Security Rights in Intellectual Property

Kieninger, Eva-Maria

doi:10.1007/978-3-030-48675-4_13

Eva-Maria Kieninger¹⁵^na1

Part of the book series: Ius Comparatum - Global Studies in Comparative Law ((GRIA,volume 50))

584 Accesses

Abstract

The general report gives an insight into the main legal and economic challenges for the creation and perfection of security rights in intellectual property rights. It highlights the differences among legal systems in relation to the transferability of those rights and their collateralisation. An overview of the creditor’s remedies in the event of the debtor’s default and insolvency as well as some basic information on the costs of creating security rights in IPR’s complete the comparative survey.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Chapter: USD 29.95; Price excludes VAT (USA)

eBook: USD 219.00; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Softcover Book: USD 279.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Hardcover Book: USD 279.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

1.
Knopf (2002), pp. 1 and 3 et seq.
2.
The national reports (except the report on the United States of America) will be published in Kieninger E-M (ed) (2019), Security Rights in Intellectual Property. The information on US law in the present general report relies on the unpublished report prepared for this project by Neil Cohen.
3.
Picht (2018), p. 602.
4.
In this contribution, the notion of intellectual property (IP) is used in a broad sense, including not only copyright (= intellectual property in a narrow sense), but also industrial property, such as patents, designs, and trademarks. Many jurisdictions have separate enactments for these different types of IPRs and may also use different (i.e. broader or narrower) terminology.
5.
Small and medium-sized enterprises.
6.
See Denoncourt (2017), pp. 1, 4 et seq. Knopf (2002), pp. 1, 5.
7.
Decker (2012), pp. 2 et seq.
8.
See Ballagh (2017) Secured Financing with Intellectual Property: Managing Uncertainties, www.ballaghedward.ca (Law Office, Hamilton, Ont.) noting: “The standard legal advice is sometimes called the ‘belts and suspenders’ approach. Where feasible, parties are advised to register their security interests on both the federal and the provincial registers in all the relevant jurisdictions [i.e. provinces],” cited in Howell (2019), Section 2.2.
9.
See in this volume Ricolfi (2019), Section 2.2.
10.
See in this volume Juutilainen (2019), Section 4.3.
11.
But see in this volume Storme and Malekzadem (2019), Section 27, on the possibilities of bona fide acquisition.
12.
On the following, see in this volume Brinkmann et al. (2019), Section 5.
13.
See, for example, Dorfmayr (2019), Section 7.1.1 on judicial enforcement.
14.
See in this volume Bornheim (2019), Sections 9 and 10.
15.
Cf. Dorfmayr (2019), Section 10; see in this volume Karjiker (2019), Section 3.1.1.
16.
See in this volume Brinkmann et al. (2019), Section 1, citing Bill Gates: “Intellectual property has the shelf life of a banana.”
17.
Decker (2012), p. 486.
18.
For the following, see McCracken (2019), Section 4.4. et seq.
19.
See Howell (2019), at fn. 53, citing Weston Anson, Want to Value Your Intellectual Property? Here are Three Approaches. Available at www.ipinbrief.com/three-approaches-to-value-IP/. Weston Anson is the Chairman of CONSOR, Ibid. Howell (2019), continues on to discuss the pros and cons of the different approaches and their suitability for secured transactions, citing David Ullmann (lawyer) and Sheldon Title (accountant), “How to Seize Something You Can’t Touch: A Review of Issues and Process with the Foreclosure of Intellectual Property Assets”, Annual Review of Insolvency Law 2014 ed. Janis P. Sarra, available on WestlawNext, Canada. In the same vein, see in this volume Brinkmann et al. (2019), Section 4.1; Decker (2012), pp. 490 et seq.; Argyropoulou et al. (2019), at fn. 36. The French report makes a twofold distinction between static and dynamic approaches; see in this volume Séjean and Binctin (2019), Section 3.1.2.1 and Section 3.1.2.2. See in this volume Murguía-Goebel (2019), Section 3.3, listing an “option-based method” as an additional, fourth method.
20.
See in greater detail Decker (2012), pp. 490 et seq. See also in this volume Murguía-Goebel (2019), Section 3.3, pointing to the OECD guidelines for the valuation of intangible assets.
21.
See in greater detail in this volume Brinkmann et al. (2019), Section 3.2.1.
22.
See in this volume Lepik (2019), Section 9.
23.
Decker (2012), pp. 497 et seq.
24.
Cf. Dorfmayr (2019), Section 10.
25.
See in this volume Brinkmann et al. (2019), Section 1.
26.
Decker (2012), pp. 489 et seq.
27.
Decker (2012), pp. 503 et seq. with examples.
28.
See the list of administered treaties on the website of the World Intellectual Property Organization, http://www.wipo.int/treaties. Accessed May 8, 2018.
29.
See on these texts Dorfmayr (2019), Section 1.2 with further references.
30.
The revised texts of the Convention and its protocols, which entered into force on December 13, 2007, and the Implementing Regulations, in force since May 1, 2016, are available on the website of the European Patent Office: http://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/epc/2016/e/ma0.html. Accessed May 8, 2018. See the detailed treatment on the European Patent Convention in Dorfmayr (2019), after fn. 19.
31.
Reg. (EU) No. 1257/2012 and Reg. (EU) No. 1260/2012, in force since January 20, 2013. Yet, their applicability depends on the entering into force of the Convention on a European Patent Court; see Art. 18 section 2 of the Reg. (EU) No. 1257/2012.
32.
See www.epo.org/law-practice/unitary/unitary-patent/start.html. Accessed June 19, 2019.
33.
Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of June 14, 2017 on the European Trade Mark (codification), OJ L 154, 16.6.2017, p. 1; Council Regulation (EC) No. 6/2002 of December 12, 2001 on Community Designs, OJ L 3, 5.1.2002, p. 1.
34.
Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of June 14, 2017 on the European Union Trade Mark (Codification), OJ L 154, 16.6.2017.
35.
For the texts of these instruments, see www.unidroit.org.
36.
See below Section 6.2, with references.
37.
See generally Macdonald (2009), p. 745. See in this volume Murguía-Goebel (2019), Sections 2.1 and 2.3; see also in this volume Shieh and Lee (2019), Section 5 (on a bill introducing the floating charge following the recommendations in the UNCITRAL texts). For Belgium, see Dirix (2015), p. 273.
38.
Meaning a right created by way of a transaction between the creditor and the debtor, as opposed to a right which arises by operation of law without any agreement between the parties, such as a statutory lien or a privilege.
39.
Storme and Malekzadem (2019), Section 6, at fn. 13.
40.
Lahorgue (2019), Section 2.
41.
See in this volume Karjiker (2019), Section 2.
42.
See Howell (2019), Section 2.1.
43.
See Howell (2019), Section 2.1.
44.
For the following, see in this volume Bornheim (2019), Section 2.4.1.
45.
See in this volume Bornheim (2019), Section 2.4.1.
46.
See Argyropoulou et al. (2019), Section 2.
47.
Dorfmayr (2019), Section 2.1. See also McGuire (2008), pp. 219 et seq. McGuire’s conclusion (at p. 222) is that “the determination of the legal nature of intellectual property rights according to the dichotomy ‘property’ or ‘right’ does not solve the problem of determining the proper transfer rules.”
48.
McCracken (2019), Section 3.1.
49.
See in this volume Brinkmann et al. (2019), Section 2.
50.
See in this volume Séjean and Binctin (2019), Section 2.1 and the references to incorporeal intellectual property.
51.
See in this volume Karjiker (2019), Section 2. In addition, South African law allows the common law “cession” of IP rights; see in this volume Karjiker (2019), Section 2.
52.
See in this volume Murguía-Goebel (2019), Section 3.1.
53.
See in this volume Heredia Cervantes (2019), Section 2.
54.
See in this volume Shieh and Lee (2019), Section 2.1.1.
55.
See in this volume Hara and Haga (2019), Section 3.1.
56.
See in this volume Özsunay and Özsunay (2019), Section 1.2.
57.
See in this volume Kallinikou and Koriatopoulou (2019), Section 2.
58.
See in this volume Juutilainen (2019), Section 3.
59.
For the following, see in this volume van Engelen (2019), Section 2.1.
60.
See report on Howell (2019), after fn. 26; Charpentier (2019), after fn. 32 and after fn. 56.
61.
See in this volume Brinkmann et al. (2019), Section 3; Decker (2012), pp. 18 et seq. In the same vein, see in this volume Heredia Cervantes (2019), Section 2; Matanovac Vučković et al. (2019), Section 2.3.
62.
McCracken (2019), Section 4.
63.
See in this volume Shieh and Lee (2019), Section 2.1.2.1.
64.
See in this volume Hara and Haga (2019), Section 3.1(1).
65.
Dorfmayr (2019), Section 2.1.
66.
See in this volume Koukal and Pullmannova (2019), Section 1.1, referring to Art. 26 Czech Copyright Act.
67.
Matanovac Vučković et al. (2019), at fn. 58.
68.
Copyright can be assigned as “personal or moveable property” under English law—see in this volume Bornheim (2019), Section 2.4.2. Under French law: Le droit d’auteur is subject to the general rules on proprietary security; see in this volume Séjean and Binctin (2019), Section 2.1. South Africa: The Copyright Act explicitly provides that copyright is transmissible as movable property; see in this volume Karjiker (2019), Section 2.4. Japan: see in this volume Hara and Haga (2019), Section 3.2. Finland: Copyright may theoretically be used as collateral, but since Finland does not have a register for copyright and yet nevertheless requires some sort of publicity (either through registration, dispossession, or notification) for a security right to be perfected, it is argued that, consequently, copyright cannot be used as collateral; see in this volume Juutilainen (2019), Section 4.3.
69.
In this case, the grantor of the security right is the holder of the IP right and the licensor.
70.
See in this volume Brinkmann et al. (2019), Section 3, and, from a comparative point of view, Koziol (2011), passim. In this case, the grantor of the security right is the licensee.
71.
Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of June 14, 2017 on the European Trade Mark (codification), OJ L 154, 16.6.2017, p. 1.
72.
See Art. 19 EU Trade Mark Reg.: “Unless Articles 20 to 28 provide otherwise, an EU trade mark as an object of property shall be dealt with in its entirety, and for the whole area of the Union, as a national trade mark registered in the Member State in which, according to the Register: (a) the proprietor has his seat or his domicile on the relevant date; (b) where point (a) does not apply, the proprietor has an establishment on the relevant date. 2. In cases which are not provided for by paragraph 1, the Member State referred to in that paragraph shall be the Member State in which the seat of the Office is situated. 3. If two or more persons are mentioned in the Register of EU trade marks as joint proprietors, paragraph 1 shall apply to the joint proprietor first mentioned; failing this, it shall apply to the subsequent joint proprietors in the order in which they are mentioned. Where paragraph 1 does not apply to any of the joint proprietors, paragraph 2 shall apply.”
73.
See McGuire (2008), p. 230, in whose view the rule refers to the conflicts rules at the seat.
74.
McGuire (2008), p. 230.
75.
McGuire (2008), pp. 230 et seq.
76.
Council Regulation (EC) No. 6/2002 of December 12, 2001 on Community Designs, OJ L 3, 5.1.2002, p. 1.
77.
A registered Community design may also be obtained on the grounds of an international application subject to the rules of the Hague Agreement Concerning the International Deposit of Industrial Designs, which has not been ratified by Austria, but has been ratified by the European Union; see Horn and Grünwald (2015), p. 187.
78.
Dorfmayr (2019), after fn. 26.
79.
See in this volume Bornheim (2019), Section 2.4.2.
80.
See Howell (2019), at fn. 17; in Québec, the relevant provisions are to be found in the Civil Code. They are likewise inspired by Art. 9 UCC; see Charpentier (2019), after fn. 5.
81.
Howell (2019), at fn. 19.
82.
For details, see McCracken (2019), Section 3.2. et seq.
83.
The Belgian report itself calls the new system “functional”—see Storme and Malekzadem (2019), at para 6—and so this characterization is followed here.
84.
See Storme and Malekzadem (2019), para 7 et seq.
85.
See in this volume Séjean and Binctin (2019), Section 2.1.
86.
See in this volume van Engelen (2019), Section 2.2.1.
87.
See in this volume Murguía-Goebel (2019), Section 2.
88.
See in this volume Murguía-Goebel (2019), Section 3.1.
89.
See in this volume Koukal and Pullmannova (2019), at fn. 62.
90.
See the critical appraisal by Matanovac Vučković et al. (2019), at fn. 31, with further references.
91.
Matanovac Vučković et al. (2019), at fn. 56.
92.
See in this volume Hara and Haga (2019), Section 3.1(2).
93.
See Dorfmayr (2019), Section 2.2.2.
94.
See in this volume Shieh and Lee (2019), Section 3.1.1.
95.
Lahorgue (2019), Sections 2 and 3.1.
96.
See in this volume Bornheim (2019), Section 2.4.2.
97.
See in this volume Bornheim (2019), Section 2.4.2.
98.
Argyropoulou et al. (2019) (after fn. 23) gives a detailed account of how this problem can be circumvented through the creation of a special purpose vehicle and a pledge of the shares.
99.
See in this volume Ricolfi (2019), fn. 4, with translation into English.
100.
For the detailed analysis, see in this volume Ricolfi (2019), Section 2.1.
101.
Karjiker (2019), under Section 3 contains a detailed account of all three kinds of security rights in all types of IP rights that can exist under South African law.
102.
See in this volume Heredia Cervantes (2019), Section 2.
103.
Lepik (2019), at fn. 7.
104.
See in this volume Lepik (2019), Section 2.2.
105.
See in this volume Brinkmann et al. (2019), Section 3.5.1; Koukal and Pullmannova (2019), Section 2; Matanovac Vučković et al. (2019), at fn. 59 et seq. Furthermore, see Koziol (2011), passim (covering Germany, Austria, and Japan).
