Property Rights
Intellectual property (IP) rights are proprietary in nature, which means they can be bought, sold, licensed, or mortgaged, just like any other type of property. Their value can also be assessed for accounting or contractual purposes. However, it is crucial to understand the distinction between tangible property and the intangible IP rights embedded in that property.
For example, imagine a designer, Emma, creates a new type of backpack. The physical backpack she produces can be owned, sold, or gifted like any other object. However, the design of the backpack, including its unique shape and features, is protected by intellectual property rights. Emma retains the right to prevent others from copying or reproducing her design, even if someone else buys the physical backpack.
Similarly, if a software developer, Liam, writes a program and sells copies of it on a USB drive, the USB drive itself belongs to the purchaser. Yet, the copyright on the code remains with Liam, giving him the exclusive right to control how the program is used, copied, or distributed.
This distinction is important: owning a physical object does not automatically grant ownership of the IP rights associated with it. Violating these rights, such as copying the design of Emma’s backpack or distributing Liam’s software without permission, constitutes infringement, and the IP owner can take legal action to stop it.
In essence, property rights in intellectual property allow creators to control and benefit from their creations, while still allowing others to own and use the physical items on which these creations are embodied.
Territorial Nature
Intellectual property (IP) rights are territorial in nature, which means they are granted and enforced by national legislation and are effective only within the country that recognizes them. Each country has its own intellectual property office that administers the registration and protection of IP rights, and these rights are generally limited to that country’s borders.
For example, consider a chef, Maria, who develops a unique recipe and patents a special kitchen device in the United Kingdom. This patent gives her exclusive rights to make, sell, or use that device only in the UK. If someone manufactures the same device in Canada, Maria’s UK patent provides no legal protection there. To extend her rights internationally, she would need to apply for patent protection in each country where she wants her device to be protected.
Similarly, a fashion designer, Alex, registers a new clothing pattern as a design in the UK. Alex cannot stop companies in Japan from using the same design unless he obtains separate design registration in Japan. Even if international treaties exist to streamline applications across multiple countries, protection still depends on national recognition.
The territorial nature of IP rights also affects trade and importation. For instance, if Alex sells his registered designs in another country within an economic area that recognizes mutual protection, the rights may be considered exhausted, and parallel imports into the UK could be allowed. Conversely, if the goods were first sold outside that area, the UK registration could prevent importation.
In summary, the territorial nature of intellectual property rights means that:
-
Protection is limited to the country granting the right.
-
Separate applications may be needed to secure international protection.
-
Enforcement and legal remedies are valid only within that territory.
Understanding the territorial aspect of IP is essential for creators and businesses operating in a global market, ensuring that their rights are properly secured where they intend to sell, distribute, or license their creations.
Monopolistic Nature
One of the defining features of intellectual property (IP) rights is their monopolistic or exclusive nature. IP rights grant the owner exclusive control over the use and exploitation of their creation for a limited period, effectively creating a legal monopoly.
Exclusive Rights and Negative Nature
Intellectual property rights are primarily negative rights, meaning the owner does not gain physical possession of the object but instead gains the power to prevent others from using it. For example, consider a software developer, Sofia, who creates a new mobile application. She sells the app to users, but her copyright gives her the right to stop anyone from copying, distributing, or modifying the app without permission. Sofia does not own the phones on which the app is installed, but she can enforce her IP rights against unauthorized reproduction or commercial use of her software.
Legal Monopoly
The concept of exclusive rights also establishes a monopoly for the IP owner. Only the owner can exploit the IP commercially:
-
A patentee can manufacture, sell, or license the invention.
-
A trademark owner can use the mark on goods, advertise them, import or export products bearing the mark.
-
A designer can prevent others from copying the registered design.
This monopoly enables creators and businesses to recoup investments, encourage innovation, and maintain market differentiation.
Legal Safeguards and Limitations
Despite granting exclusivity, IP law incorporates safeguards to balance the monopoly with public interest and competition:
-
Finite duration: Most IP rights expire after a set period (e.g., patents for 20 years, registered designs up to 25 years, copyright for the life of the author plus 70 years).
-
Compulsory licensing: If a patent is not used effectively, authorities may grant others the right to exploit it.
-
Non-use revocation: Trademarks can be revoked if not used for more than five years.
-
Competition law intervention: Regulatory authorities can act if an IP owner abuses their rights to restrict competition.
-
Invalidity challenges: Registered IP rights can be challenged in court if they do not meet the legal criteria.
These safeguards ensure that the monopoly is not absolute and serves the public interest while still protecting the rights of the creator.
Historical and Legal Context
At common law, monopolies were traditionally seen as contrary to public policy, as established in the case Darcy v Allin (1602) and codified in the Statute of Monopolies 1623, which declared patents as the main exception. Modern IP legislation continues to balance the creator’s exclusive rights with societal interests and free market competition.
