Robic's Newsletter

CLICK FOR LEGAL NOTICE

Publications Back to the newsletter

Intellectual property and secured transactions : Going the wrong way in the right direction

2010-01-01

INTELLECTUALPROPERTYANDSECUREDTRANSACTIONS:GOINGTHEWRONGWAYINTHERIGHTDIRECTION?

FRANÇOISPAINCHAUDANDJASONMOSCOVICI*
ROBIC,
LLP
L
AWYERS,PATENTANDTRADEMARKAGENTS

TheideathatIntellectualProperty(“IP”)rightsaremostlyfreelytransferablerightswould
theoreticallymakethemprimecandidatesfortheiruseincommercialtransactions:fast,sure
andsoughtafter.However,theverynatureofintellectualpropertymaysuggestanapproach
differenttothatoftraditionalpropertyincommoncommercialtransactions,especiallywhenit
comestotheissueofvaluation,financingandsecurecollateral.
1

Naturally,IPrightshavingthe“property”component,itiswithoutadoubtthisaspectthat
makestheserightsthefocalpointwhenstudyingtheuseofIPrightsascollateralinsecured
transactions;sincetraditionalsecuritylegislationnormallyfocusontheconceptofpropertyin
thestrictsense,shouldIPrightsbelumpedinwiththissamecategory?

ThefirstrationaleforthistypeofconceptualizationisthefactthatnotallIPrightsare
necessarilytransferableperse(forexample,moralrightstoacopyrightprotectedworkare
generallynottransferable);istheresomethinginthenatureofanassetthatwouldmakeit
inappropriateforuseassecurity,suchasthecaseforcopyrightandothersimilarformsof
intellectualpropertyprotection?ThiswouldnecessarilydependonhowagivenNationdefines
therightsinquestion.
ThisbringsustothediscussionofhowIPrightsarebeingtreatedonanationallevel.The
prospectofauniversalandinternationallyrecognizedcommercialcodehasbroughtupmany
issuesandmorespecifictointellectualproperty,hasinitiatedseveraldebatesthatstudythe
verynatureoftheserightsandtheirpotentialaccessoryusesascollateralforsecure
transactions.
WhenwearespeakingofIPrightsassecurity,wearemakingreferencetointellectual
propertyhavingenoughmeasurablevalueonitsownsoastobeusedasapracticalformof
guarantee.Intermsofaloan,thiswouldputintoplaytwoseparatespheresofevaluation:the
existenceofanIPright,andthesecuritizationofprivateproperty.

CIPS,2010.*LawyerswithROBIC,LLP,amultidisciplinaryfirmoflawyers,andpatentandtrade-markagents.
Publication407.
1IntellectualPropertyasCollateralinSecuredTransactions:CollisionofDivergentApproaches,
[2009]BusinessLawInternationalVol10,27-50,ISSN:1467632X

2
Therefore,itisimportanttorealizethatformanylegalsystems,separatelegalregimes
governbothintellectualpropertyandsecuredtransactionsindependently.Certainly,thereare
jurisdictionsthatprovidedirectlyforsecurityrightsdirectlyintheirIPlawswhileothersonly
recognizethepossibilityintheirlegislationgoverningsecuredtransactions.

TherearealsojurisdictionsthatdonotexplicitlymentionthesecuritizationofIPrightsatall
anditisthereforeassumedthatbothrightsremaininseparatelegalcategories,instillinga
certainlevelofuncertaintywithregardstotherelationshipbetweenthetwo.

ConflictscanthenarisebetweenIPlawandsecuredtransactionlaw,asitisoftenthecase
withtheissueofperfectionandregistration.WhileIPlawsareprincipallyconcernedwith
documentingthecreationofIPrights,theregistrationofsecurityinterestsinsuchrightswould
mainlybeusefulforsubsequent,alternativechangesordealingstotheproperty.Therefore,
mostIPregistrysystemsaredesignedfortransactionfilingsratherthan“noticefiling”
2.Onthe
otherhand,securedtransactionsregistriescontainlimitedinformation,havingformaingoal
thepurposeofservingnoticetothirdparties.Itisthedifferencebetweencreatingarightand
perfectingitthatisusuallythemainpointofcontentionbetweendifferingviewsontheissueof
IPrightsasaformofsecurity.
Somecoordinationisthereforerequiredbetweentheabilityforalendertoobtainsecurity
towardsaborrower’sIPrightsandhisabilitytorealizesuchrightsinamannerthateffectively
recognizespriorityandthatproperlyevaluatestheeconomicinterestsinvolved.Now
compoundthisissue,whichexistsatanationallevel,toaninternationalscaleanditcan
easilybeunderstoodastowhythereisasentimentintheairtowardscertainharmonization
initiatives.
3

