Skip to main content

Part of the book series: LCF Studies in Commercial and Financial Law ((LCFSCFL,volume 2))

  • 187 Accesses

Abstract

The Chorzow Factory judgment is widely recognized as a seminal decision in international law for its contribution to rules of State responsibility, the law of reparation, and the assessment of damages. In contrast, scholars have largely overlooked the significance of the judgment for the protection of the industrial property of foreigners under international law. This chapter seeks to rectify this oversight by examining the influences of the Chorzow Factory judgment on the international protection of industrial property rights. The chapter proceeds in three parts. First, it reviews the protection under international law of the industrial property rights of foreigners as it existed at the time the judgment was rendered. Second, the chapter analyses the major issues relating to industrial property covered in the judgment. Finally, the chapter explores the subsequent impact of the judgment on the international protection of industrial property rights. It posits that the Chorzow Factory judgment established the justiciability of issues relating to industrial property rights before international courts and tribunals; reinforced the role of unfair competition law in the protection of industrial property rights; and paved the way for the increased protection of industrial property rights through international trade and investment law.

The author is grateful to Ms. Anika Havaldar and Mr. Idriss Fofana, Judicial Fellows at the International Court of Justice, for their assistance in the preparation of this chapter. The views expressed here are solely those of the author.

Abdulqawi Ahmed Yusuf is a Judge and former President of the International Court of Justice, Den Haag, The Netherlands.

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

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 219.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 279.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Brown (2017), p. 61.

  2. 2.

    See, e.g., Wehland (2013), pp. 136, 183–194 (discussing multiple proceedings in investment treaty arbitrations); Brown (2005), pp. 221–222, 226 (discussing the inherent powers of international courts and tribunals).

  3. 3.

    But see Morris (2020).

  4. 4.

    Certain German Interests (1926), pp. 44, 81.

  5. 5.

    Ibid., p. 36. See also Chorzow Factory (1928), pp. 19–20.

  6. 6.

    Chorzow Factory (1928), p. 20.

  7. 7.

    Certain German Interests (1926), p. 44.

  8. 8.

    See Chorzow Factory (1929) (placing on record the agreement regarding the settlement of the dispute and declaring the proceedings terminated).

  9. 9.

    A parallel and distinct regime existed for the protection of literary and artistic property, sometimes referred to as “performers’ rights”, such as copyright. This regime centered around the Berne Convention of 1886.

  10. 10.

    See WIPO (2020).

  11. 11.

    Convention d’Union de Paris pour la Protection de la Propriété industrielle, as revised at The Hague (Hague Act) (1925), art. 1. All translations from the original French are unofficial.

  12. 12.

    Ibid., art. 1.

  13. 13.

    Ibid., art. 10bis.

  14. 14.

    Ibid., art. 2.

  15. 15.

    Ibid.

  16. 16.

    See ibid., arts. 4, 4bis, 5.

  17. 17.

    Ibid., art. 6.

  18. 18.

    See ibid., art. 8.

  19. 19.

    Ibid., art. 13.

  20. 20.

    Ibid., art. 15.

  21. 21.

    Ladas (1930), p. 54.

  22. 22.

    Ladas (1930), pp. 57–58.

  23. 23.

    Convention for the protection of commercial, industrial, and agricultural trade marks and commercial names (1923), art. 1.

  24. 24.

    Verdross (1931), p. 364 (“La soi-disant propriété littéraire artistique et industrielle, par contre, doit être écartée de ce domaine, étant donné que ces droits ne peuvent pas encore être réclamés sur la base du droit des gens général, mais semblent supposer pour être internationalement valables une protection conventionnelle.”)

  25. 25.

    See Higgins (1982), p. 337.

  26. 26.

    The Vinland Case (1925), p. 308. See also Fitzgibbons (1962), pp. 190–191.

  27. 27.

    A.B. Catty v. German Government (1924), p. 264; S.H. and E.V. Bethell (1924), pp. 641–642. Cited in Fitzgibbons (1962), pp. 191–192.

  28. 28.

    Ibid., p. 192 (citing the cases Stanislas-Alfred de Montebello c. Etat allemand (1923) and Lallier, van Cassel et Cie c. Etat allemand (1924)).

  29. 29.

    Oscar Chinn (1934), p. 88.

  30. 30.

    Ibid., p. 86.

  31. 31.

    Chorzow Factory (1928), p. 11.

  32. 32.

    See ibid., p. 55. See also Chorzow Factory, Discours Prononcé Devant La Cour (1928), p. 128.

  33. 33.

    Chorzow Factory (1928), p. 55.

  34. 34.

    Chorzow Factory, Discours Prononcé Devant La Cour (1928), p. 105.

  35. 35.

    Chorzow Factory (1928), pp. 51–52.

  36. 36.

    Ibid.

  37. 37.

    Ibid., p. 56.

  38. 38.

    Ibid.

  39. 39.

    Ibid., p. 53.

  40. 40.

    Ibid., p. 49.

  41. 41.

    Ibid.

  42. 42.

    Chorzow Factory, Discours Prononcé Devant La Cour (1928), pp. 71–72. All translations from the original French are unofficial.

  43. 43.

    Ibid., p. 105.

