Made available in DSpace on 2016-04-26T20:24:15Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Marcio Lamonica Bovino.pdf: 1475782 bytes, checksum: cb43960199a251d7a0b457dba14fb964 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2016-03-03 / This thesis main objective, already under the Law 13.105/2015, is to propose pure preventive inhibitory or mandatory protection on threat of the illegal act and of abuse of rights. We seek to frame the intention of committing an abuse of rights as the foundation of inhibitory or mandatory individual judicial protection. The challenges are based on the framework of the illegal act despite the actual existence of damage, through the evidence of the intention of the exercise clearly beyond the limits imposed by economic or social order for the good faith or the good morals that the rule imposes, ending the race the probability of the right and the danger of harm or risk to the fruitful result of the process, as the basis of the request for early or injunctive interim injunction. The new Code of Civil Procedure (NCPC) which will come into force on March 16, 2016 (Law 13105 of March 16, 2015), deals with court injunctions guardianships the sole paragraph of Article 497, stating that the action that has the engaged in providing do or not do, the judge if the relief sought, grant specific protection to deter, prevent the repetition or even seeking the removal of illegal (not to be confused with prevention) regardless of the demonstration of the occurrence of damage or of fault or willful misconduct. As it turns out , the legislator has standardized , albeit not fully fit in our view, the three (3) categories of inhibitory: a) preventive inhibitory (also known as pure inhibitory protection); b) inhibitory protection to stop the repetition e c) inhibitory protection to stop the continuation of the illegal act. We feels the convenience of adoption of preventive inhibitory or mandatory protection as an autonomous differentiated judicial protection, not just one of the possible inhibitory effect of the sentence currently treated in Chapter XIII of Title I of Book I of the New Civil Procedure Code (NCPC). We suggest the adoption of inhibitory technique as an autonomous differentiated judicial protection, proposing legislative changes to the NCPC which will come into force on March 16, 2016 / A tese tem por objeto central, desenvolvido sob a perspectiva da Lei 13.105/2015, tratar da tutela judicial inibitória do ato ilícito e também diante da ameaça de abuso de direito. Buscamos enquadrar a intenção de praticar um abuso de direito como fundamento da tutela individual judicial inibitória. Os desafios partem do enquadramento do ato ilícito à despeito da existência efetiva de dano, passando pela prova da intenção do exercício manifestamente fora dos limites impostos pelo fim econômico ou social, pela boa-fé ou pelos bons costumes que a norma impõe, encerrando na prova da probabilidade do direito e o perigo de dano ou o risco ao resultado útil do processo, enquanto fundamento do pedido de tutela provisória antecipada ou cautelar. O novo código de processo civil (NCPC) que entrará em vigor no dia 16 de março de 2016 (Lei 13.105 de 16 de março de 2015), trata das tutelas inibitórias judiciais no parágrafo único do art. 497, dispondo que na ação que tenha por objeto a prestação de fazer ou de não fazer, o juiz, se procedente o pedido, concederá a tutela específica destinada a inibir, impedir a reiteração ou mesmo buscar a remoção do ilícito (esta última que não se confunde com a prevenção), independentemente da demonstração da ocorrência de dano ou da existência de culpa ou dolo. Como se vê, o legislador normatizou, ainda que de forma não plena a nosso ver, as 3 (três) categorias de tutela inibitória: a) tutela preventiva do ato ilícito (também conhecida como tutelar inibitória pura); b) tutela impeditiva da reiteração do ilícito e c) tutela impeditiva da continuação do ato ilícito. Entendemos que a tipicidade das ações inibitórias judiciais, matéria bastante debatida pela doutrina, poderia ter sido melhor explorada do ponto de vista. Inserida no capítulo que trata do cumprimento de sentença, nos parece que o legislador perdeu uma boa oportunidade de tipificar a ação inibitória ao invés de tratar no Capítulo XIII do Título I do Livro I apenas dos possíveis efeitos inibitórios da sentença. Defendemos a conveniência da adoção das ações inibitórias judiciais enquanto tutela jurisdicional diferenciada autônoma, e não apenas um dos possíveis efeitos inibitórios da sentença tratado atualmente no Capítulo XIII do Título I do Livro I do Novo Código de Processo Civil (NCPC). Sugerimos a adoção da técnica inibitória enquanto tutela jurisdicional diferenciada autônoma, propondo alteração legislativa no NCPC que entrará em vigor em 16 de março de 2016

