Something old, something new: Czech transposition of disputes under the DSM Directive

Kód výsledku v IS VaVaI

<a href="https://www.isvavai.cz/riv?ss=detail&h=RIV%2F00216224%3A14220%2F22%3A00130005" target="_blank" >RIV/00216224:14220/22:00130005 - isvavai.cz</a>

Výsledek na webu

<a href="https://is.muni.cz/publication/2213377/cs" target="_blank" >https://is.muni.cz/publication/2213377/cs</a>

DOI - Digital Object Identifier

<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jiplp/jpac031" target="_blank" >10.1093/jiplp/jpac031</a>

Jazyk výsledku

angličtina

Název v původním jazyce

Something old, something new: Czech transposition of disputes under the DSM Directive

Popis výsledku v původním jazyce

This paper examines how the Czech transposition proposal deals with alternative dispute resolution (ADR) requirements of the DSM Directive. The element that piqued our interest is the one that manifests the creative choice of the body responsible for preparation of the transposition—Section 53 and following, which propose mediation as a solution for both ADR requirements of the DSM Directive: Article 17 (9) second paragraph (out-of-court redress mechanisms) and Article 21. We address the following question: is the universal mediation-based solution suitable for both of these disputes? In order to find the answer, we take a closer look at the nature and purpose of mediation. We pay especially close attention to the thoughts of Lon L. Fuller on the subject and attempt to constructively enrich these concepts with newer ideas. We argue that mediation is unsuitable for content-removal disputes. On the other hand, for ADR under Article 21, the Czech approach might be suitable. In the final section, we propose technology as a useful tool to enhance the efficiency of content-removal dispute resolution.

Název v anglickém jazyce

Something old, something new: Czech transposition of disputes under the DSM Directive

Popis výsledku anglicky

This paper examines how the Czech transposition proposal deals with alternative dispute resolution (ADR) requirements of the DSM Directive. The element that piqued our interest is the one that manifests the creative choice of the body responsible for preparation of the transposition—Section 53 and following, which propose mediation as a solution for both ADR requirements of the DSM Directive: Article 17 (9) second paragraph (out-of-court redress mechanisms) and Article 21. We address the following question: is the universal mediation-based solution suitable for both of these disputes? In order to find the answer, we take a closer look at the nature and purpose of mediation. We pay especially close attention to the thoughts of Lon L. Fuller on the subject and attempt to constructively enrich these concepts with newer ideas. We argue that mediation is unsuitable for content-removal disputes. On the other hand, for ADR under Article 21, the Czech approach might be suitable. In the final section, we propose technology as a useful tool to enhance the efficiency of content-removal dispute resolution.

Druh

J_imp - Článek v periodiku v databázi Web of Science

CEP obor

—

OECD FORD obor

50501 - Law

Projekt

—

Návaznosti

S - Specificky vyzkum na vysokych skolach

Rok uplatnění

2022

Kód důvěrnosti údajů

S - Úplné a pravdivé údaje o projektu nepodléhají ochraně podle zvláštních právních předpisů

Název periodika

Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice

ISSN

1747-1532

e-ISSN

1747-1540

Svazek periodika

17

Číslo periodika v rámci svazku

5

Stát vydavatele periodika

GB - Spojené království Velké Británie a Severního Irska

Počet stran výsledku

8

Strana od-do

465-472

Kód UT WoS článku

000784530100001

EID výsledku v databázi Scopus

2-s2.0-85143203429