ThislackofcoordinationispreciselywhytheuseifIPrightscanbeseenasriskyby
prospectivelenders.NotonlyisthereaninherentrisktotheuseofIPrightsduetothe
complexvaluationprocessandtheapplicabletimelimitations,thereisalsotheadditionallack
ofcertaintyconcerningtheperfectionandenforceabilityofthesetypesofguarantee
agreements.
Thisleadsusbacktothegeneralquestionof:“ShouldIPbetreatedinthesamemanneras
othertypesofpropertywithintheworldoffinancialtransactions?“
4

However,beforeuniformitycaneffectivelybediscussed,itisimportanttounderstandthe
issuescurrentlybeingdealtbyarepresentativegroupofcountries,aswellastheoptions
madeavailablebythemconcerningtheuseofIPrightsascollateralinsecuredtransactions;
presentedbelowisabirds-eyeviewofcertainnationalapproachestotheuseofintellectual
propertyascollateralinsecuredtransactions.
2Id.3Forexample:UNCITRALColloquiumOnSecuredTransactions:SecurityInterestsinIntellectual
PropertyRights(vienna,18-19January2007)
4Asalreadycited,see“IntellectualPropertyasCollateralinSecuredTransactions:Collisionof
DivergentApproaches,[2009]BusinessLawInternationalVol10,27-50,ISSN:1467632X”foran
introductiontothetopic.

3
1.NORTHAMERICA

(a)Canada

Canada,beingafederalistcountry,reliesontheconceptofthedivisionoflegislativepowers
todelineatethecompetenciesbetweenfederalandprovincialjurisdictions.

Everythingthatcanbedefinedasprivateproperty,includingthetransferofsuch,is
constitutionallyrecognizedasbeingunderprovincialjurisdictionandnaturally,theregistration
andperfectionofsuchrightsareprovincialresponsibilitiesbyassimilation.

Concurrently,intellectualpropertyisunderfederaljurisdictioninCanadaandthequestioncan
beaskedastothedynamicbetweenbothformsofpropertyrights(inthestrictsense)as
recognizedbyeachformoflegislation.Morespecifically,thequestioncanbeaskedastothe
relationshipbetweenthefederalandprovincialgovernmentwhenitcomestotheperfectionof
asecurityinterest(normallyofprovincialjurisdiction)inanIPright(undermixedjurisdiction).

Atfirstglance,securitiesinCanadaaregenerallymanagedbyaformof“PersonalProperty
SecurityAct”
5orasitisthecaseforQuebec,byBook6oftheCivilCode6.

CanadatreatsIPrightsasintangiblemovablepropertyrightsanditisunderthisdefinitionthat
differentprovincesareenabledtolegislateontheiruseascollateralforsecuredtransactions.
Usually,tobesetupagainstathirdperson,suchrightswouldneedtobe
performed/publishedinprovincialregistersunderanyofthePPSAlegislationsthatmaybe
applicable.
However,therearealsofederalregistersthatexistunderCanadianintellectualpropertylaw
anditremainstobeseenwhetheritisinfactnecessarytopublishinboththeprovincial
“PPSAtype”registers,aswellasthefederalintellectualpropertyregisters,toproperlyperfect
theconferredsecurity.
7