Example
Consider an engineer, Liam, who invents a new type of eco-friendly water filter. His patent grants him exclusive rights to produce and sell this filter. If another company copies the design and sells it, Liam can take legal action for patent infringement, regardless of whether the company developed the filter independently. His rights are therefore monopolistic but legally constrained: he must pay renewal fees, and if he fails to manufacture or license the filter effectively, he could be forced to allow others to exploit it.
Intellectual Property Rights: Justifications and the Limits of Protection Against Unfair Competition
Intellectual property (IP) rights exist to protect the products of human intellect. They safeguard creativity, innovation, and investment in ideas, granting creators a legal monopoly over their work for a defined period. The theoretical justifications for IP rights have been debated extensively in legal and economic scholarship.
From a philosophical perspective, one argument draws from natural rights theory, particularly the writings of John Locke. Locke suggested that individuals have a right to own the fruits of their labor, whether it is a tangible object or the product of the intellect. By this logic, if someone invents a new technology, composes a musical piece, or designs a unique product, they should have ownership rights over it, just as they would over a hand-carved chair or a sculpture.
Another widely cited justification is utilitarianism. Scholars such as Jeremy Bentham argued that granting temporary monopolies through IP rights incentivizes innovation and creativity. By providing exclusive rights, society encourages individuals and companies to invest time, money, and effort into developing new products, processes, and artistic works. Over the long term, this benefits society as a whole, increasing technological progress, cultural richness, and overall standards of living.
However, while IP rights aim to protect creators, they are not without limits, particularly when it comes to unfair competition. International conventions, such as Article 10bis of the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property (1883), require member states to provide remedies against unfair commercial practices. Unfair competition can include creating confusion with a competitor’s products, making false claims, or misleading the public regarding the nature of goods or services. In emotive terms, it is sometimes described as “free riding”—benefiting from another’s investment and effort without contributing to its creation.
Despite these international principles, UK law and many other common law jurisdictions do not recognize a general tort of unfair competition. Instead, legal protection is channeled through discrete IP rights, such as copyright, trade marks, and patents. The tort of passing off is used to address misrepresentation—cases where consumers are misled into believing a product or service comes from another brand—but it does not cover all forms of unfair exploitation. For example, copying a competitor’s successful business model without creating confusion may be ethically questionable but is often legally permissible.
Judicial approaches vary. In Original Beauty Technology Co Ltd v G4K Fashion Limited [2021], the court recognized that the defendants had tried to benefit from the claimant’s successful business model without investing in their own development. Yet, because there was insufficient evidence of consumer confusion, the claim failed. Similarly, in the landmark L’Oréal v Bellure cases, the UK courts and the European Court of Justice differed on whether taking advantage of another company’s trademark constituted actionable unfair competition.
In summary:
-
Intellectual property rights are justified philosophically and economically as a means to protect the products of the mind and incentivize innovation.
-
These rights, however, do not create a universal shield against all forms of unfair competition.
-
Legal protection against unfair practices in the UK largely depends on existing IP rights and the ability to demonstrate misrepresentation through passing off.
-
Balancing the rights of IP owners with public interest and market fairness remains a complex and evolving issue, especially in the global, digital economy of 2025.
Understanding these theoretical foundations and legal limits is essential for creators, entrepreneurs, and businesses aiming to navigate the modern IP landscape responsibly. IP rights are powerful tools, but they are not unlimited, and strategic, informed use is critical for legal and commercial success.
Which statement best describes the relationship between physical objects and intellectual property rights?
Owning the physical item does not automatically grant ownership of the IP rights embedded in it.
Owning the physical item automatically gives full control over all intellectual property rights associated with it.
Intellectual property rights are territorial. What does this mean?
IP rights are granted and enforced by national law and are effective only within that country’s borders.
IP rights automatically apply worldwide once registered in any single country.
What is meant by the “monopolistic nature” of IP rights?
IP owners have exclusive rights to prevent others from using, copying, or selling their creation.
IP owners automatically gain ownership of any physical copies of their product worldwide.
Why are IP rights described as “negative rights”?
They give the owner the power to prevent unauthorized use, rather than giving possession of physical objects.
They grant the owner automatic control over any competitor’s products.
Which of the following is a safeguard against the absolute monopoly of IP rights?
Limited duration, compulsory licensing, non-use revocation, and competition law intervention.
Unlimited protection without any expiration or oversight.
Liam invents an eco-friendly water filter and patents it in the UK. Another company independently copies the design and sells it in the UK. What can Liam do?
Take legal action for patent infringement regardless of the independent development by the other company.
Do nothing, because the other company developed the filter independently.
