Thesis (LLD)--University of Stellenbosch, 2011. / ENGLISH ABSTRACT: The question that this dissertation addresses is which immaterial property interests may be recognised and protected under the constitutional property clause and if so, under which circumstances. The question originated in the First Certification case 1 where the court held that the constitutional property clause is wide enough to include property interests that require protection according to international norms. The traditional immaterial property interests or intellectual property rights (patents, copyright, designs and trademarks) are protected as property in private law on a sui generis basis. Since it is generally accepted that the property concept in constitutional law includes at least property rights protected in private law, it is relatively unproblematic to include intellectual property rights under the constitutional property clause. In Laugh It Off v SAB International,2 the Constitutional Court explicitly balanced the right to a trademark with the right to freedom of expression, which is accepted as authority that at least trademarks may be recognised and protected as constitutional property. The other intellectual property rights may most likely be recognised and protected by analogy. Foreign law as well as international law also indicates that intellectual property should be recognised and protected as constitutional property. However, there are other, unconventional immaterial property interests that are not protected as property in private law. Some are protected in private law, but not as property; others originate in public law; and yet others are not protected yet at all. In terms of the Constitution, South African courts may consider foreign law, but must consider international law. This dissertation determines when these interests may be protected as constitutional property by reference to foreign cases from German, American, Australian and Irish law; regional international law, namely European Union cases; and international law. The conclusion is that unconventional immaterial property interests may generally be protected if they are vested and acquired in terms of normal law, have patrimonial value and serve the general purpose of constitutional property protection. Property theories are also useful to determine when immaterial property interests deserve constitutional protection, although other theories may be more useful for some of the unconventional interests. The German scaling approach and the balancing of competing interests is a useful approach for South African courts to help determine the appropriate level of protection for specific immaterial property interests without excluding some at the outset. / AFRIKAANSE OPSOMMING: Die vraag waarmee hierdie verhandeling handel is of belange in immateriële goedere erken en beskerm kan word in terme van die grondwetlike eiendomsklousule en indien wel, onder watter omstandighede. Die vraag het sy ontstaan in die First Certification saak,3 waar die Grondwetlike Hof beslis het dat die eiendomsklousule se omvang wyd genoeg is om belange in eiendom in te sluit wat volgens internasionale norme beskerming verg. Sekere regte in immateriële goedere word op ’n sui generis basis in die privaatreg beskerm, naamlik die regte in tradisionele immaterieelgoederereg kategorieë of intellektuele eiendom (patente, kopiereg, ontwerpe en handelsmerke). Dit is 'n algemene beginsel van grondwetlike eiendomsreg dat die konsep van eiendom minstens belange insluit wat as eiendom in die privaatreg beskerm word. In Laugh It Off v SAB International4 het die Grondwetlike Hof 'n handelsmerkreg opgeweeg teen die reg op vryheid van uitdrukking en hierdeur implisiet erken dat minstens handelsmerke en dalk ook ander intellektuele eindemsregte deur die eiendomsklousule erken en beskerm kan word. Buitelandse reg sowel as internasionale reg dui aan dat intellektuele eiendom grondwetlike beskerming behoort te ontvang. Buiten hierdie belange is daar ook immaterieelgoederereg belange wat nie onder eiendomsreg beskerm word in die privaatreg nie. Sommige van hierdie belange word wel in die privaatreg beskerm, maar dan onder ander areas van die reg as eiendom; ander het hul oorsprong in die publiekreg; en die res word tans glad nie beskerm nie. Die Grondwet bepaal dat howe buitelandse reg in ag kan neem en dat hulle internasionale reg moet oorweeg. Die verhandeling se vraag word beantwoord met verwysing na sake uit die Duitse, Amerikaanse, Australiese en Ierse grondwetlike reg; streeks-internasionale reg van die Europese Unie; en internasionale reg. Die onkonvensionele immaterieelgoederereg belange kan oor die algemeen beskerm word as eiendom indien daar 'n gevestigde reg is, die reg in terme van gewone reg verkry is en die belang die algemene oogmerke van die grondwetlike klousule bevorder. Die teorieë oor die beskerming van eiendom is van nut om te bepaal watter belange beskerm kan word, alhoewel sekere onkonvensionele belange beter geregverdig kan word deur ander tipes teorieë. Die Duitse metode om belange op te weeg kan van besonderse nut wees vir Suid Afrikaanse howe om te bepaal watter vlak van beskerming spesifieke belange in immaterieelgoedere behoort te geniet.

