Intellectual Property Rights and E-Commerce: Bridging the Gap Between Technological Innovation and Legal Protection
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.29070/ep3mze92Keywords:
Intellectual Property Rights, E-Commerce, Digital Marketplaces, Trademark Counterfeiting, Copyright Enforcement, Platform Liability, Blockchain, Artificial Intelligence, TRIPS Agreement, Digital Single MarketAbstract
The rapid expansion of electronic commerce has outpaced the legal instruments originally designed to protect trademarks, copyrights, patents, and trade secrets. This article examines the structural tension between fast-moving technological innovation in digital marketplaces and the comparatively slow evolution of intellectual property rights (IPR) doctrine. Drawing on comparative analysis of frameworks under the TRIPS Agreement, the World Intellectual Property Organization treaty system, the United States Digital Millennium Copyright Act, and the European Union's Digital Single Market Directive and Digital Services Act, the article identifies recurring points of doctrinal failure: platform intermediary liability, counterfeit proliferation in online marketplaces, algorithmic and generative-AI authorship, blockchain-based provenance and non-fungible tokens, and cross-border enforcement asymmetries. The article argues that closing the gap between innovation and protection requires a layered response combining technology-enabled enforcement tools, harmonized intermediary liability standards, and forward-looking statutory reform rather than reliance on judicial improvisation alone. The analysis concludes with policy recommendations for legislators, e-commerce platforms, and rights holders seeking to reconcile innovation incentives with enforceable protection.
Downloads
References
1. Boyle, J. (2008). The public domain: Enclosing the commons of the mind. Yale University Press.
2. Lessig, L. (2004). Free culture: How big media uses technology and the law to lock down culture and control creativity. Penguin Press.
3. Litman, J. (2001). Digital copyright. Prometheus Books.
4. Perzanowski, A., & Schultz, J. (2016). The end of ownership: Personal property in the digital economy. MIT Press.
5. World Intellectual Property Organization. (2021). World intellectual property report 2021: The direction of innovation. WIPO.
6. World Trade Organization. (n.d.). Understanding the WTO: Intellectual property Protection and enforcement. WTO.
7. Bridy, A. (2012). Coding creativity: Copyright and the artificially intelligent author. Stanford Technology Law Review, 5, 1–28.
8. Goldman, E. (2005). Deregulating relevancy in Internet trademark law. Emory Law Journal, 54(3), 507–596.
9. Guadamuz, A. (2017). Do androids dream of electric copyright? Comparative analysis of originality in artificial intelligence attributed works. Intellectual Property Quarterly, 2017(2), 169–186.
10. Lemley, M. A. (2007). Rationalizing Internet safe harbours. Journal on Telecommunications and High Technology Law, 6(1), 101–119.
11. Samuelson, P. (2020). Legally speaking: Thinking about NFTs and copyright law. Communications of the ACM, 63(11), 20–22.
12. Tushnet, R. (2008). Power without responsibility: Intermediaries and the First Amendment. George Washington Law Review, 76(4), 986–1016.
13. Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, Apr. 15, 1994, Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, Annex 1C, 1869 U.N.T.S. 299.
14. Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d) (1999).
15. Digital Millennium Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 512 (1998).
16. Directive 2000/31/EC, of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on Certain Legal Aspects of Information Society Services, in Particular Electronic Commerce, in the Internal Market, 2000 O.J. (L 178) 1.
17. Directive (EU) 2019/790, of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 April 2019 on Copyright and Related Rights in the Digital Single Market, 2019 O.J. (L 130) 92.
18. Lanham (Trademark) Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1051–1141n.
19. Regulation (EU) 2022/2065, of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 October 2022 on a Single Market for Digital Services (Digital Services Act), 2022 O.J. (L 277) 1.
20. WIPO Copyright Treaty, Dec. 20, 1996, S. Treaty Doc. No. 105-17, 2186 U.N.T.S. 121.
21. WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty, Dec. 20, 1996, S. Treaty Doc. No. 105-17, 2186 U.N.T.S. 203.
22. Authors Guild v. Google, Inc., 804 F.3d 202 (2d Cir. 2015).
23. MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., 545 U.S. 913 (2005).
24. Rescuecom Corp. v. Google Inc., 562 F.3d 123 (2d Cir. 2009).
25. Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417 (1984).
26. Tiffany (NJ) Inc. v. eBay Inc., 600 F.3d 93 (2d Cir. 2010).
This work is licensed under a 