Whatisclearisthatattheprovinciallevel,sinceIPrightsremainintangiblemovableproperty
rights,publicationinapersonalpropertyregisterremainsindispensabletoconferpriority
rightsagainstathirdparty.
Butwhataboutthefederalregisters?Theapplicableintellectualpropertylaws
8speak
generallyoftheregistrationandpublicationofanyassignmentaffectingIPrights,butitis
unclearifwhetherornotanassignmentincludesasecurityinterest.Thereisjurisprudence
thatindicatesthatpublicationinafederalintellectualpropertyregistercanconferadditional
rights,howeverwearenotawareofanyrecentdevelopmentsonthisparticulartopictooffer
anyclearinsight.
5Forexample:PersonalPropertySecurityAct,R.S.O.1990,c.P.106CivilCodeofQuébec(C.C.Q.),S.Q.1991,c.647Sotiriadis,BobH.andDanis,Christian“Prisedegarantiesenmatièredepropriétéintellectuelle”
(Janvier2002),14(2)CahiersProp.Intel.581
8Principally:PatentAct,R.S.C.1985,c.P-4;Trade-marksAct,R.S.C.1985,c.T-13;CopyrightAct,
R.S.C.1985,c.C-42;

4
Tobeconcise,federallawsprovideforthepublicationofIPrightsinafederalregister,
includingthetransferorassignmentofsuchrights;howevertheterms“transfer”and
“assignment”haveyettobedefined.Itmustbementionedthatincertaincases,thecourts
haverecognizedthatanassignmentunderguaranteeshouldbepublishedinbothafederal&
provincialregister,butsuchanobligationstillremainsnuanced.

Inlightofthisgreyzone,ithasnonethelessbecomepracticetorecommendpublicationofany
IPrightsconferredthroughasecuredtransactioninbothprovincialandfederalregisters;
takingintoaccounttheimportanceoftheassets,thepossibilitytoidentifytherightsin
questionandthegeneralinterestofbothparties.
(b)TheUnitedStates

EventhoughIPrightsarelargelyrecognizedasbeingunderfederaljurisdictionintheUnited
States,thecreationandperfectionofsecurityinterestsaregovernedbyeachState
independently.However,theruleswithregardstosecurityinterestshavebeengenerally
harmonizedinallmostoftheStates,followingtheimplementationoftheUniformCommercial
Code(U.C.C.)
9,althoughsomeStatesmayhaveincludedsomevariationsfromthemodel
law.
Section9oftheU.C.C.appliestoalltransactions,irrespectiveoftheirform,creatinganytype
ofsecuritizedprivateproperty.
10Morespecifically,section9alsogovernssecuritieswith
regardstointangibles,11acategorythatincludesresidualconceptsofpropertysuchasIP
rights.
ThesecuritizationofIPrightsintheUScomprisesthreegeneralsteps:creation,perfection
andenforcement.Furthermore,thereseemstobesomedoctrinaldebateastothestatusof
registeredintellectualpropertyversuscommonlawIPrights.

RegisteredIPrightsareproperlysecuritizedinreferencetothelawsapplicabletoeach
State;
12theintellectualpropertybeingchargedneedstobeofadiscernablevalue,withthe
debtorholdingrightsinsaidproperty(asproperlydescribedviatheload-securitization
contract).
13

Tobeopposabletothirdparties,thesecuritizationrightshavetobepublishedthroughalien
noticeinlocalStateorfederalregistries,whicheverapplicable.Thejurisdictiondependson
thetypeofIPrightsbeingperfectedandthereisstillsomedebateastothepropermodelto
follow.
Thegeneralruleistorecognizethedebtor’sjurisdictionasbeingthe“publication
jurisdiction”
14ontheStatelevel.However,thereisanexceptiontothisrule:suchapublication
9Forthepurposeofthispaper,wewillbereferencingtheU.C.C.asenactedbyNewYorkState10U.C.C.9-109(a)1)11U.C.C.9-102(42)12U.C.C.9-201(a)13U.C.C.9-203(b)14U.C.C.9-301

5
wouldnotbenecessaryifthepropertyinquestionisgovernedbyfederallegislationthat
alreadyprovidesforthepossibilityofpublicationinafederalregistry.15

Itisthereforenotsurprisingthat,evenwithexplicitguidanceasfoundintheU.C.C.,general
practicestillsuggestsaformofdoublepublicationatboththefederalandthestatelevel;the
uncertaintybeingdueinparttocertainambiguitiesfoundintheAmericanPatentand
Trademarklawswithregardstopublication.
Forexample,bothtrademarkandpatentrightscanbesecuritizedandpublishedinastate
registryaspersection9U.C.C.Paralleltothis,section1060oftheLanhamAct
16(dealing
withtrademark)andsection261ofthePatentAct17provideforcertainruleswithrespectto
thepublicationofassignmentsandotheraccessoriestopersonalproperty.Certaindoctrineis
oftheopinionthatthispublicationcanbeassimilatedtoasecuritizationprocessandthatthe
exceptionprovidedundertheU.C.C.(publicationinafederalregistervoidsthenecessityto
publishattheStatelevel)wouldbeapplicable;therefore,asecuritywouldnothavetobe
registeredwithastateregistertobeopposabletoathirdparty.However,thereisalso
jurisprudenceintheotherdirection,hencethesuggestedcautionarypractice.

