szil\u00e1gyi S. The Rising Trend of Including Investment Chapters into PTAs. Netherlands Yearbook of International Law. 2017. \u0412\u0438\u043f. 48. \u0421. 267\u2212304.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Lavery R. A. Coverage of Intellectual Property Rights in International Investment Agreements: An Empirical Analysis of Definitions in a Sample of Bilateral Investment Treaties and Free Trade Agreements. TDM. 2009. \u0412\u0438\u043f. 6(2).<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights. G\u00e1sp\u00e1r-Szil\u00e1gyi S. Quo Vadis EU Investment Law and Policy? The Shaky Path Towards the International Promotion of EU Rules. European Foreign Affairs Review. 2018. \u0412\u0438\u043f. 23(2). \u0421. 167\u2212186.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Correa C. M. Investment Protection in Bilateral and Free Trade Agreements: Implication for the Granting of Compulsory Licenses. Michigan Journal of International Law. \u0412\u0438\u043f. 26(1). \u0421. 331\u2212353.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Philip Morris Asia Limited (Hong Kong) v. The Commonwealth of Australia, PCA Case No 2012-12, Notice of Arbitration, 21 November 2011. Philip Morris Brands S\u00c0RL, Philip Morris Products S.A. and Abal Hermano S.A. v. Oriental Republic of Uruguay, ICSID Case No ARB\/10\/7, Request for Arbitration, 19 February 2010. Nath Upreti P. IP Licence as an Investment Insights from Bridgestone v. Panama. Stockholm Intellectual Property Law Review. 2018. \u0412\u0438\u043f. 1. \u0421. 16\u221228.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Australia \u2013 Certain Measures Concerning Trademarks and Other Plain Packaging Requirements Applicable to Tobacco Products and Packaging. DS434. Eli Lilly and Company v. Government of Canada, ICSID Case No UNCT\/14\/2, Notice of Intent, 12 September 2013. \u041f\u0440\u043e \u043f\u0456\u0434\u043f\u0438\u0441\u0430\u043d\u043d\u044f \u041c\u0438\u0440\u043e\u0432\u043e\u0457 \u0443\u0433\u043e\u0434\u0438 \u043c\u0456\u0436 \u0423\u043a\u0440\u0430\u0457\u043d\u043e\u044e \u0442\u0430 \u043a\u043e\u043c\u043f\u0430\u043d\u0456\u0454\u044e \u00ab\u0413\u0456\u043b\u0435\u0430\u0434 \u0421\u0430\u0439\u0454\u043d\u0441\u0438\u0437, \u0406\u043d\u043a.\u00bb : \u0420\u043e\u0437\u043f\u043e\u0440\u044f\u0434\u0436\u0435\u043d\u043d\u044f \u041a\u0430\u0431\u0456\u043d\u0435\u0442\u0443 \u041c\u0456\u043d\u0456\u0441\u0442\u0440\u0456\u0432 \u0423\u043a\u0440\u0430\u0457\u043d\u0438 \u0432\u0456\u0434 25 \u0441\u0456\u0447\u043d\u044f 2017 \u0440. \u2116 45-\u0440.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. Towards a comprehensive European international investment policy. Theory and practice of intellectual property\u2116 3 \/ 2019 ISSN (Print) 2308-0361ISSN (Online) 2519-2744 DOI: https:\/\/doi.org\/10.33731\/32019.173815 Published \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a02019-07-19 Multilateral Investment Court: prospects of creation and potential impact on the Ukrainian system of intellectual property rights\u2019 protection and enforcement Anastasiia KyrylenkoSpain, France AbstractOn April 30, 2019, the Court of Justice of the European Union delivered its […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-10621","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/inprojournal.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/10621","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/inprojournal.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/inprojournal.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/inprojournal.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/inprojournal.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=10621"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/inprojournal.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/10621\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":10627,"href":"https:\/\/inprojournal.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/10621\/revisions\/10627"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/inprojournal.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=10621"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}![\"\"](\"https:\/\/inprojournal.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/CC-2.png\")
<\/figure>\n\n\n\n
