جستجوی مقالات مرتبط با کلیدواژه « برند » در نشریات گروه « فقه و حقوق »

The most important way to legally enhance brand credibility is to look at the brand as an independent entity. Under these circumstances, the brand becomes a commercial commodity that can be easily protected in various legal situations. Brand independence means that there is no need for the brand to necessarily communicate with the product or service that contains the brand. Among the problems and challenges facing the brand is that the brand may not reflect the nature and quality of the goods and services introduced. According to the studies conducted in this article, we came to the conclusion that the description of brand independence has two important effects, one of which is the ability to transfer and the second important effect of this description is related to the transfer of mobile information. It is with the brand that this effect seems to show more of the economic and marketing aspects of the brand. The description of brand independence is mentioned in paragraph 4 of Article 15 of the TRIPS Agreement and is mentioned as one of the conditions that can be upheld in this article. In addition, it should be noted that the lack of fair competition can be referred to and cited based on what is stated in the Paris Convention.

Indirect liability in US, is creation of US case law and plays an important role in the functioning of the trademark system, in order not to mislead the consumer and reduce his search costs, as well as expanded protection of trademark rights. Given the US trade-economic and technological situation, this practice seems justified, which can well guarantee the US commercial and economic interests, not only in the domestic system, but also in the international trade. Innovation is the foundation of sustainable economic development in the age of knowledge-based economy and technological innovation, play a major role. However, the role of non-technological innovation, including trademarks, in economic growth and development has been considered. However, this role is still secondary and complementary, and it is technological innovation that Determines the  power of competitiveness of companies and governments in domestic and international trade. The us is a country that has a privileged position in the world in terms of trade and economy, and this privileged position, without a doubt, depends on its position in the field of technological innovation. Technological innovation has boosted the country's export growth and, consequently, its economic growth by improving its competitiveness. Obviously, in such a situation, strengthening the non-technological innovation system will strengthen the position of technology and will be very effective in protecting the rights of technology owners. With this analysis, regardless of the legal basis of indirect liability for trademark infringement, the recognition of such liability is in line with the US trade-economic and technological situation and can better guarantee and protect its benefits in international trade relations. In contrast, Iranian economic and social system is less desirable than the US  in terms of technological innovation. Therefore, the identification of such an institution is not recommended in it and it seems that at least based on the situation of innovation production in Iran and exports in this field, not identifying a similar institution has a logical aspect. On the other hand, the common cases  of indirect liability arising from participation in trademark infringement in Iranian law, are subject to the rules governing the determining the liable person under the rule of the combination causes in loss. The application of these rules, such as the rule of liability that takes precedence over the effect, entails the permanent liability of the direct infringer, because  at first, his act is effective in infringing the trademark. 

Participation in trademark infringement, is the facilitation or encouragement of trademark infringement without committing the actus reus  of trademark infringement. Sometimes, this partnership is proven by not supervising the direct infringing act, in addition to gaining financial benefit from the infringement of the mark, the latter type is called vicarous infringement and the first case is called contributory infringement. Identifying this type of liability expand trademark rights. In terms of economic analysis, broader brand protection leads to productivity if technology is at a high level , because consumers become loyal to higher-tech brands. The relationship between a sense of loyalty to the brand and the technology of the products, makes the rules of indirect trademark infringement in the US described as favorable, and in contrast, due to the low technology of Iranian products in the market compared to US products, lack of explicit identification of Trademark infringement in Iran, seems optimal. 

data were collected using the library method. Physical and ebooks and articles are the main sources of data for this research. After collecting data in this way, the present study, with an analytical-descriptive method, first examines Concepts about participation in trademark infringement, such as contributory and vicarious infringement, are examined. Then, the principles and foundations of each of these two types of infringement in the US legal system are explained, and then the issue is examined from the perspective of economic analysis. Finally, the legal and economic situation of Iran in relation to the issue of participation in trademark infringement is analyzed.   

cases and principles of contributory and vicarious infringement in US are consistent with the business, economic, and technological situation in this country; Technological innovation is in a favorable situation, and for this reason, in accordance with such a situation, the elements ofcontributory and vicarious infringement, have been defined. There is no similar theory in Iranian law and considering the commercial, economic and technological situation in Iran, identifying a similar theory is not recommended.

The degree of technological development of countries and their political, commercial and economic conditions, especially at the level of international interactions, play a pivotal role in determining the legal policies of countries. Legal regulations are a tool at the disposal of countries to use them to pursue their goals. Accordingly, just as a single intellectual property rights framework is not appropriate for all aspects of this legal system, a single framework cannot be the criterion for action by all countries. The institution of indirect trademark liability has two different outcomes and functions in the two legal and economic systems of Iran and the US; In the US, due to the high level of technological innovation and its superior competitiveness domestically, it leads to the development of legitimate trade competition, and at the level of international interactions, it will increase the country's economic growth through the development of technological innovations. Conversely, recognizing this in Iran will reduce new businesses and legitimate activities domestically, and in the international arena will lead to currency outflows and difficulty in technological innovation  due to the transfer of liability risk to legitimate commercial activities and the imposition of foreign trademark management costs on domestic industries.Therefore, the lack of identification of the institution of indirect trademark infringement in Iran and reliance on the general rules of civil liability in this regard, is considered sufficient and especially in the context of scientific and technological sanctions on Iran, it seems more desirable.