WAYS OF PROTECTING THE RIGHTS OF CONTRACT PARTIES IN CASE OF BREAKING THE CONDITIONS OF LICENCE AND COMMERCIAL CONCESSION AGREEMENT

N.V. Korlyakova

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.

The article contains comparative analysis of responsibility and protection norms that regulate the relations between parties of licence agreement (particularly trademark licence agreement) and commercial concession agreement in case of breaking the conditions of the contract by the parties. According to this comparison the author suggests the ways of improving the measures of protection and measures of responsibility, established in the law in application to these two types of agreements. The conclusions include the suggestions of application of norms, established regarding commercial concession agreement, in order to regulate the relations between the parties of licence agreement. That would provide the parties of licence agreement with more guarantees of rights’ protection and, consequently, would improve the legal substance of the agreement itself. Also the sphere of norms, regulating the licence agreement, applicable to the subsidiary regulation of the commercial concession agreement, is defined. The aim of such definition is to concretize the established possibility of applying the norms, regarding licence agreement, which the civil code contains, in order to regulate the commercial concession agreement. The author analyses such issues as the ways of protection of the rights by an exclusive and non-exclusive licensee and a user of commercial concession agreement, the responsibility of licensor and holder of a right for the quality of either product, or work, or service that is provided by a licensee and a user of commercial concession agreement, the liability for quality control. According to the differences and similarities of these contracts the liabilities and responsibilities of the parties and the demanded quantity of actions of one of the parties of the contract might differ, though these contracts should anyway guarantee suitable and high level of quality of either product, or work, or service to the customers. Only the combination of adherence to contractual commitments and observation of customers’ rights and interests would lead to the desired result of the contracts.

Keywords: License agreement; franchise agreement; measures of responsibility; joint responsibility; subsidiary responsibility; measures of protection

Bibliograficheskijj spisok

1. Braginskijj M.I., Vitrjanskijj V.V. Dogovornoe pravo. Dogovory o vypolnenii rabot i okazanii uslug (kn. 3). M: Statut, 2002. 1038 s.

2. Gorodov O.A. Pravo na sredstva individualizacii: tovarnye znaki, znaki obsluzhivanija, naimenovanija mest proiskhozhdenija tovarov, firmennye naimenovanija, kommercheskie oboznache­nija. M.: Volters Kluver, 2006. 427 s.

3. Grazhdanskoe pravo: uchebnik. Ch. II / pod red. A.P. Sergeeva, Ju.K. Tolstogo: v 3 t. M.: Prospekt, 2005. T. 3. 784 s.

4. Grazhdanskoe pravo. Obshhaja chast': uchebnik: v 4 t. / V.S. Em, N.V. Kozlova, S.M. Korneev i dr.; pod red. E.A. Suk­hanova. 3-e izd., pererab. i dop. M.: Volters Kluver, 2008. T. 1. 736 s.

5. Grishaev S.P. Dogovor ob otchuzhdenii iskljuchitel'nogo prava i licenzionnyjj dogovor v patentnom prave // Grazhdanin i pravo. 2009. №7. S. 78–85.

6. Eremenko V.I., Evdokimova V.N. O rasporjazhenii iskljuchitel'nym pravom na tovarnyjj znak v sootvetstvii s chast'ju chetvertojj Grazhdanskogo kodeksa RF // Zakonodatel'stvo i ehkonomika. 2009. №2. S. 8–17.

7. Karapetov A.G. Osnovnye tendencii pravovogo regulirovanija rastorzhenija narushennogo dogovora v zarubezhnom i rossijjskom grazhdanskom prave: avtoref. dis. … d-ra jurid. nauk. M., 2011. 34 s.

8. Obzor praktiki razreshenija sporov, svjazannykh s zashhitojj prav na tovarnyjj znak: inform. pis'mo Prezidiuma VAS RF ot 29.07.1997 №19 // Vestn. VAS RF. 1997. №10.

9. O zashhite prav potrebitelejj: zakon RF ot 07.02.1992 №2300-1 (red. ot 23.07.2008) // Ros. gaz. 1992. 7 apr.

10. Postanovlenie FAS Central'nogo okruga ot 05.02.2003 po delu №A68-57/4-350/5-02. [Ehlektronnyjj resurs]. Dostup iz SPS «Konsul'tantPljus».

11. Sergeev A.P. Novacii v zakonodatel'stve o sredstvakh individualizacii: shag vpered ili novyjj povod dlja sudebnykh konfliktov? // Arbitr. spory. 2007. №3. S. 123–132.