Issue 1 (23) 2014

TjulkinA.A. THE OBJECT SUBSTANCE INDIVIDUALIZED BY COMMERCIAL DESIGNATION

THE OBJECT SUBSTANCE INDIVIDUALIZED BY COMMERCIAL DESIGNATION

A.A. Tjulkin

Perm State National Research University
15, Bukirev st., Perm, 614990
E-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Abstract: commercial designation as one of the means of individualization is not well examined; that is why a single method to determine its essence doesn’t exist. In law the term commercial designation was established by the 4th part of the Civil code of the Russian Federation, it provided for commercial designation of an enterprise. This method unfoundedly narrows the applicability of commercial designation and it doesn’t correspond to business environment, hence the term commercial designation has to be widened. One can make a conclusion, that the model of business organization is the object, which is individualized by commercial designation; this model is formed by a certain property complex or several property complexes. The model is regarded as the organization of business which may be reproduced by an analogue property complex. Property complex means the property minimum, including property rights, intellectual deliverables (not including means of individualization) which are required for carrying out business. At that, a property complex may also be the object of commercial designation but only if it is the result of business organized according to a certain model and the object of further realization, i.e. assignment for use on a paid-for-basis or alienation. According to the research commercial designation is defined as a designation known on a definite territory, which individualizes a business model, based on a certain property complex, and the property complex itself if is regarded as business results and the object which is subject to assignment and alienation.

Keywords: commercial designation; trade name; business name; property complex; entrepreneurship; business

References

1. Bobkov S.A. Kommercheskoe oboznachenie kak ob#ekt iskljuchitel'nyh prav // Zhurnal ros. prava. 2004. №1. S. 136–142.

2. Burmistrov R.E. Pravovaja priroda predprijatija kak ob#ekta grazhdanskih prav. // Ros. sud'ja. 2006. №8. S. 27–30.

3. Gorodov O.A. Pravo promyshlennoj sobstvennosti: uchebnik. M.: Statut, 2011. 942 s.

4. Gribanov A. Pravovaja priroda predprijatija kak imushhestvennogo kompleksa v prave Rossii // Hozjajstvo i pravo. 2003. №7. S. 64–71.

5. Dombrovickij M.P. Sushhnost' predprijatija v rossijskom grazhdanskom prave // Advokat. 2008. №8. S. 99–108.

6. Kaminka A.I. Ocherki torgovogo prava. M.: Centr JurInfoR, 2002. 547 s.

7. Klochun T.G. Problemy pravovogo regulirovanija otnoshenij, ob#ektom kotoryh vystupajut kommercheskie oboznachenija // Hozjajstvo i pravo. 2007. №4. S. 65–74.

8. Petrenko O.V. Osobennosti vozniknovenija iskljuchitel'nogo prava na kommercheskoe oboznachenie // Bezopasnost' biznesa. 2011. №3. S. 33–35.

9. Rabec A. Pravovaja ohrana kommercheskih oboznachenij: novelly zakonodatel'stva // Pravo i jekonomika. 2007. №6. S. 66–72.

10. Rozenberg V.V. Firma: dogmaticheskij ocherk. SPb., 1914. 189 s.

11. Sokolova G. Kommercheskoe oboznachenie: zashhita ot konkurentov // Predprinimatel' bez obrazovanija jurid. lica. PBOJuL. 2009. №1.

12. Sudakov A.A. Predprijatie – samostojatel'nyj ob#ekt grazhdanskih prav // Ros. sud'ja. 2006. №1. S. 38–40.

13. Suevalov M.S. Kuplja-prodazha predprijatija kak osnovnaja forma otchuzhdenija-priobretenija biznesa // Jurist. 2007. №7. S. 17–21.

14. Suslikov V.N. O pravovom statuse predprijatija kak imushhestvennogo kompleksa // Grazhd. pravo. 2009. №4. S. 24–26

15. Frolova N. Predely dejstvija iskljuchitel'nyh prav na kommercheskoe oboznachenie // Intellektual'naja sobstvennost'. Promyshlennaja sobstvennost'. 2012. №8. S. 21–30.

16. Shishkin D.A. Grazhdansko-pravovye formy ispol'zovanija firmennyh naimenovanij i kommercheskih oboznachenij: avtoref. dis. … kand. jurid. nauk. Rostov n/D., 2010. 24 s.

17. Shishkin D.A. Sootnoshenie firmennogo naimenovanija i kommercheskogo oboznachenija // Ros. justicija. 2008. №6. S. 5–8.

18. Shishkin D.A. Firmennye naimenovanija i kommercheskie oboznachenija v zakonodatel'stve zarubezhnyh stran // Ros. justicija. 2009. №3. S. 131–133.

19. Shul'ga A.K. Problemy sootnoshenija tovarnogo znaka i kommercheskogo oboznachenija // Obshhestvo i pravo. 2008. №3. S. 131–133.

20. Jurga V. Kommercheskoe oboznachenie: problemy pravovogo regulirovanija // Hozjajstvo i pravo. 2010. №9. S. 42–49.

21. Kohli C., LaBahn D.W. Creating Effective Brand Names: A Case Study of the Naming Process // Journal of Advertising Research. 1997. 37(1). P. 67–75.

22. Whitacre K.C. What’s in a (trade) name? Distinguishing practices in the legal field // Phoenix law review online. P. 39–43. URL: http://www.phoenixlawreview.com/file.axd?file=2013%2F8%2FKevin+Whitacre+Whats+In+a+Trade+Name+2+Accord+39.pdf (data obrashhenija: 14.01.2014).