106.
See Argyropoulou et al. (2019), text before fn. 33.
107.
For example, see in this volume Heredia Cervantes (2019), Section 2; Hara and Haga (2019), Section 3.1(1); Dincă and Rizoiu (2019), Section 2.
108.
See in this volume Brinkmann et al. (2019), fn. 235 with further references; Dorfmayr (2019), Section 2.2.5 with further references.
109.
See in this volume Brinkmann et al. (2019), Section 2.5.
110.
Contech Enterprises, Inc. v. Vegherb, LLC (2015) (Contech), see Howell (2019), at fn. 23.
111.
See in this volume Brinkmann et al. (2019), Section 2.5; Picht (2018), pp. 158 et seq.
112.
See Dorfmayr (2019), Sections 2.4 and 3.2.7; Storme and Malekzadem (2019), Section 23; see in this volume van Engelen (2019), Section 2.3; see in this volume Ricolfi (2019), Section 3.1.1; McCracken (2019), Section 4.1; see in this volume Hara and Haga (2019), Section 3.1.(1); Matanovac Vučković et al. (2019) , text before fn. 64.
113.
See in this volume Séjean and Binctin (2019), Section 2.5. See also Charpentier (2019), at fn. 45.
114.
Storme and Malekzadem (2019), Section 23 at the end.
115.
See Storme and Malekzadem (2019), Section 28.
116.
Cf. Dahan and Simpson (2004), pp. 98 et seq.
117.
See Matanovac Vučković et al. (2019), at fn. 31.
118.
See in this volume, for example, Murguía-Goebel (2019), Section 3.4 (the detailed list).
119.
See Ballagh M (2017) Secured Financing with Intellectual Property: Managing Uncertainties, www.ballaghedward.ca (Law Office, Hamilton, Ont.), noting: “The standard legal advice is sometimes called the ‘belts and suspenders’ approach. Where feasible, parties are advised to register their security interests on both the federal and the provincial registers in all the relevant jurisdictions [i.e. provinces],” cited Howell (2019), Section 2.2.
120.
Howell (2019), Section 2.3. at fn. 33 ff; Charpentier (2019), at fn. 53 et seq.
121.
Howell (2019), Section 4.
122.
See McCracken (2019), Section 5.4.
123.
McCracken (2019), Section 4.1. et seq.
124.
See in greater detail McCracken (2019), Section 5.1.
125.
For exceptions (e.g. for PMSIs), see McCracken (2019), Section 6.1.2. et seq.; for the circumstances in which the buyer of an IP right takes it free of encumbrance, see McCracken (2019), Section 6.2. et seq.
126.
The new Pledge Act came into force on January 1, 2018. On this Act, see Dirix (2015) and the bibliography in Storme and Malekzadem (2019).
127.
See Dirix (2015), p. 273.
128.
Storme and Malekzadem (2019), para 17.
129.
Storme and Malekzadem(2019), para 16.
130.
See in detail Storme and Malekzadem (2019), para 19.
131.
See in detail Storme and Malekzadem (2019), para 27.
132.
See in this volume Juutilainen (2019), Section 4.3.
133.
See in this volume Juutilainen (2019), Section 5.
134.
Matanovac Vučković et al. (2019), at fn. 56.
135.
Matanovac Vučković et al. (2019), at fn. 32.
136.
Matanovac Vučković et al. (2019), at fn. 56.
137.
Matanovac Vučković et al. (2019), Section 3.2.
138.
See Matanovac Vučković et al. (2019), after fn. 68 for details.
139.
See Matanovac Vučković et al. (2019), after fn. 88.
140.
See in this volume Dincă and Rizoiu (2019), Section 2.
141.
See in this volume Dincă and Rizoiu (2019), Section 2.
142.
See in this volume Dincă and Rizoiu (2019), Section 3.3.
143.
See in this volume Dincă and Rizoiu (2019), Section 4.
144.
See in detail in this volume Dincă and Rizoiu (2019), Section 3.3.
145.
For a general appraisal of the French reform, see Leavy (2007), pp. 101 et seq.
146.
See Loi de 22.2.1944; cf. Fargeaud (1963), pp. 71 et seq.
147.
See in this volume Séjean and Binctin (2019), Section 3.2.2.
148.
See in this volume Séjean and Binctin (2019), Section 3.2.2.1.
149.
See the details in this volume Séjean and Binctin (2019), Section 3.2.2.
150.
See in this volume Séjean and Binctin (2019), Section 3.2.2.3.
151.
See in this volume van Engelen (2019), Sections 3.1 and 3.2.
152.
See in this volume Murguía-Goebel (2019), Section 3.1.
153.
See in this volume Murguía-Goebel (2019), Section 3.1 at the end.
154.
See in this volume Lepik (2019), Section 3.
155.
See in this volume Brinkmann et al. (2019), fn. 113.
156.
See in this volume Brinkmann et al. (2019), Section 3.1.1.
157.
See in this volume Brinkmann et al. (2019), Section 3.1.1.
158.
See in this volume Brinkmann et al. (2019), Section 3.1.1.
159.
See in this volume Brinkmann et al. (2019), fn. 160, with further references.
160.
Kieninger (2008), p. 182.
161.
See in greater detail in this volume Brinkmann et al. (2019), Section 3.2.1.
162.
Dorfmayr (2019), Section 3.2.1.
163.
Dorfmayr (2019), Section 3.2.2.
164.