Die Dissertation befasst sich mit der juristischen Problematik, ob ein Rechtsbehelf anzuerkennen ist, der es Anspruchsgegnern ermöglicht, in lauterkeitsrechtlichen Unterlassungsstreitigkeiten Verfahren des einstweiligen Rechtsschutzes zu initiieren. Ein solcher Rechtsbehelf ist für Anspruchsgegner bislang nicht anerkannt. Dies stellt sich als sehr problematisch dar, da Eilverfahren im Lauterkeitsrecht eine sehr hohe Bedeutung zukommt und Anspruchsgegner in diesen Verfahren signifikant benachteiligt werden. Dieser Umstand begründet auch eine erhebliche Gefahr von Fehlentscheidungen zu Lasten der Anspruchsgegner. Im Wettbewerb kann diesen Fehlentscheidungen große Bedeutung zukommen, weil durch sie beispielsweise der Vertrieb neuer innovativer Produkte untersagt werden kann. Die Arbeit kommt zu dem Ergebnis, dass ein entsprechender Rechtsbehelf anzuerkennen ist, da er dem Anspruchsgegner eine Möglichkeit verschafft, sich wirksam vor schädigenden Fehlentscheidungen zu schützen und damit der Verwirklichung der verfassungsrechtlichen Vorgaben prozessualer Waffengleichheit und effektiven Rechtschutzes dient. / The dissertation deals with the juristic problem whether a legal remedy is to be recognized which enables opponents to initiate procedures of interim legal protection in disputes regarding injunctive relief in the field of unfair competition law. Such a legal remedy is not recognized for opponents up to now. This appears to be very problematic, as preliminary proceedings are of high importance in the field of unfair competition law and opponents are being significantly disadvantaged in these procedures. This fact also founds a considerable danger of wrong decisions at the expense of the opponents. In competition these wrong decisions may be of great importance as, for example, the distribution of new and innovative products can be prohibited by them. The work comes to the conclusion that a corresponding legal remedy is to be recognized, because it provides the opponent with an effective option to protect itself from damaging wrong decisions and it serves the realization of the constitutional requirements of procedural equality of opportunity and effective legal protection.

Die Dissertation befasst sich mit der juristischen Problematik, ob ein Rechtsbehelf anzuerkennen ist, der es Anspruchsgegnern ermöglicht, in lauterkeitsrechtlichen Unterlassungsstreitigkeiten Verfahren des einstweiligen Rechtsschutzes zu initiieren. Ein solcher Rechtsbehelf ist für Anspruchsgegner bislang nicht anerkannt. Dies stellt sich als sehr problematisch dar, da Eilverfahren im Lauterkeitsrecht eine sehr hohe Bedeutung zukommt und Anspruchsgegner in diesen Verfahren signifikant benachteiligt werden. Dieser Umstand begründet auch eine erhebliche Gefahr von Fehlentscheidungen zu Lasten der Anspruchsgegner. Im Wettbewerb kann diesen Fehlentscheidungen große Bedeutung zukommen, weil durch sie beispielsweise der Vertrieb neuer innovativer Produkte untersagt werden kann. Die Arbeit kommt zu dem Ergebnis, dass ein entsprechender Rechtsbehelf anzuerkennen ist, da er dem Anspruchsgegner eine Möglichkeit verschafft, sich wirksam vor schädigenden Fehlentscheidungen zu schützen und damit der Verwirklichung der verfassungsrechtlichen Vorgaben prozessualer Waffengleichheit und effektiven Rechtschutzes dient. / The dissertation deals with the juristic problem whether a legal remedy is to be recognized which enables opponents to initiate procedures of interim legal protection in disputes regarding injunctive relief in the field of unfair competition law. Such a legal remedy is not recognized for opponents up to now. This appears to be very problematic, as preliminary proceedings are of high importance in the field of unfair competition law and opponents are being significantly disadvantaged in these procedures. This fact also founds a considerable danger of wrong decisions at the expense of the opponents. In competition these wrong decisions may be of great importance as, for example, the distribution of new and innovative products can be prohibited by them. The work comes to the conclusion that a corresponding legal remedy is to be recognized, because it provides the opponent with an effective option to protect itself from damaging wrong decisions and it serves the realization of the constitutional requirements of procedural equality of opportunity and effective legal protection.