![\"\"](\"https:\/\/inprojournal.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/018-cover-734x1024.jpg\")
<\/figure>\n\n\n\nTheory and practice of intellectual property
\u2116 6 \/ 2020<\/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\/62020.233886<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n Published \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a02020-12-01<\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n Foreign and domestic experience in protecting intellectual Nadiia Fedorova<\/strong> <\/p>\n\n\n\n Abstract The analysis of European legislation and US judicial practice is carried out. Under applicable US copyright law, jewelry is a subject to copyright. Under normal circumstances, the law does not require prior registration of jewelry copyright. However, in order to protect jewelry or bijouterie under the US Law on Copyright, it must meet certain conditions. The complaining party must provide evidence of illegal copying of the work and prove copyright infringement. In case of violation of copyright for jewelry, the author or the jewelry house must prove: The object of an industrial design can be a shape, pattern, color, or their combination that determines the appearance of an industrial product. The main criterion for the industrial design patentability is its novelty. However, in practice, an examination for novelty when registering a designation as an industrial design, according to Alexandra Odinets, is not carried out, and the patent is issued \u00abunder the responsibility of the applicant\u00bb.<\/p>\n\n\n\n With regard to unfair competition in the jewelry market, according to the US jurisprudence, it is more often an offense in this context than a violation of trademark rights or copyright infringement. It is unfair competition that misleads a consumer. A competitor, by assigning a good name and an reputation established, is trying to get profit. The definition of unfair competition is carried out in a comprehensive manner, here the court will not focus on one feature of a piece of jewelry but would consider all its inherent features. In particular, it is a combination of unique elements that provide the originality of the product.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The article provides recommendations for jewelry and bijouterie authors on copyright protection.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Keywords: <\/strong>copyright, jewelry, bijouterie, unfair competition, trademark, litigation<\/p>\n\n\n\n References<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n \u041f\u0440\u043e \u0430\u0432\u0442\u043e\u0440\u0441\u044c\u043a\u0456 \u0456 \u0441\u0443\u043c\u0456\u0436\u043d\u0456 \u043f\u0440\u0430\u0432\u0430 : \u0417\u0430\u043a\u043e\u043d \u0423\u043a\u0440\u0430\u0457\u043d\u0438. \u0422\u043e\u043c\u0430\u0440\u043e\u0432 \u0406. Fashion Law: \u043a\u043e\u043f\u0456\u044e\u0432\u0430\u0442\u0438 \u043d\u0435 \u043c\u043e\u0436\u043d\u0430 \u0437\u0430\u0431\u043e\u0440\u043e\u043d\u0438\u0442\u0438! \u042e\u0440\u0438\u0434\u0438\u0447\u043d\u0430 \u0433\u0430\u0437\u0435\u0442\u0430 Online. 2017. \u2116 25(575). Herbert Rosenthal Jewelry Corp. v. Kalpakian, 446 F.2d 738 (9th Cir. 1971).<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u0414\u0438\u0440\u0435\u043a\u0442\u0438\u0432\u0430 \u0404\u0432\u0440\u043e\u043f\u0435\u0439\u0441\u044c\u043a\u043e\u0433\u043e \u0421\u043e\u044e\u0437\u0443 \u2116 98\/71. \u00abDesigner\u00bb Jewelry vs. \u00abInspired-by\u00bb Jewelry: Intellectual Property Infringement and Unfair Competition Considerations, 34.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Davis v. Gap, Inc. – 246 F.3d 152 (2d Cir. 2001).<\/p>\n\n\n\n Trifari, Krussman & Fishel, Inc. v Charel Co., 134 F Supp 551 (1955, DC NY).<\/p>\n\n\n\n Copyright Law of the United States \u00a7102, at 68 (2000).<\/p>\n\n\n\n C\u043f\u0440\u0430\u0432a Vacheron I Constantin-LeCoultre Watches, Inc. \u043f\u0440\u043e\u0442\u0438 Benrus Watch Co., Inc.![\"\"](\"https:\/\/inprojournal.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/CC-2.png\")
<\/figure>\n\n\n\n
property right to jewelry and jewelry<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n
Ukraine
https:\/\/orcid.org\/0000-0001-5490-1259<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/strong>The article focuses on studying the issue of protecting the design of artistic jewelry and bijouterie. The concept of \u201cfunctionality\u201d for jewelry is analyzed, namely, it is determined that the \u00abfunctionality\u00bb notion is the quality of servicing the useful purpose. For example, a chair manufacturer cannot claim the four legs of a chair as a copyright. These four legs are a useful and functional aspect of this chair. If a competitor also manufactures a chair with 4 legs, it does not infringe any manufacturer’s right, since these legs are for functional purposes only. The concept of \u00abfunctionality\u00bb in jewelry means that the last cannot be protected as a normal work, since it is purely utilitarian. For example, the hands or numbers on the dial of a watch are considered as functional because the exclusive use of these aspects seriously impedes healthy competition in the watch industry. On the other hand, unique jewelry design cannot be considered functional as it has the exclusive use of its particular elements\u2019 combination.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
– the originality of design;
– the uniqueness in the elements combination in the process of jewelry design development.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
https:\/\/zakon.rada.gov.ua\/laws\/show\/3792-12#Text<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n
https:\/\/yur-gazeta.com\/publications\/practice\/zahist-intelektualnoyi-vlasnosti-avtorske-pravo\/fashion-law-kopiyuvati-ne-mozhna-zaboroniti.html<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n
https:\/\/zakon.rada.gov.ua\/laws\/show\/994_a88#Text<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n
http:\/\/saperlaw.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2007\/09\/cba-fashion-presentation-final.pdf<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n