Le patrimoine immatériel des collectivités territoriales pose des questions particulières, qui ne sauraient se réduire à celles qui se posent pour le patrimoine immatériel de l’Etat. Il oblige à s’interroger sur la redéfinition de certains concepts centraux du droit administratif des biens, que la doctrine croyait acquis et que tout le monde pensait connaître. Par exemple, la notion d’actif immatériel révèle très clairement les limites matérielles de la propriété publique. Mais plus encore, l’approche immatérielle révèle aussi les limites de la notion de patrimoine public elle-même. Ce patrimoine, n’est plus simplement composé de ce que possèdent les collectivités territoriales, mais aussi de ce qui les constitue. Dès lors, il accueille en son sein des thèmes liés au nom des collectivités, ou encore, à la protection de leurs savoir-faire. Très vite se pose à leur sujet la question des mécanismes de réservation : la propriété publique suffit-elle à cette réservation ? Avec des problématiques liées au patrimoine linguistique ou culturel, le sujet invite à se placer sur un terrain encore inconnu en droit public qui va bien au-delà du seul aspect patrimonial. S’il semble encore trop tôt pour parler en la matière d’approche extrapatrimoniale, force est de constater qu’une réflexion sur des mécanismes de réservation en dehors de la propriété publique s’impose. Par conséquent, avec l’évolution du droit de propriété publique vers l’immatériel et la question sous-jacente d’un « droit public de la propriété intellectuelle », de même qu’avec la question d’un droit des personnes publiques, sommes-nous en train d’assister à la construction discrète et encore hésitante d’un droit de l’immatériel public ? / The immaterial property of local authorities is specific and cannot be reduce to the immaterial property of the State. Some notions of public property law of goods must be define again, whereas the doctrine thought about it, that everything is acquired, and everybody thought to know. For instance, the notion of immaterial good reveals limitations of public property law. Furthermore, immaterial approach reveals also the limitations of the notion of property itself. This property is not simply made anymore that local authorities have, but also, which identify them. Immaterial property understands immaterial goods like local authorities’ name or their know-how. Therefore, the question of the reservation of these “goods” must be asked: property law is it adapted? With the “linguistic or cultural property”, the subject reveals unknown difficulties in public law, beyond of only question of property. If it seems to be too early to talk about an approach apart from property, it is clear that a reflection about the process of reservation without property is necessary. In consequence, with the evolution of public property law to an immaterial approach, and the underlying question of a “public intellectual property law”, in the same way, the question of a law about public authorities, are we attending to a prudent and reserved construction of public immaterial property law?

Made available in DSpace on 2016-04-26T20:29:19Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Sylvio do Amaral Rocha Filho.pdf: 1233618 bytes, checksum: 9fa8d06c34df8f3b347019f0be4931fb (MD5) Previous issue date: 2009-05-29 / Geographic Indications (GI s) do not have uniform treatment in the world-wide doctrine what is reflected in the diverse manifestations about it as demonstration of itself, therefore in each place the institute is treated as peculiar and unique. Even in only one country GI s have, many times, different treatments. We understand Law ex facto oritur jus (from the fact law is born) and from that, we create our agreement of what it is happening in the domain of the Geographical Indications. Geographical indication is a set of words that aims to transmit only one concept, but in fact, it apparently transmits two disconnected concepts that are not: 1 - Geographical indication is the official nomination of one certain place where a Good of the same name occurs and is typical, regional and peculiar with guarantee of origin and with traditional and recognized quality for the loyal, responsible and constant repetition. 2 - Geographic indication is the typical, regional and peculiar Good, with a certain name officially recognized as originating of a place, region or country, named differently but granting quality, reputation and characteristic recognized for the loyal, responsible and constant repetition. Geographic indication is for the target of this work the sort from which flows out the two types: Indication of Source (IS) and Appellation of Origin (AO). It must be noticed that in the same region or place the two types can coexist, that is, a same place can present Indication of Source and Appellation of Origin, depending. An Indication of Source is a local manifestation of more generic character; an Appellation of Origin is a local manifestation of very typical character and, consequently, more generous. Beyond these trouble makers factors there are others: the doctrine does not deal with and does not even mention the several internal classifications of quality that permeate a Geographical Indication and tint it; it insists only on the mention to Geographical Indication, Indication of Source and Appellation of Origin as if it was enough, without informing that almost always there is a proper qualitative internal system of each Geographical Indication, system that enlarges, accentuates or diminishes the classic divisions into Geographical Indication and its species Indication of Source and Appellation of Origin with which it always coexists, case by case / Indicações Geográficas (IG s) não têm tratamento uniforme na doutrina mundial o que se reflete nas diversas manifestações a respeito fazendo do tema uma demonstração de si mesmo, pois em cada lugar o instituto é tratado como peculiar e único. Mesmo dentro de um país as IG s têm, muitas vezes, tratamentos diferentes. Entendemos que em Direito ex facto oritur jus (do fato nasce o direito) e daí criamos nosso entendimento do que se passa no domínio das Indicações Geográficas. Indicação Geográfica é um conjunto de palavras que visa transmitir um só conceito, mas, na realidade, transmite dois conceitos aparentemente desconexos entre si, mas que não são: 1 - Indicação Geográfica é a nomeação oficial de um local certo em que se dá Bem do mesmo nome e que seja típico, regional e peculiar com garantia de procedência e com qualidade tradicional e reconhecida pela repetição leal, responsável e constante. 2 - Indicação Geográfica é o Bem típico, regional e peculiar, com nome certo e reconhecido oficialmente como originário de local, região ou país nomeado diferentemente, mas que lhe confere qualidade, reputação e característica reconhecida pela repetição leal, responsável e constante. Indicação Geográfica é para o escopo deste trabalho o gênero de que defluem as espécies Indicação de Procedência (IP) e Denominação de Origem (DO). Remarque-se que na mesma região ou local podem conviver os dois tipos, ou seja, um mesmo local pode apresentar IP s e DO s, dependendo. A IP é manifestação local de caráter mais genérico; a DO é manifestação local de caráter muito típico e, assim, mais generoso. Além destes fatores motivadores de confusão há mais outros: a doutrina não aborda sob nenhum prisma e nem sequer menciona as diversas classificações internas de qualidade que permeiam uma IG e dão-lhe matiz; insiste apenas na menção à IG, IP e DO, como se isto bastasse, sem avisar que quase sempre há sistema classificatório qualitativo interno e próprio de cada IG, sistema esse que expande ou acentua ou diminui as clássicas divisões em IG e suas espécies IP e DO com as quais sempre convive, caso a caso