Intellectual Property Rights: Copyright, Monopoly, and Trademarks
This paper examines three central questions in intellectual property law. First, it explores how the concept of originality underlies copyright protection under both civil law and common law traditions, even though the word "originality" never appears in the Berne Convention. Second, it analyzes the apparent tension between the monopolistic character of intellectual property rights and their legislative purpose of enhancing competition, considering instruments such as the TRIPS Agreement. Third, it discusses the dual role of trademarks in protecting business interests while simultaneously serving consumers by enabling informed purchasing decisions and building market trust. Together, these discussions illuminate the foundational principles and inherent tensions that shape modern intellectual property law.
- Copyright and Originality Under Civil and Common Law: Originality as foundation of copyright in both traditions
- The Berne Convention and the Implicit Originality Standard: Originality implied but absent from Berne Convention text
- Intellectual Property Rights as Monopolies and Competition Enhancers: Reconciling IP exclusivity with pro-competition legislative goals
- The Dual Role of Trademarks for Traders and Consumers: Trademarks protect businesses and guide consumer decisions
- Consumer Trust, Counterfeiting, and Trademark Erosion: What happens when consumer trust in trademarks breaks down
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper addresses three distinct but related IP law topics in a structured, question-by-question format, keeping the analysis focused and easy to follow.
- It successfully juxtaposes civil law and common law perspectives on originality, showing that the concept is implicit in the Berne Convention even without explicit wording.
- The trademark section uses concrete real-world examples — such as brand loyalty and counterfeit products — to ground abstract legal principles in practical consequences.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper consistently applies a "reconciliation" technique: it identifies an apparent contradiction (e.g., originality absent from the Berne Convention; IP rights as both monopolies and competition enhancers) and then resolves it through comparative legal analysis. This approach demonstrates that surface-level inconsistencies in legal texts can be resolved by examining underlying policy rationale and implied meaning.
Structure breakdown
The paper is organized around three discrete discussion questions, each functioning as a mini-essay. Each section opens by framing the legal tension, develops the argument through civil law and common law lenses or policy analysis, and closes with a synthesizing conclusion. The references follow APA formatting and draw on a mix of legal scholarship, international treaty sources, and constitutional authority.
Copyright and Originality Under Civil and Common Law
Copyright law is concerned with the protection of original works of authorship. In the United States, copyright law is enshrined in the Constitution, which gives Congress the power to "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries" (US Constitution, 2022). Under U.S. copyright law, a work is considered original if it is the product of an individual author's independent creative effort. This requirement of originality differs from that of other countries, which generally protect any work that is not a mere copy of another work. Nonetheless, the level of originality required for copyright protection in the United States is relatively low; even a small amount of creativity will suffice.
From a civil law perspective, copyright protection encourages creativity by giving authors a financial incentive to create new works. From a common law perspective, copyright protection is seen as a way to foster competition by giving authors exclusive rights to their works and preventing others from free-riding on their labor. Thus, both perspectives recognize that originality is at the heart of copyright law.
References
Abdollahi, M. J., Renani, M. S., & Arabzadeh, R. (2021). Analysis of criteria for originality of architectural works in intellectual property law. Private Law, 18(1), 177–201.
Alaknanda. (2020). Trademarks, brands and counterfeiting in fashion industry. Issue 2 Int'l JL Mgmt. & Human., 3, 956.
Igbokwe, E. M., & Tosato, A. (2022). Access to medicines and pharmaceutical patents: Fulfilling the promise of TRIPS Article 31bis. University of Pennsylvania, Institute for Law & Economics Research Paper, (22-08).
Martin-Bariteau, F. (2019). The idea of property in intellectual property. UBCL Rev., 52, 891.
US Constitution. (2022). Retrieved from https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/article-1/section-8/clause-8/
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.