Spain, France<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/strong>On April 30, 2019, the Court of Justice of the European Union delivered its Opinion 1\/17, confirming the compatibility of the mechanism for the resolution of disputes between investors and States, provided for by the free trade agreement between the EU and Canada, with the EU law. This Opinion may become the first step towards the creation of a Multilateral Investment Court, the project, which is preliminary promoted by the European Union through the conclusion of bilateral trade agreements. While Ukraine is no alien to investment disputes over intellectual property rights, the interplay between investment law and intellectual property rights has received limited attention among local scholars. Consequently, this article starts with introducing the reader to the key elements of existing international investment treaties that are relevant for the intellectual property regime. It is followed by an overview of main investment disputes, involving intellectual property rights, with a view of mapping potential issues such a dispute may present to the Ukrainian system. The third part of the article analyses the European Union\u2019s new generation of international investment agreements. Although Ukraine has not yet been involved in such negotiations, art. 89 of the EU\/Ukraine free trade agreement allows for its review to include provisions on investment protection and investor-to-state dispute settlement procedures. Consequently, two recent investment chapters are contrasted, the one included in the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement with Canada, as a developed-to-developed country negotiations model; the one included in the draft of the Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Agreement with Tunisia, as a developed-to-developing country negotiations model. Such comparative analysis has allowed me to discern both common and diverging provisions, relevant for the national intellectual property systems, which, in turn, will allow Ukraine to adopt informed decisions during a potential negotiation with the European Union.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
http:\/\/curia.europa.eu\/juris\/liste.jsf?num=C-1\/17<\/a> <\/p>\n\n\n\n
http:\/\/ec.europa.eu\/trade\/policy\/in-focus\/ceta\/ceta-chapter-by-chapter\/<\/a> <\/p>\n\n\n\n
https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/resource.html?uri=cellar:04c776da-4322-11e8-a9f4-01aa75ed71a1.0003.02\/DOC_2&format=PDF#page=2<\/a> <\/p>\n\n\n\n
http:\/\/trade.ec.europa.eu\/doclib\/docs\/2018\/september\/tradoc_157337.pdf<\/a> <\/p>\n\n\n\n
http:\/\/trade.ec.europa.eu\/doclib\/docs\/2018\/july\/tradoc_157219.pdf<\/a> <\/p>\n\n\n\n
https:\/\/www.italaw.com\/sites\/default\/files\/case-documents\/ita0346.pdf<\/a> <\/p>\n\n\n\n
https:\/\/www.pcacases.com\/web\/sendAttach\/1711<\/a> <\/p>\n\n\n\n
http:\/\/icsidfiles.worldbank.org\/icsid\/ICSIDBLOBS\/OnlineAwards\/C3544\/DC10133_En.pdf<\/a> <\/p>\n\n\n\n
http:\/\/icsidfiles.worldbank.org\/icsid\/ICSIDBLOBS\/OnlineAwards\/C5946\/DS10865_En.pdf<\/a> <\/p>\n\n\n\n
http:\/\/isds.bilaterals.org\/?gilead-pharma-corp-withdraws&lang=en<\/a> <\/p>\n\n\n\n
http:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/EN\/TXT\/PDF\/?uri=OJ:L:2014:161:FULL&from=EN<\/a> <\/p>\n\n\n\n
http:\/\/curia.europa.eu\/juris\/liste.jsf?num=C-2\/15<\/a> <\/p>\n\n\n\n
http:\/\/trade.ec.europa.eu\/doclib\/docs\/2015\/october-\/tradoc_153846.pdf<\/a> <\/p>\n\n\n\n
https:\/\/www.iisd.org\/pdf\/2006\/investment_pakistan_germany.pdf<\/a> <\/p>\n\n\n\n
https:\/\/www.italaw.com\/sites\/default\/files\/laws\/italaw8547.pdf<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n
https:\/\/idatd.cepal.org\/Normativas\/TLCAN\/Ingles\/North_American_Free_Trade_Agreement-NAFTA.pdf <\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n
https:\/\/www.wto.org\/english\/docs_e\/legal_e\/27-trips.pdf<\/a> <\/p>\n\n\n\n
https:\/\/www.italaw.com\/sites\/default\/files\/case-documents\/ita0665.pdf<\/a> <\/p>\n\n\n\n
https:\/\/www.italaw.com\/sites\/default\/files\/case-documents\/ita0343.pdf<\/a> <\/p>\n\n\n\n
https:\/\/www.wto.org\/english\/tratop_e\/dispu_e\/cases_e\/ds434_e.htm<\/a> <\/p>\n\n\n\n
https:\/\/www.italaw.com\/sites\/default\/files\/casedocuments\/italaw1172.pdf<\/a> <\/p>\n\n\n\n
https:\/\/eurlex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/EN\/TXT\/?uri=celex%3A12012E%2FTXT<\/a> <\/p>\n\n\n\n
http:\/\/ec.europa.eu\/transparency\/regdoc\/rep\/1\/2010\/EN\/1-2010-343-EN-F1-1.Pdf<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"