У статті проаналізовано основні філософські підходи, методологію досліджень інституту комерційних позначень. Висвітлено теоретичне підґрунтя дослідження, розглянуто міжнародно-правові норми, які регламентують право комерційних позначень, проаналізовано наукові погляди на природу права ЄС, викладені в міжнародно-правовій літературі, джерела правового регулювання права
комерційних позначень. Наголошено, що при розгляді питань європейської юридичної методології першочергового значення набуває відмінність між унітарним та внутрішнім правом і системою, а також
причини її існування.
No area of private law has been Europeanized to the extent of intellectual property. In addition, the methods
differ by which the three main IP regimes have been Europeanized, offering three different harmonization
case studies. In the patent field there exists the supranational system of the European Patent Convention,
which governs the pre-grant phase of a patent’s life, depends on dual (European Patent Office and national)
decision-making, incorporates an EU directive in respect of biotechnology (the Biotech Directive) and two
EU supplementary protection certificate regulations, and is supplemented by a growing body of Court of Justice
jurisprudence. In the trade mark field there are national and unitary EU (Community trade mark) regimes
which exist in parallel. In addition, in the copyright field there are the national systems of European states,
supplemented by a large number of piecemeal EU directives and a substantial body of national and Court of
Justice case law. Despite this, to date there has been little sustained consideration of the methodological and
institutional aspects of Europeanization in IP, and little attempt to draw lessons from the experiences of IP for
European private law or vice versa.
While the relationship between European and national law is determined organizationally, via the monist
or dualist doctrine, in the case of EU law the result under both systems is that the EU law is directly applicable.
In addition to being directly applicable, the EU law is also supreme. This supremacy is established by
Court of Justice case law, affirmed by Declaration 17 Concerning Primacy, and accepted by Member States’
courts, albeit the constitutional courts of some Member States having reserved the right to derogate from the
EU law if it conflicts with national constitutional principles.
In 1993 Neil MacCormick predicted that in the post-sovereign European legal order there would be a
need both for the rules specific to particular legal systems and for principles reflecting common traditions of
ideas and securing compatibility between partially overlapping systems. In his prediction, human rights jurisprudence
would likely provide the ‘common traditions of ideas’, with the principles of proportionality,
natural justice, and subsidiary having particular significance, along with the idea of a common European
legal inheritance and legal tradition despite common and civil law differences. Two decades later his prediction
and insights continue to find strong support in the European academic literature, including in the
field of IP, as some of the chapters in this volume also demonstrate. Recalling again Vogenauer’s remarks
from 2005, they also offer a natural starting point for thinking about a common European legal method and
the form which such a method might and ought to take.
