CYIL Vol. 4, 2013

SOVEREIGNTY AND OWNERSHIP IN RELATION TO OUTER SPACE … subject of these rights, which is intangible asset. Conflict of laws do not arise because of the above mentioned territorial restrictiveness. 53 On the international level it the protection of industrial property rights and copyright provided on the basis of relevant international agreements. As it was said before, the Space Treaty forbids in its Article II appropriation of outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies. The territorial principle, in the true sense of the word, cannot be therefore used . In addition, Article I of the Space Treaty says that the exploration and use of outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, shall be carried out for the benefit and in the interests of all countries, irrespective of their degree of economic or scientific development, and shall be the province of all mankind. This provision of Article I comes into direct c ontrast with intellectual property ownership right, which provides the owner with temporary monopoly. 54 The right to intellectual property in outer space can be based, in the sense of Article VIII of the Space Treaty, on the jurisdiction of the state in whose registry an object launched into outer space is carried. The object launched into outer space can be compared to the territory of the state. Some authors speak of quasi-territorial jurisdiction because of this reason (see above). Jurisdiction of the state on whose registry an object launched into outer space is carried can be considered the most appropriate means 55 for regulation of the intellectual property rights. The USA, for example, changed the Patent law in 1990. According to this law any invention made, used or sold in outer space on board a ship under the jurisdiction or control 56 of the USA is considered to be made, used or sold on US territory except where an international agreement has been concluded. American Patent Law, however, contains the words jurisdiction or control . The words jurisdiction or control 57 which are used in the US Patent Law are considered as problematic in legal theory. It is pointed out that the formulation is in contrast to Article VIII of the Space Treaty, where the term jurisdiction and control is used. A proposal of a regulation is being prepared in the European Community which refers to the patent law in the Community. The proposal of the regulation according to Article 3, of 2003 explicitly refers 58 to “inventions created or used in outer space, 53 See Kučera, Z. Mezinárodní právo soukromé . 6. opravené a doplněné vydání. Brno : nakl. Doplněk, 2004, p. 283. 54 See Sgrosso, G. C. Applicable Jurisdiction Conflicts in the International Space Station. 43rd Colloquium on the Law of Outer Space, Rio de Janeiro, 2000, p. 178. 55 See Dunk, F. G. The Dark Side of the Moon. The Status of the Moon : Public Concepts and Private Enterprise. 40th Colloquium on the Law of Outer Space. Turín, 1997, p. 122A. 56 See Balsano, A. M., de Clercq, A. The Community Patent and Space-related Inventions. Journal of Space Law , 2004, Vol. 30, p. 2. 57 See Diederiks-Verschoor, I. H. Ph. An Introduction to Space Law . 2nd. Edition. The Hague – London – Boston : Kluwer Law International, 1999 pp. 116-117. 58 See Balsano, A. M., de Clercq, A. The Community Patent and Space-related Inventions. Journal of Space Law , 2004, Vol. 30, p. 6.