  44. 44.

    Ibid.

  45. 45.

    Ibid., p. 128.

  46. 46.

    See Chorzow Factory (1928), p. 56.

  47. 47.

    Ibid., p. 57.

  48. 48.

    Ibid., p. 56

  49. 49.

    Ibid.

  50. 50.

    Ibid.

  51. 51.

    Ibid.

  52. 52.

    Ibid., p. 57.

  53. 53.

    Ibid.

  54. 54.

    Ibid., p. 57.

  55. 55.

    Ibid.

  56. 56.

    Ibid., p. 58.

  57. 57.

    Ibid.

  58. 58.

    Ibid.

  59. 59.

    Ibid., pp. 58–59.

  60. 60.

    Ibid., p. 59.

  61. 61.

    Ibid.

  62. 62.

    Ibid.

  63. 63.

    See Fitzgibbons (1962), p. 196; Higgins (1982), pp. 322–323.

  64. 64.

    See Douglas (2010), pp. 490, 512, 539, 559.

  65. 65.

    Ibid., p.186.

  66. 66.

    See Institut de Droit international (1936), pp. 249–251.

  67. 67.

    Institut de Droit international (1936) La clause juridictionnelle dans les Conventions d’Union, notamment celles relatives à la propriété industrielle et à la propriété artistique et littéraire, art. 1.

  68. 68.

    Ibid., art. 4.

  69. 69.

    See Institut de Droit International (1936), p. 251. French translations are unofficial.

  70. 70.

    Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property, as revised at Stockholm (Stockholm Act) (1967), art. 28.

  71. 71.

    Universal Copyright Convention (1952), art. XV.

  72. 72.

    International Convention for the Protection of Performers, Producers of Phonograms and Broadcasting Organisations (1961), art. 30.

  73. 73.

    Patent Co-operation Treaty (1970), art. 59.

  74. 74.

    Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization (1994), Annex IC, art. 64.

  75. 75.

    General Inter-American Convention for Trade Mark and Commercial Protection (1930), art. 1.

  76. 76.

    See Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization (1994), Annex IC, art. 39.

  77. 77.

    See ibid., art. 40.

  78. 78.

    For a recent example, see U.S. Trade Rep. (2020).

References

Journal Articles

  • Brown C (2005) The inherent powers of International Courts and Tribunals. BYIL 76:195

    Google Scholar 

  • Fitzgibbons H Jr (1962) Compensation for intangible elements of value of expropriated property under international law. Harv Int Club J 4:177

    Google Scholar 

  • Morris S (2020) Chorzow factory—intellectual property and the continuity of international law in investor-state dispute settlement. Queen Mary J Intellect Prop 10(2):179

    Article  Google Scholar 

Books and Chapters

  • Brown C (2017) Factory at Chorzow (Germany v. Poland) (1927-28). In: Bjorge E, Miles C (eds) Landmark cases in public international law, 1st edn. Hart, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Douglas Z (2010) The international law of investment claims. CUP, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Higgins R (1982) The taking of property by the state: recent developments in international law. Collected Courses of The Hague Academy of International Law, The Hague

    Google Scholar 

  • Ladas SP (1930) The international protection of industrial property. Harvard UP, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Verdross A (1931) Les Regles Internationales concernant le Traitement des Etrangeres. Recueil des Cours de l’Academie de Droit International de la Haye, La Haye

    Google Scholar 

  • Wehland H (2013) The coordination of multiple proceedings in investment treaty arbitration. OUP, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Appendices

Cases

  • A.B. Catty v. German Government (1924) Claim 677, Anglo-German Mixed Arbitral Tribunal (First Section). In: Recueil des décisions des tribunaux arbitraux mixtes institués par les traités de paix, Vol. 4, p. 261.

  • Certain German Interests in Polish Upper Silesia, Merits, Judgment, P.C.I.J. Series A No. 71926.

  • Factory at Chorzow, Claim for Indemnity, Merits, Judgment, P.C.I.J. Series A No. 171928.

  • P.C.I.J., Factory at Chorzow, Claim for Indemnity, Order of 25 May 1929.

  • Factory at Chorzow, Claim for Indemnity, Merits, Discours Prononcé Devant La Cour, P.C.I.J. Series C No. 15/21928.

  • Oscar Chinn, Judgment, P.C.I.J. Series A/B No. 631934.

  • S.H. and E.V. Bethell (1924) Claim 1111, Anglo-German Mixed Arbitral Tribunal. In: Recueil des decisions des tribunaux arbitraux mixtes institues par les traites de paix, Vol. 4, Librairie de la societe du recueil Sirey, Paris, p. 638.

  • The Vinland Case, Administrative Decision No. VII (1925) Mixed Claims Commission (United States and Germany), Reports of International Arbitral Awards, vol. VII. p. 203.

Other Sources

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2024 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Yusuf, A.A. (2024). The Chorzow Factory Case and the Protection of Industrial Property under International Law. In: Heidemann, M. (eds) The Transformation of Private Law – Principles of Contract and Tort as European and International Law. LCF Studies in Commercial and Financial Law, vol 2. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-28497-7_10

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-28497-7_10

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-031-28496-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-031-28497-7

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics