Sie sind auf Seite 1von 5

Intellectual property is any creations of human mind like a tangible property that arises from the

human intellect as it is the product of human creation that has value and, as with all property it

needs to be protected by law. For example; patents, Trademarks and copyrights enable people to

earn recognition from what they invent or create. Intellectual property, very broadly, means the

legal rights which result from intellectual activity in the industrial, scientific, literary and artistic

fields.

Countries have laws to protect intellectual property for two main reasons. One is to give statutory

expression to the moral and economic rights of creators in their creations and the rights of the

public in access to those creations. The second is to promote, as a deliberate act of Government

policy, creativity and the dissemination and application of its results and to encourage fair

trading which would contribute to economic and social development.1

The importance of intellectual property was first recognized in the Paris Convention for the

Protection of Industrial Property (1883) and the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary

and Artistic Works (1886). Both treaties are administered by the World Intellectual Property

Organization (WIPO).

The Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania allows ownership of property and

guarantees its protection.2 To this end, laws have been enacted to promote and protect intellectual

property rights. Intellectual property rights are designed to promote and protect the creations and

inventions of the mind. Artistic and scientific innovations enjoy legal protection under the

intellectual property rights.

1 WIPO Intellectual Property Handbook: Policy, Law and Use. Chapter 1. page 3

2 See article 24 of the Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania, 1977 (as
amended from time to time).
Traditionally there are two branches of Intellectual Property (IP), usually divided into two,

namely industrial property and copyright. Industrial Property which includes patents for

inventions, trademarks, industrial designs and geographical indications. In some cases, aspects of

an intellectual creation, although present, are less clearly defined. What counts then is that the

object of industrial property consists of signs conveying information, in particular to consumers,

regarding products and services offered on the market. Protection is directed against

unauthorized use of such signs that could mislead consumers, and against misleading practices in

general.

Copyright covers literary works, in general this is all information that is released or sold to the

public. Copyright deals with the rights of intellectual creators in their creation. (such as novels,

poems and plays), films, music, artistic works (drawings, paintings, photographs and sculptures)

and architectural design. Rights related to copyright include those of performing artists in their

performances, producers of phonograms in their recordings, and broadcasters in their radio and

television programs.3

In the case of Copyright: Feist v. Rural Telephone Service Co.4 Facts: Rural Telephone Service

Company, Inc. (Plaintiff) provides telephone service to several communities. Due to a state

regulation, it must issue an annual telephone directory, so it published a directory consisting of

white and yellow pages. The yellow pages have advertisements that generate revenue. Feist

Publications, Inc. (Defendant) is a publishing company whose directory covers a larger range

than a typical directory. Defendant distributes their telephone books free of charge, and they also

generate revenue through the advertising in the yellow pages. Plaintiff refused to give a license

3 WIPO Intellectual Property Handbook: Policy, Law and Use.

4 499 U.S. 340 1991.


to Defendant for the phone numbers in the area, so Defendant used them without Plaintiffs

consent. Rural sued for copyright infringement.

Issue. Are the names, addresses, and phone numbers in a telephone directory able to be

copyrighted?

Rule: Rural claimed a collection copyright in its directory. The court clarified that the intent of

copyright law was not, as claimed by Rural and some lower courts, to reward the efforts of

persons collecting information the so called "sweat of the brow" or "industrious collection"

doctrine but rather "to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts" (U.S. Constitution.

Article. I and 8,). That is, to encourage creative expression.

Held: Facts cannot be copyrighted, however compilations of facts can generally be copyrighted.

To qualify for copyright protection, a work must be original to the author, A work may be

original even though it closely resembles other works so long as the similarity is fortuitous, not

the result of copying. The Court ruled that information contained in Rural's phone directory was

not copyrightable and that therefore no infringement existed.

In Abercrombie & Fitch Company V. Hunting World, Incorporated5 (The trademark issues)

Facts: A complaint was filed in 1970 by Abercrombie & Fitch Company (A&F), owner of well-

known stores at Madison Avenue and 45th Street in New York City and seven places in other

states1 against Hunting World, Incorporated (HW), operator of a competing store on East 53rd

Street, is for infringement of some of A&F's registered trademarks using the word 'Safari'. It has

had a long and, for A&F, an unhappy history. On this appeal from a judgment which not only

5 537 F.2d 4 (2d Cir. 1976)


dismissed the complaint but canceled all of A&F's 'Safari' registrations, including several that

were not in suit, we relieve A&F of some of its unhappiness but not of all.

Issue: (1) May the word "Safari" alone be validly registered as a trademark?

(2) If so, may summary judgment be granted as to any of the defendant's uses of the word

"Safari"?

Rule: The complaint alleges infringements under the Trade-Mark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act), and

Article 24 of the General Business Law of New York, McKinney's Consol Laws, c. 20.

Jurisdiction is founded on 28 U.S.C.1332 (a) and 15 U.S.C.1121

In Biogen Plc V Medeva Plc6. The Court of Appeal handed down an important judgment

concerning patent sufficiency. The patent in Biogen related to a product-by-process claim

covering a class of products, but only one process for producing one of the products was

described in the patent specification.

Issue: whether an invention was obvious should be treated with appropriate respect by an

appellate court.

Rule: Statutes: Patents Act 1977 1(1) 72(1),

Held: The claim for a DNA patent was too broad; no new principle was shown, and other means

were available of achieving the technical effect claimed. Where the application of a legal

standard such as negligence or obviousness involves no question of principle but is simply a

matter of degree, an appellate court should be very cautious in differing from the judges

6 : Hl 31 Oct 1996.
evaluation. Disclosure must enable the invention to be performed to the full extent of the

monopoly claimed.