Dorfmayr (2019), Section 3.2.4.
165.
See in this volume Kallinikou and Koriatopoulou (2019), Section 3.
166.
The reporters from the Czech Republic note that this rule is “without any substantial justification or proper reasoning”; see in this volume Koukal and Pullmannova (2019), Section 4.
167.
See in this volume Koukal and Pullmannova (2019), Section 2.
168.
See in this volume Bornheim (2019), Section 3.1.1.3.
169.
For a detailed account of English IP legislation on this point, see in this volume Bornheim (2019), Section 3.2.1.
170.
See in this volume Bornheim (2019), Section 3.1.1.3.
171.
See in this volume Bornheim (2019), Section 4.2.
172.
Argyropoulou et al. (2019), Section 5.
173.
Argyropoulou et al. (2019), text after fn. 24.
174.
For a detailed account of this debate, see in this volume Ricolfi (2019), Section 3.1.4.
175.
See in this volume Ricolfi (2019), Sections 3.1.5 and 3.1.6.
176.
See in this volume Heredia Cervantes (2019), Section 2.
177.
See in this volume Heredia Cervantes (2019), Section 3.
178.
See in this volume Heredia Cervantes (2019), Section 3.
179.
Lahorgue (2019), after fn. 23.
180.
See in this volume Murguía-Goebel (2019), Section 3.2.
181.
For example, see in this volume Brinkmann et al. (2019), Section 1; see also in this volume Juutilainen (2019), Section 9. In contrast, the Mexican report states that although legislation explicitly caters for a floating lien on IP assets, practice in Mexico still shies away from it; see in this volume Murguía-Goebel (2019), Section 3.5.
182.
Brinkmann et al. (2019), Section 1.
183.
See the detailed description in McCracken (2019), Section 6.3 et seq.
184.
See in this volume Masiyakurima (2019), Section 5.
185.
Argyropoulou et al. (2019), Section 6.
186.
See in this volume Karjiker (2019), Section 5 on the “general notarial bond.”
187.
See in this volume Juutilainen (2019), Section 6. The Finnish system is interesting from a comparative point of view: first, because the creation involves signing a “promissory note,” and second, because only 50% of the value of the encumbered assets can be used to pay off the mortgagor with priority over unsecured creditors.
188.
See in this volume Dincă and Rizoiu (2019), Section 5.
189.
See in this volume Dincă and Rizoiu (2019), Section 5.
190.
See in this volume Bornheim (2019), Sections 5.1.1 and 5.1.2. The Common Law provinces of Canada seem to follow this concept; see Howell (2019), Section 5.
191.
See in this volume Séjean and Binctin (2019), Section 5. The same was true for Belgium before January 1, 2018; see Storme and Malekzadem (2019), para 20 (gage sur fonds de commerce). Under the new Act, Belgian law still allows for the pledge of an enterprise, but considers the individual assets to be attached; see Storme and Malekzadem (2019), para 21.
192.
Lahorgue (2019), Section 5.
193.
See in this volume Hara and Haga (2019), Sections 3.1.(3), 3.1.(4) and 4.
194.
See in general Bülow (2017), pp. 482 et seq. For the similar situation in Austria, see Dorfmayr (2019), Section 5; however, Austrian law seems more reluctant to accept all-asset security rights. The Turkish approach, on the other hand, seems to resemble German law; see in this volume Özsunay and Özsunay (2019), Section 5.
195.
See in this volume Lepik (2019), Section 5.
196.
See in this volume Ricolfi (2019), Section 2.3.
197.
See in this volume van Engelen (2019), Section 5.
198.
See in this volume Heredia Cervantes (2019), Section 3.
199.
See in this volume Kallinikou and Koriatopoulou (2019), Section 5.
200.
Matanovac Vučković et al. (2019), Section 5.
201.
See in this volume Shieh and Lee (2019), Sections 2.2.4 and 5.
202.
See in detail Picht (2018), pp. 304 et seq.
203.
See e.g. in this volume Séjean and Binctin (2019), Section 6.1.
204.
See in this volume Karjiker (2019), Section 6. In Japan, the security agreement is the only source for the mutual rights and obligations. For pledges, there are some rules contained in the respective IP enactments; see in this volume Hara and Haga (2019), Section 6.
205.
For example, see in this volume Juutilainen (2019), Section 7.
206.
McCracken (2019), Section 7.1 et seq.; Howell (2019), Sections 6.1 and 6.2.
207.
See, for example, Lahorgue (2019), Section 6.
208.
See in this volume Brinkmann et al. (2019), Section 3.6; see in this volume Ricolfi (2019), Section 3.1.7; see in this volume Karjiker (2019), Section 6; Matanovac Vučković et al. (2019), Section 6.
209.
See in this volume Ricolfi (2019), Section 3.1.7.
210.
See in this volume Lepik (2019), Section 6.1. However, the pledgee’s written consent is required for the transfer of a trademark; see in this volume Lepik (2019), Section 6.1.
211.
For example, see in this volume Lepik (2019), Section 6.
212.
For a detailed account, see in this volume Dincă and Rizoiu (2019), Section 6.
213.
Storme and Malekzadem (2019), paras 29 et seq. In Turkey, the rights and obligations under security agreements on movables and claims before default are laid down in detail in the Civil Code; see in this volume Özsunay and Özsunay (2019), Section 6. The Estonian reporter also gives a detailed account of the statutory rules relating to the pre-default relationship in case of a pledge; see in this volume Lepik (2019), Section 6.1.
214.
See also in this volume Heredia Cervantes (2019), Section 6. In Japan, any authorization of the pledgee to use the IP right must be expressly granted by contract; see in this volume Hara and Haga (2019), Section 6.1.
215.
See the detailed discussion of the parties’ interests in this volume Ricolfi (2019), Section 3.1.7.
216.
Van Gelder Apsimon & Co v Sowerby Bridge United District Flour Society (1890), 44 Ch D 374 (CA) [Van Gelder].
217.
See in greater detail in this volume Bornheim (2019), Section 6. In the Netherlands, in contrast, it is the pledgee who has to sue the infringing party; see in this volume van Engelen (2019), Section 6.1.
218.
See Dorfmayr (2019), fn. 128.
219.
For a general overview (from a European perspective), see Dirix (2008), pp. 223–241.
220.
See, for example, in this volume Brinkmann et al. (2019), Section 3.5.3.
221.
See in this volume Dincă and Rizoiu (2019), Section 7.1.
222.
See in this volume Dincă and Rizoiu (2019), Section 7.2.
223.
See in this volume Dincă and Rizoiu (2019), Section 10.
224.
See, for example, the detailed account of the different remedies available to the secured creditor in enforcement and insolvency given by the South African reporter: Karjiker (2019), Section 4.
225.
See in this volume Dorfmayr (2019), Section 7.1.1.
226.
See Dorfmayr (2019), Section 7.1.2.
227.
Van Engelen (2019), Section 7.1.
228.
See in this volume Karjiker (2019), Sections 4.1 and 7.
229.
See in this volume Heredia Cervantes (2019), Section 7.1.c; Section 2; Matanovac Vučković et al. (2019), at fn. 108.
230.
Lahorgue (2019), Section 7.1.; see in this volume Lepik (2019), Section 7.1 for pledges and Section 7.2 for security transfers.
231.
See in this volume Murguía-Goebel (2019), Section 3.7.1.2.1.
232.
See in this volume Shieh and Lee (2019), Section 3.3.
233.
For example, see in this volume Brinkmann et al. (2019), Sections 3.1.4, 3.2.4, 3.3.3, 3.4.3 and 3.5.3.
234.
On this topic see also Koziol (2011), pp. 115 et seq.
235.
See in this volume Ricolfi (2019), Section 5.
236.
See in this volume Brinkmann et al. (2019), Section 3.5.3.
237.
The Czech reporters give some figures taken from the registry for the period of 2014–2016. While the number of registrations of security rights over patents and utility models rests between 1 and 9 per year, security rights over trademarks occur more often (i.e. between 112 and 379 per year). There are around 50 enterprise charges involving patents per year; see in this volume Koukal and Pullmannova (2019), Section 9, table 2.
238.
The reporters for Cyprus note that “guidelines issued by the Central Bank of Cyprus for banking institutions suggest that goodwill and other intangible assets must be valued at zero percent for the purpose of determining a loan amount”; see in this volume Argyropoulou et al. (2019), Section 9.
239.
Juutilainen (2019), Section 9, counts a total of only 131 security rights over national patents, 61 security rights over European patents, and 262 security rights over trademarks for the entire period of 1996–2019.
240.
See https://www.scotlawcom.gov.uk/files/5514/9987/1139/Moveable_Transactions_Scotland_Bill_-_consultation_draft_-_bill_-__July_2017.pdf; see in this volume Masiyakurima (2019), Section 11.
241.
See in this volume Shieh and Lee (2019), Section 5.
242.
Available at http://www.uncitral.org/pdf/english/texts/security-lg/e/10-57126_Ebook_Suppl_SR_IP.pdf.
243.
See http://www.uncitral.org/uncitral/en/uncitral_texts/security/2016Model_secured.html.
244.
See also in this volume Juutilainen (2019), Section 4.3, on the problem that security rights in copyright should be registered from the perspective of secured transactions law, but cannot be registered due to the lack of a copyright registry.
245.
See in this volume Shieh and Lee (2019), Section 5, on a bill aiming to introduce the floating charge.
246.
For example, see in this volume Murguía-Goebel (2019), Section 3.8.
247.
The Future of Copyright, Sydney, February 25, 2011, available at www.wipo.int/about-wipo/en/dgo/speeches/dg_blueskyconf_11.html (accessed June 27, 2019).
248.
Ricolfi (2019), Section 7.

References

Argyropoulou V, Christoforou A, Synodinou T-E (2019) Security rights in intellectual property in Cyprus. In: Kieninger E-M (ed) Security rights in intellectual property. Springer, Heidelberg
Google Scholar
Bornheim JJ (2019) Security rights in intellectual property in England and Wales. In: Kieninger E-M (ed) Security rights in intellectual property. Springer, Heidelberg
Google Scholar
Brinkmann M, Rüther D, Scraback B (2019) Security rights in intellectual property in Germany. In: Kieninger E-M (ed) Security rights in intellectual property. Springer, Heidelberg
Google Scholar
Bülow P (2017) Recht der Kreditsicherheiten, 9th edn. CF Müller, Heidelberg
Google Scholar
Charpentier É (2019) Les sûretés sur la propriété intellectuelle au Québec (Canada). In: Kieninger E-M (ed) Security rights in intellectual property. Springer, Heidelberg
Google Scholar
Dahan F, Simpson J (2004) The European bank for reconstruction and development’s secured transactions project. In: Kieninger E-M (ed) Security rights in movable property in European private law. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 98–116
Chapter Google Scholar
Decker M (2012) Geistiges Eigentum als Kreditsicherheit. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen
Google Scholar
Denoncourt J (2017) IP debt finance and SME’s: revealing the evolving conceptual framework drawing on initiatives from around the world. In: Kono T (ed) Security interests in intellectual property. Springer, Singapore, pp 1–38
Google Scholar
Dincă R, Rizoiu RA (2019) Security rights in intellectual property in Romania. In: Kieninger E-M (ed) Security rights in intellectual property. Springer, Heidelberg
Google Scholar
Dirix E (2008) Remedies of secured creditors outside insolvency. In: Eidenmüller H, Kieninger E-M (eds) The future of secured transactions in Europe. De Gruyter, Berlin, pp 223–241
Google Scholar
Dirix E (2015) Das neue belgische Gesetz zu den Mobiliarsicherheiten. Zeitschrift für Europäisches Privatrecht (ZEuP) 2015:273–287
Google Scholar
Dorfmayr C (2019) Security rights in intellectual property in Austria. In: Kieninger E-M (ed) Security rights in intellectual property. Springer, Heidelberg
Google Scholar
Fargeaud P (1963) Le gage sans dépossession comme instrument de crédit et le Marché Commun. Librairie du Journal des Notaires et des Avocats, Paris
Google Scholar
Hara M, Haga Y (2019) Security rights in intellectual property in Japan. In: Kieninger E-M (ed) Security rights in intellectual property. Springer, Heidelberg
Google Scholar
Heredia Cervantes I (2019) Security rights in intellectual property in Spain. In: Kieninger E-M (ed) Security rights in intellectual property. Springer, Heidelberg
Google Scholar
Horn C, Grünwald A (2015) Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz II. Verlag Österreich, Vienna
Google Scholar
Howell R (2019) Security rights in intellectual property in Canada (Common Law). In: Kieninger E-M (ed) Security rights in intellectual property. Springer, Heidelberg
Google Scholar
Juutilainen T (2019) Security rights in intellectual property in Finland. In: Kieninger E-M (ed) Security rights in intellectual property. Springer, Heidelberg
Google Scholar
Kallinikou D, Koriatopoulou P (2019) Security rights in intellectual property in Greece. In: Kieninger E-M (ed) Security rights in intellectual property. Springer, Heidelberg
Google Scholar
Karjiker S (2019) Security rights in intellectual property in South Africa. In: Kieninger E-M (ed) Security rights in intellectual property. Springer, Heidelberg
Google Scholar
Kieninger E-M (2008) Die Zukunft des deutschen und europäischen Mobiliarkreditsicherungsrechts. Archiv für civilistische Praxis (AcP) 208(2):182–226
Article Google Scholar
Knopf H (2002) Security interests in intellectual property: an international comparative approach. In: Idem (ed) Security interests in intellectual property. Thomson/Carswell, Toronto, pp 1–93
Google Scholar
Koukal P, Pullmannova H (2019) Security rights in intellectual property in the Czech Republic. In: Kieninger E-M (ed) Security rights in intellectual property. Springer, Heidelberg
Google Scholar
Koziol G (2011) Lizenzen als Kreditsicherheiten, Zivilrechtliche Grundlagen in Deutschland, Österreich und Japan. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen
Book Google Scholar
Lahorgue S (2019) Security rights in intellectual property in Brazil. In: Kieninger E-M (ed) Security rights in intellectual property. Springer, Heidelberg
Google Scholar
