Single Authorized State Authority for Intellectual Property Protection in the Republic of Croatia, Hungary and the Kingdom of Sweden: Legal Aspects
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.37772/2309-9275-2025-2(25)-10Keywords:
division, government, legal status, powers, tasksAbstract
Intellectual property protection is one of the phenomena that requires increased attention in the legal direction. Imperfect legislation leads to the complete absence or low indicators of innovation activity in every country, including the EU. In several EU countries (for example, the Republic of Croatia, Hungary and the Kingdom of Sweden) only one authority has been authorized to deal with such issues. In each of these EU countries an analysis of the national legislative framework is carried out, which determines the legal status of the authority: the State Intellectual Property Office of the Republic of Croatia, the Hungarian Intellectual Property Office and the Swedish Patent and Registration Office or the Swedish Intellectual Property Office in English. Their subordination and financing are examined. It is established that only the Hungarian Intellectual Property Office is self-financing. The result is exclusively supervision by the Minister of Culture and Innovation. Supervision is a passive action and, accordingly, conditional, because all relations between this minister and the authority take the form of stating facts. Tasks and powers provided for each authority in national legislation are analyzed. A comparative legal analysis of the tasks assigned to certain organisational divisions was conducted at the State Intellectual Property Office of the Republic of Croatia. Both positive (for example, double checking) and negative aspects (for example, assigning tasks that are not inherent to certain organisational divisions of this authority; the powers of the authority are in various legal acts and aren’t presented in the form of a single list) were identified. The tasks assigned to its organisational divisions were also analyzed in the Hungarian Intellectual Property Office. The result was that several organisational divisions of this authority specialize in the legal protection of intellectual property. In the author’s opinion, it is necessary to reorganize these divisions and their assigned tasks. However, the author’s recommendations aren’t included in the study, as the Hungarian Intellectual Property Office is self-financing. The legislation of the Kingdom of Sweden is in the process of formation in the analyzed direction, as a new model of legal status has been formed, where there are no rights or tasks, and only powers. It is not possible to identify the advantages and disadvantages of the new model, in the author’s opinion, because there is no reliable and complete statistical information on the Eurostat website. The author suggests that the Republic of Croatia and Hungary adopt the experience of the Kingdom of Sweden regarding the new model of legal status.
References
Act оn the Protection of Inventions by Patents, № XXXIII (1995). Retrieved from: https://njt.hu/jogszabaly/1995-33-00-00.
Act on the control of protected designations of craft and industrial products, № 2025:949 (2025, October 23). Retrieved from: https://www.riksdagen.se/sv/dokument-och-lagar/dokument/svensk-forfattningssamling/lag-2025949-om-kontroll-av-skyddade_sfs-2025-949/.
CIS2018. Enterprises that applied for a patent, registered an industrial design, trade mark or used trade secrets, by NACE Rev. 2 activity and size class. Retrieved from: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/inn_cis11_ipr/default/table?lang=en.
CIS2020. Enterprises that applied for a patent, registered an industrial design, trade mark or used trade secrets, by NACE Rev. 2 activity and size class. Retrieved from: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/inn_cis12_ipr/default/table?lang=en.
CIS2022. Enterprises that applied for a patent, registered an industrial design, trade mark or used trade secrets, by NACE Rev. 2 activity and size class. Retrieved from: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/inn_cis13_ipr/default/table?lang=en.
Convention Establishing the World Intellectual Property Organization (1967). https://www.wipo.int/edocs/pubdocs/en/wipo_pub_250.pdf.
Design Protection Act, № 1970:485 (1970, June 29). Retrieved from: https://www.riksdagen.se/sv/dokumentoch-lagar/dokument/svensk-forfattningssamling/monsterskyddslag-1970485_sfs-1970-485/.
Dore, G., Turan, P. (2024). When Copyright Meets Digital Cultural Heritage: Picturing an EU Right to Culture in Freedom of Panorama and Reproduction of Public Domain Art. IIC, 55, 37–65. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40319-023-01408-6
Geiger, C., Scalzini, S. & Bossi, L. (2025). Time to (Finally) Reinstall the Author in EU Copyright Law: From Contractual Protection to Remuneration Rights. IIC. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40319-025-01647-9
Geiregat, S. (2022). Trade Mark Protection for Smells, Tastes and Feels – Critical Analysis of Three Non-Visual Signs in the EU. IIC, 53, 219–245. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40319-022-01160-3
Gliha, D. (2025). The Exercise of Copyright Under the Prism of Article 101 TFEU. In: The Copyright-Competition Interaction within the EU. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-94402-4_4
Government Decree «Оn the detailed rules of the registration procedure of early-stage businesses and of businesses supporting early-stage businesses», № 331/2017 (2017, November 9.). Retrieved from: https://net.jogtar.hu/jogszabaly?docid=a1700331.kor.
Government Decree «On the duties and powers of members of the Government», № 182/2022 (2022, May 24). Retrieved from: https://njt.hu/jogszabaly/2022-182-20-22.
Government Decree «On the organization and operation of the Industrial Property Protection Expert Board», № 270/2002 (2002, December 20). Retrieved from: https://njt.hu/jogszabaly/2002-270-20-22.
Härkönen, H. A. (2025). Narrative Approach to the Standard of Originality in EU Copyright Law: The Story of a Dress. IIC, 56, 289–319. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40319-025-01562-z
Innovation ranking. European Innovation Scoreboard. Retrieved from: https://projects.research-and-innovation.ec.europa.eu/en/statistics/performance-indicators/european-innovation-scoreboard/eis#/eis.
Law «On Copyright and Related Rights», № 111/2021 (2021, October 14). Retrieved from: https://www.zakon.hr/z/106/zakon-o-autorskom-pravu-i-srodnim-pravima.
Law «On Patent Law», № 16/2020 (2020, January 31). Retrieved from: https://www.zakon.hr/z/121/zakono-patentu.
Law «On the Organization and Scope of Work of State Administration Bodies», № 85/2020 (2020, July 22). Retrieved from: https://www.zakon.hr/z/2653/zakon-o-ustrojstvu-i-djelokrugu-tijela-drzavne-uprave.
Law «On the State Administration System», № 66/19 (2019, June 28). Retrieved from: https://www.zakon.hr/z/221/zakon-o-sustavu-drzavne-uprave.
Law «On Trademarks», № 14/2019 (2019, January 25). Retrieved from: https://www.zakon.hr/z/120/zakono-zigu.
Order of the Minister of Culture and Innovation «KIM Instruction on the Organizational and Operational Regulations of the Hungarian Intellectual Property Office», № 14/2024 (2024, December 19). Retrieved from: https://njt.hu/jogszabaly/2024-14-B0-8O.
Patent Act, № 2024:945 (2024, October 24). Retrieved from: https://www.riksdagen.se/sv/dokument-och-lagar/dokument/svensk-forfattningssamling/patentlag-2024945_sfs-2024-945/.
Regulation of the Government Secretariat «Instructions for the Government Offices», № 1996:1515 (1996, December 17). Retrieved from: https://www.riksdagen.se/sv/dokument-och-lagar/dokument/svenskforfattningssamling/forordning-19961515-med-instruktion-for_sfs-1996-1515/.
Regulation of the Ministry of Climate and Enterprise RSN «Instructions for the Swedish Patent and Registration Office», № 2007:1111 (2007, November 29). Retrieved from: https://www.riksdagen.se/sv/dokument-ochlagar/dokument/svensk-forfattningssamling/forordning-20071111-med-instruktion-for-patent-_sfs-2007-1111/.
Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Croatia «On approval of the Regulation on the Internal Organization of the State Intellectual Property Office», № 1837 (2020, August 27). Retrieved from: https://narodne-novine.nn.hr/clanci/sluzbeni/2020_08_97_1837.html.
Rob J Aerts. (2025). Directive 98/44/EC and the European Patent Convention: challenges to the harmonization of biotechnology patenting in Europe, Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, Volume 20, Issue 6, June 2025, 423–431. https://doi.org/10.1093/jiplp/jpaf018
Senftleben, M. (2024). The Unproductive “Overconstitutionalization” of EU Copyright and Trademark Law – Fundamental Rights Rhetoric and Reality in CJEU Jurisprudence. IIC, 55, 1471–1514. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40319-024-01527-8
SE Sweden (name of Office). Retrieved from: https://www.wipo.int/documents/d/pct-system/newsletters-en-2020-pct_news_2020_5.pdf.
Seun Lari-Williams, Stefan Rutten, Esther van Zimmeren. (2025). Enhancing the IP system through Dispute System Design, Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, Volume 20, Issue 6, June 2025, 377–391. https://doi.org/10.1093/jiplp/jpaf005
Zeitlin, M. (2024). Sustainability and Intellectual Property in Sweden. In: Këllezi, P., Kobel, P., Kilpatrick, B. (eds) Sustainability Objectives in Competition and Intellectual Property Law. LIDC Contributions on Antitrust Law, Intellectual Property and Unfair Competition. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-44869-0_19
