, associate professor, Kharkiv, Pushinska, 77
ORCID ID: 0000-0001-7256-9958

In heading

Economic analysis of law;

Signed print


Issues number

2016 - № 3 (26)



Type of articles

Scientific article

Code UDK


ISSN print



Problem setting. Contradictions between the economic and social efficiency of legal services in the field of intellectual property (IP) can lead the risk of creation of «institutional traps» in the process of a national model of protection and enforcement of IP rights (PEIPR).
Recent research and publication analysis. The potential and risks of the application of some legal mechanisms for the formation of a national system PEIPR are considered in the works of O. Kashyntsevoyi, G. Androshchuka, A. Olefira, the specifics of legal consulting is studied by O. S. Marchenko.
Paper objective. The article’s purpose is to identify the risk of contradictions between the economic and social efficiency of legal services in the field of IP, consequences for the national economy.
Paper main body. The balance of public (society) and private interests (rightholders) is a basic principle of IP rights. Among the principles of operation of the law firm the main is priority of the client’s interests under the law. Economic efficiency of legal services in IP manifested through growth rate of profit law firm and its clients. Social efficiency turns out because of how this area of legal consulting contributes to level of satisfaction of needs for society, creating a basis for guaranteeing fundamental human rights, etc. Services of law firms in IP can be classified as follows: «standard» (trade mark registration, submission of application for obtaining a patent); transactional (agreements, commercialization of IP); development of a strategy of complex protection of a business or project; protection of IP
rights and suppression of infringements. It makes it possible to increase the synergy of economic and social efficiency with implementing the contribution to the formation of the legal economy.
The contradiction between economic and social effectiveness can be manifest as a result of: the use of modern patent technology of security; priority of economic efficiency at the decision situations like «patent trolling» or cybersquatting; bending motivation of lawyers as subject offer.
Effects are: increase of transaction costs, higher prices for products, conditions for the spread of counterfeit, further increasing costs for securing IP. Institutional trap is formed; innovative activity is directed in destructive direction.
Conclusion of the research. There are a lot of niches for the legal practices in IP, which will be contribute of synergetic growth of economic and social efficiency as a result of implementation of the basic functions of the system PEIPR, but there are risks manifestation of contradictions.
Directions of neutralization risks are: 1) active participation of lawyers in draft amendments to the legislation in the field of IP; 2) distribution services for comprehensive protection of intellectual products; 3) reputation, ethics as a deterrent. Implementation or neutralization risks are dependent above all on the nature and pace of legislative changes.
Short Abstract for an article
Аbstract. The problem of the contradictions of economic and social efficiency of legal services in IP is formulated. The main groups (types) of legal services in IP are classified; peculiarities of modern securing technology are identified. Conflict potential economic and social efficiency of legal services is demonstrated on the bases of goals, principles of the system PEIPR as a social technology, legal institution, considering specific function the law firm as a business entity, the characteristics of relations in the field of IP. The rating of consequences for the formation of the legal economy is implemented. The ways of neutralizing the aforementioned risks are defined.


Іntellectual property, legal consulting, economic and social efficiency, contradiction, balance of interests.


External reviewer

Article in PDF

3 124-137


1. Ohliad rynku yurydychnykh posluh v Ukraini. Retrieved from:
2. Kuzmuk V. (2015). Tendentsii sohodennia na rynku yurydychnykh posluh/ Yurydychna hazeta. 15 kvitnia. Retrieved from:
3. Olefir A. (2014). Pravove rehuliuvannia intelektualnoi vlasnosti y innovatsiinykh vidnosyn v Uhodi pro Asotsiatsiiu Ukrainy ta YeS. Teoriia ta praktyka intelektualnoi vlasnosti. 6.
4. Olefir A. (2016). Obmezhennia sfery patentnoi okhorony yak zasib vidnovlennia konkurentospromozhnosti farmatsevtychnoi promyslovosti. (Ch. 2). Teoriia i praktyka intelektualnoi vlasnosti. 2.
5. Marchenko O. S. (2016). Destruktsii natsionalnoho rynku yurydychnykh posluh: zmist ta naslidky dlia formuvannia pravovoi ekonomiky. Ekonomichna teoriia ta pravo. 2 (25).
6. Alekseeva D. A. (2015). Intellektualnaya sobstvennost i obschestvennoe razvitie: problemyi effektivnosti i spravedlivosti. Voprosyi filosofii. 3. Retrieved from:
7. Ennan R. (2015). Zahalni zasady pravovoho rehuliuvannia intelektualnoi, tvorchoi diialnosti. Teoriia i praktyka intelektualnoi vlasnosti. 6.
8. Rogozhina O. (2014). Intellektualnoe rabstvo. Ekspert. 22. Retrieved
9. Ortyinskaya M. Zontichnyiy patent – zaschita ot konkurentov ili strategiya blokirovaniya patenta? Retrieved from:
10. Kostenko I., Tenova O. (2016). Intelektualna vlasnist ochyma maloho ta serednoho biznesu Yevropeiskoho Soiuzu. Intelektualna vlasnist. 6.
11. Pravova pozytsiia: Zlovzhyvannia pravom intelektualnoi vlasnosti (patentnyi trolinh). Ukrainske pravo. Retrieved from:
12. Levytska S. Patentni troli prysvoiuiut chuzhi vynakhody, vykorystovuiuchy…patentne pravo. Retrieved from:
13. Patentnyi trolinh dobre pryzhyvsia v Ukraini. Retrieved from:
14. Aleksieiev I. (2015). Parlament pidhotuvav sanktsii dlia liubyteliv patentuvaty vishalky, sirnyky, dverni ruchky. Zakon i biznes. Retrieved from:
15. Kondrateva I. Alkogol, narkotiki, suitsid i drugie osobennosti professii yurista. Retrieved from:

282total visits,1visits today

This post is also available in: Ukrainian, Russian