Leavy J (2007) France. In: Sigman HC, Kieninger E-M (eds) Cross-border security over tangibles. Selier European Law Publishers, Munich
Google Scholar
Lepik G (2019) Security rights in intellectual property in Estonia. In: Kieninger E-M (ed) Security rights in intellectual property. Springer, Heidelberg
Google Scholar
Macdonald R (2009) Transnational secured transactions reform: Book IX of the Draft Common Frame of Reference in Perspective. Zeitschrift für Europäisches Privatrecht (ZeuP):745–782
Google Scholar
Masiyakurima P (2019) Security rights in intellectual property in Scotland. In: Kieninger E-M (ed) Security rights in intellectual property. Springer, Heidelberg
Google Scholar
Matanovac Vučković R, Ernst H, Gliha I (2019) Security rights in intellectual property in Croatia. In: Kieninger E-M (ed) Security rights in intellectual property. Springer, Heidelberg
Google Scholar
McCracken S (2019) Security rights in intellectual property in Australia. In: Kieninger E-M (ed) Security rights in intellectual property. Springer, Heidelberg
Google Scholar
McGuire M-R (2008) Intellectual property rights: “property” or “right”? The application of the transfer rules to intellectual property. In: Faber W, Lurger B (eds) Rules for the transfer of movables: a candidate for European harmonisation or national reform? Sellier European Law Publishers, pp 217–237
Google Scholar
Murguía-Goebel L (2019) Security rights in intellectual property in Mexico. In: Kieninger E-M (ed) Security rights in intellectual property. Springer, Heidelberg
Google Scholar
Özsunay E, Özsunay MR (2019) Security rights in intellectual property in Turkey. In: Kieninger E-M (ed) Security rights in intellectual property. Springer, Heidelberg
Google Scholar
Picht PG (2018) Vom materiellen Wert des Immateriellen – Immaterialgüterrechte als Kreditsicherungsmittel im nationalen und internationalen Rechtsverkehr. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen
Book Google Scholar
Ricolfi M (2019) Security rights in intellectual property in Italy. In: Kieninger E-M (ed) Security rights in intellectual property. Springer, Heidelberg
Google Scholar
Séjean M, Binctin N (2019) Security rights in intellectual property in France. In: Kieninger E-M (ed) Security rights in intellectual property. Springer, Heidelberg
Google Scholar
Shieh M-Y, Lee S-H (2019) Security rights in intellectual property in Taiwan, Republic of China. In: Kieninger E-M (ed) Security rights in intellectual property. Springer, Heidelberg
Google Scholar
Storme ME, Malekzadem J (2019) Security rights in intellectual property in Belgium. In: Kieninger E-M (ed) Security rights in intellectual property. Springer, Heidelberg
Google Scholar
Van Engelen TCJA (2019) Security rights in intellectual property in The Netherlands. In: Kieninger E-M (ed) Security rights in intellectual property. Springer, Heidelberg
Google Scholar

Download references

Author information

This report was also published in Kieninger (Ed), Security Rights in Intellectual Property, Springer Nature Switzerland 2020.

Authors and Affiliations

Julius-Maximilians-Universität Würzburg, Würzburg, Germany
Eva-Maria Kieninger

Authors

Eva-Maria Kieninger
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Eva-Maria Kieninger .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

AcadÕmie internationale de droit comparÕ, International Academy of Comparative Law, Paris, France
Katharina Boele-Woelki
Académie internationale de droit comparé, International Academy of Comparative Law, Paris, France
Diego P. Fernández Arroyo
AcadÕmie internationale de droit comparÕ, International Academy of Comparative Law, Paris, France
Alexandre Senegacnik

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

About this paper

Cite this paper

Kieninger, EM. (2021). Security Rights in Intellectual Property. In: Boele-Woelki, K., Fernández Arroyo, D.P., Senegacnik, A. (eds) General Reports of the XXth General Congress of the International Academy of Comparative Law - Rapports généraux du XXème Congrès général de l'Académie internationale de droit comparé. Ius Comparatum - Global Studies in Comparative Law(), vol 50. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-48675-4_13

Download citation

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-48675-4_13
Published: 18 December 2020
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-48674-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-48675-4
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics