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.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:netd.ac.za/oai:union.ndltd.org:sun/oai:scholar.sun.ac.za:10019.1/6536 |
| Date | 03 1900 |
| Creators | Kellerman, Mikhalien |
| Contributors | Van der Walt, A. J., University of Stellenbosch. Faculty of Law. Dept. of Public Law. |
| Publisher | Stellenbosch : University of Stellenbosch |
| Source Sets | South African National ETD Portal |
| Language | English |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | Thesis |
| Format | viii, 391 p. |
| Rights | University of Stellenbosch |
Page generated in 0.0295 seconds