2.EUROPE

(a)UnitedKingdom

UnderBritishlaw,intellectualpropertyisrecognizedasbeinglikeanyotherformofprivate
propertyandtherefore,IPrightscanbeusedascollateralincertainformsofsecured
transactions.
Naturally,IPrightsareconsideredintangiblerights,whicharenormallyguaranteedintheU.K.
throughtheissuanceofa“legalmortgage”,a“fixedcharge”ora“floatingcharge”.

AlegalmortgageisoftenusedwhentheIPrightsarespecificallyidentifiable.TheLenderis
assignedtheIPrightswhiletheborrowerretainsanequitableinterest.Oncetheloanisrepaid,
thelegalownershipswitchesbacktotheBorrower;
18iftheBorrowerdefaults,propertyis
redeemedbytheLenderunderthemortgage.
AfixedchargecanbeusedforIPrightswherethelendertakesequitableinterestinthe
propertyrightsandtheborrowerkeepsalllegalownershipunlessthereisdefault,atwhich
pointthechargefixesontheIPrightsandownershipswitches.

Finally,afloatingchargeisusedmostfrequentlywithIPrightswhichhavenotbeenregistered
withtherelevantIPauthorities,insituationswheresuchrightsarenoteasilyidentifiableor
definable.Achargefloatsovertheunregisteredrightpendingdefault,atwhichpointthe
chargethen“materialises”.
15U.C.C.9-310(a)1615U.S.C.1735U.S.C.18SantleyvWilde[1899]2Ch474;CartervWake(1877)4ChD605

6
Thereisapotentialgreyareaconcerningthedefininglinesbetweentheseformsofsecurity
sinceEnglishlawprovidesforthesameobligationswhenitcomestothepublicationand
perfectionoftheabove-mentionedrights.
Inordertoberecognizedasvalid,thesecurityagreementmustbewrittenandsignedbyboth
parties.
19Additionally,selectintellectualpropertylawsprovidethattheagreementwouldhave
tobepublishedintheproperintellectualpropertybureauregistertohaveanyeffectandtobe
opposabletoanythirdparty,
20whileothers(suchisthecaseforthelegislationgoverning
Trademarks)containnoexpressmentionofsuchaformofpublication;howeverthisformality
canbeinferredfromthenatureoftheright,beingprivateproperty.

Thereforeitissuggestedthatallassignments,licenses(exclusiveandnon-exclusive)aswell
assecurityinterestsinregisteredIPrightsberecordedandpublishedintherelevantregister
withinsixmonthsoftheirexecution.
21

Aswell,CompanieswhoareregisteredinEnglandorinWhaleshavetoregistertheirsecurity
interestswiththeRegistrarofCompaniesatCompaniesHousewithina21-dayperiodof
executionofthetransaction.
22

(b)France

Traditionally,underFrenchlaw,thetermpledgeisoftenusedforasecuritygrantedonan
intangibleright:“Article2355
Apledgeofanincorporealthingistheallocationofanincorporeal
movableorofasetofincorporealmovables,actualorfuture,assecurityforan
obligation.Itmaybeconventionalorjudicial.
Judicialpledgeisregulatedbytheruleswhichapplytoenforcement
proceedings.Failingspecialprovisions,aconventionalpledgewhichattachesto
debtsisregulatedbythisChapter.
Failingspecialprovisions,aconventionalpledgewhichattachestoother
incorporealmovablesisregulatedbytheruleslaiddownforthepledgeof
corporealmovables.”
23
19forexample:ThePatentsAct1977,art30(6)20ThePatentsAct1977,art.33(3)b21www.ipo.gov.uk22CompaniesAct1985(c.6).sections395,396(1)(j)et396(3A)23art.2355C.Civ:«Lenantissementestl’affectation,engarantied’uneobligation,d’unbienmeuble
incorporeloud’unensembledebiensmeublesincorporels,présentsoufuturs.Ilestconventionnel
oujudiciaire.Lenantissementjudiciaireestrégiparlesdispositionsapplicablesauxprocédures

ThepledgethereforehastoberegisteredwiththeclerkoftheCommercialCourtandnot
respectingthissteprenderstheactvoid.APledgeonanindustrialpropertyrightalsoneeds
tobefiledwiththeregistriesoftheNationalIndustrialPropertyInstitutetohaveaneffect.In
France,industrialproperty,whichincludespatentandtrademarkrights,isdifferentiatedfrom
otherformsofintellectualpropertysuchascopyrights.

Therefore,inFrance,pledgesthatchargerightsfortrademarksorforpatentsneedtobe
registeredwiththeNationalIndustrialPropertyInstitutetohaveaneffectandsaidpledges
wouldalsohavetoberegisteredwiththeCommercialCourtfollowingthecommonly
recognizedprocedure.
(c)Germany

GermanyrecognizestwotypesofIPrights:thosethatneedtoberegistered(suchasPatent
rights)andthosethatdonot(suchasCopyright).
Assuch,forthesakeofcommercialstability,registeredrightsarepreferredoverunregistered
oneswhenspeakingofcollateralforfinancialtransactionsinGermany,ifonlyfromarisk
mitigationpointofview.
AnotheraspecttotheuseofIPrightsascollateralinsecuritizedfinancialtransactionsin
Germanyistheirtransferability:patentsandtrademarksbeingtransferablebynature,these
twotypesofrightswillthereforebeprivilegedbylenders.

Copyrightbeingnon-transferableunderGermanLaw,
24suchrightswouldnotbeabletobe
usedascollateralinGermany,exceptformattersconcerningthetransferofrightstowardsa
licensetouseagivenrecognizedcopyright,providedthatconsentfromtheauthoris
obtained.
25

Therefore,underGermanlaw,twoformsofsecuritizationarerecognizedforintangiblerights:
thePledgeandaformof“Trust-security”.
ThePledgeiscreatedvialegalactbetweentheborrowerandthelenderfollowingthetransfer
procedureassetoutbytheGermancivilcode.
26Thegeneralconsensusseemstobethat
thistypeofsecuritydoesnotneedtoberegisteredwiththeIntellectualPropertyOfficeand
thatpublicationinsaidregisterisatthediscretionoftheparties.
27Publicationofthe
IntellectualPropertyOfficedoesnotestablishanyrightsperseandwouldonlyservetoalert
thirdpartiestotheexistenceofsuchapledge.

civilesd’exécution.Lenantissementconventionnelquiportesurlescréancesestrégi,àdéfautde
dispositionsspéciales,parleprésentchapitre.Celuiquiportesurd’autresmeublesincorporelsest
soumis,àdéfautdedispositionsspéciales,auxrèglesprévuespourlegagedemeubles
corporels.»
24UrhGs.2925UrhGs.34-3526BGBs.127427DPMAVs.29

8
Also,certainlawsprovideexplicitlyforthecreationofsuchapledge;asitisthecasefor
trademarksinGermany.28Again,theregistrationofsuchasecurityisatthediscretionofthe
partiesandwouldonlyservetoestablishthepresumptionofright.

Prioritybetweenlendersisdeterminedthroughtheprincipleof“Prioritatsprinzip”:dependant
onthetimeofcreation,evenifcreatedinthefuturethroughtheuseofaconditionalclause.
29

Alternatively,aTrust-security(or“Sicherungsabtretung”)canbeusedasaguaranteeandthis
typeoftitletransfer,formovablerights,isseenmorecommonlythanapledge.

Essentially,alenderagreestofinancetheborrowerinexchangeforthetransferofallrightsto
agivenIP.
30Thetransferofrightsdoesnotneedtobefiledwiththeregistersinorderforthe
agreementtobeenforceablebetweentheparties;again,sucharegistrationmerelyrenderspublicthe
existenceofsaidtransferredrights.
31

3.ASIA

(a)China

TheroadtosecuredtransactionsinChinais,ifanything,newlypaved;especiallywithregards
totheuseofintellectualproperty.UndertheoldSecurityLaw,
32theavailabilityofcollateral
offeredtosecuredlenderswaslimited,butcollateraloverIPrightssuchasexclusive
trademarkandpatentrightsremainedpossible.Thequestionsoonaroseofthepracticalityof
suchsecurity,especiallyunderthenewlyintroducedPropertylegislation
33anditisprovided
thatanydifferenceorconfusionthatmayarisebetweenthetwolegislations(Securityand
Property)isresolvedbygivingdeferencetothemorerecentlyenactedlaw.

Assuch,certainIPrightscanbeusedascollateralforsecuredtransactionsbymeansof
mortgages
34(moreakintothecivillawconceptofhypothecation)orpledges.35Registration
andfilingofsuchactsconstituteformalrequirementswithrespecttotheirenforceability
betweentheparties,aswellastheiropposabilitytowardsoutsidecreditors.

Forexample,mortgagesoncertainformsofIPrights,asinferredthroughaninterpretationof
thenewPropertylaw,areperfectedthroughtheregistrationoftheagreement
36;butfilingwith
theStateIntellectualPropertyOfficeoftheP.R.C.(“S.I.P.O.”)isalsosuggestedtofurther
renderthemopposabletothirdparties.
28MarkenGs29(2)29BGBs120930BGBs.413,s.39831https://www.aippi.org/download/comitees/190/SR190French.pdf32GuaranteeLawofthePeople’sRepublicofChina,(Adoptedatthe14thMeetingoftheStanding
CommitteeoftheEighthNationalPeople’sCongressonJune30,1995,andeffectiveasofOctober
1,1995)
33PropertyRightLawofthePeople’sRepublicofChina,AdoptedbythefifthsessionoftheNational
People’sCongressonMarch16,2007andeffectiveasofOctober1,2007
34ThePropertyRightsLawofthePeople’sRepublicofChina,s18035Id,s.22336Id,s.188

9
Similarly,PledgesgrantedtowardsIPrights,suchasexclusivetrademarkrights,patentrights
andtransferablecopyrights,startwiththeconclusionofacontractbetweentheparties.The
PledgorandthePledgeemustconcludeacontractinwritingandtherightsattachedtosucha
pledgeonlybecomeseffectiveuponregistrationwiththeadministrativedepartmentincharge
ofcommerceandindustry.
37Thepropertyrightscannotbetransferredorusedbyanother
unlessithasbeenagreedtobythepartiesandtheproceedsfromsuchtransferorlicenceare
usedtopaythePledgee’sclaims.
38

Itremainstobeseenhowfinancialinstitutionswilladapttheirlendingpoliciesregardingthe
newpropertylawchanges,especiallywithrespecttothevaluationandperfectionofIPrights
assecurityinChina.
(b)Japan

InJapan,theroadtointellectualpropertyusedassecurityisalsoanewone,butonethathas
seenafewyearsofwork.IPrightscanbeusedascollateralforsecuritizedtransactions;
however,industrialproperty(patents,trademarks,etc.)needtobecontrastedfromotherIP
rightssuchascopyright.
Withregardstoindustrialpropertyinthestrictsense,suchrightscanbeusedforboth
mortgagesandpledgesinJapan.
OnlypledgesareexplicitlynamedunderJapaneseindustrialpropertylawandtheycancover
bothspecificandundeterminedrights.Toperfectapledgeonanindustrialpropertyright,it
wouldhavetoberegisteredwiththeapplicableadministrativebodymanagingthetypeof
industrialpropertyrightinquestion.
39

Concerningmortgages,apatentright(forexample)wouldbearecognizedformofloan
collateral:theLenderistransferredallrightstotheindustrialproperty(innameonly)thatwere
previouslyheldbytheBorrower,withthetitlebeingreturnedtotheBorroweroncethedebtis
paid.
Forthistypeofmortgage,eventhoughtherighttoapatentistransferredtotheLender,the
righttobenefitfromsuchapatent(ortocontinuetoexploitsuchpatent)dependsonthe
agreementbetweentheparties.Thistypeofmortgageortransferisestablishedby
registrationofthetransferwiththeregisteroftheJapanPatentOfficetobeenforceableand
tobeopposabletoanythirdparty.
40

Asforcopyright,itispossibletoregisterapledgewiththeCulturalAffairsAgency.Contraryto
pledgesonindustrialproperty,publicationisnotnecessaryfortheacttobeenforceable
betweentheparties,butisnecessaryonlywithrespecttoenforceabilitytowardsanythird
parties.
41
37Id.,s.22738Id.39PatentAct(ActNo.121of1959),art98(1)(iii);TrademarkAct(ActNo.127ofApril13,1959),art
34(3)
40PatentAct(ActNo.121of1959),art98(1)(i)41COPYRIGHTACT(ActNo.48of1970),article77(2)

Aswell,unlessspecificallyoutlinedviacontract,thecopyrightholdercancontinuetoexercise
hisorherrights,irrespectiveofthegrantedsecurity.
42

Concerningthemortgagingofacopyright,thesamerulesapplyasthoseforanyindustrial
property:registrationofthetransferwiththeapplicableauthorities.

4.Conclusion

Asitwasbrieflyshown,therearedivergentapproachesandphilosophieswhenitcomesto
theuseofIPrightsascollateralinsecuredtransactions.However,thisdivergenceis
counteredbyaunitedrecognitionofthevaluethattheserightscanprovidewhenproperly
valuatedandsecured.
Itisthisaspectthatwilldeterminehowtherecognitionandtheenforceabilityoftheserights
willdevelop,asdiscussionstowardsharmonisationcontinue.Fromastabilityperspective,a
lendershouldnotbeplacedinapositionwheretheymayendupwithlessormorethanwhat
theywerewillingtoagreeto(hencetheimportanceofpropervaluation)andconcurrently,a
borrowershouldnotbeplacedinanunfairlyadvantageouspositionwheretheenforceability
ofaloanagreement,grantingthesecuredtransaction,isputintoquestionthroughtheeyesof
anopportunisticthirdparty.

ROBIC,ungrouped’avocatsetd’agentsdebrevetsetdemarquesdecommerce
vouédepuis1892àlaprotectionetàlavalorisationdelapropriétéintellectuelledans
touslesdomaines:brevets,dessinsindustrielsetmodèlesutilitaires;marquesde
commerce,marquesdecertificationetappellationsd’origine;droitsd’auteur,
propriétélittéraireetartistique,droitsvoisinsetdel’artisteinterprète;informatique,
logicielsetcircuitsintégrés;biotechnologies,pharmaceutiquesetobtentions
végétales;secretsdecommerce,know-howetconcurrence;licences,franchiseset
transfertsdetechnologies;commerceélectronique,distributionetdroitdesaffaires;
marquage,publicitéetétiquetage;poursuite,litigeetarbitrage;vérificationdiligente
etaudit.ROBIC,agroupoflawyersandofpatentandtrademarkagentsdedicated
since1892totheprotectionandthevalorizationofallfieldsofintellectualproperty:
patents,industrialdesignsandutilitypatents;trademarks,certificationmarksand
indicationsoforigin;copyrightandentertainmentlaw,artistsandperformers,
neighbouringrights;computer,softwareandintegratedcircuits;biotechnologies,
pharmaceuticalsandplantbreeders;tradesecrets,know-how,competitionandanti-
trust;licensing,franchisingandtechnologytransfers;e-commerce,distributionand
42COPYRIGHTACT(ActNo.48of1970),article66(1)

11
businesslaw;marketing,publicityandlabelling;prosecutionlitigationandarbitration;
duediligence.
COPYRIGHTER
IDEASLIVEHERE
ILATOUTDEMÊMEFALLUL’INVENTER!
LAMAÎTRISEDESINTANGIBLES
LEGERROBICRICHARD
NOSFENÊTRESGRANDESOUVERTESSURLEMONDEDESAFFAIRES
PATENTER
R
ROBIC
ROBIC+DROIT+AFFAIRES+SCIENCES+ARTS
ROBIC++++
ROBIC+LAW+BUSINESS+SCIENCE+ART
THETRADEMARKERGROUP
TRADEMARKER
VOSIDÉESÀLAPORTÉEDUMONDE,DESAFFAIRESÀLAGRANDEURDELA
PLANÈTE
YOURBUSINESSISTHEWORLDOFIDEAS;OURBUSINESSBRINGSYOUR
IDEASTOTHEWORLD
Trade-marksofROBIC,
LLP(“ROBIC”)