[Purpose] The purpose of the study was to analyse the regulatory framework governing the provision of e-services in Finland, Estonia, the United States of America and the Kyrgyz Republic. [Methodology/approach/design] The quality of e-service provision in the countries was compared based on the Network Readiness Index (NRI) of 2023, in which the United States was ranked 1, Finland – 4, and Estonia and the Kyrgyz Republic – 22 and 94, respectively. [Findings] It was found that the widespread adoption of e-services is one of the key factors contributing to a country's economic development, as it enhances management efficiency and attracts both investors and specialists. However, such adoption depends significantly on government involvement, particularly through financial support for digital initiatives and the establishment of a robust legal and regulatory environment. The analysis reveals that Estonia, Finland, and the United States are actively working toward creating universal regulatory standards to ensure the quality, accessibility, and security of e-services. In contrast, the Kyrgyz Republic lacks a sufficiently modern and comprehensive legal infrastructure, which hinders the effective regulation and development of electronic services. [Practical implications] Therefore, it was recommended to increase state support for e-services by increasing funding for this sector and revising the current legislation taking into account the successful experience of other countries in Europe and around the world. It was suggested to implement the proposed transformations using the Kurt Lewin model.
[Purpose] The study aims to assess the existing legal mechanisms for the protection of trademarks on the Internet in Kazakhstan to identify their shortcomings and develop proposals for their improvement. [Methodology/approach/design] The study conducted a comprehensive analysis of the Civil Code of Kazakhstan and Law No. 456-I “On Trademarks, Service Marks, and Appellations of Origin” using the formal legal method, assessed digital threats through a technology audit, and compared international approaches to trademark protection. [Findings] The main results of the study revealed the problems associated with the protection of trademarks in the Internet environment. Significant gaps in national legislation that hinder the effective suppression of online trademark infringement were identified. A comparative analysis of the legal systems of the United States, China, Germany and France showed that the approaches to intellectual property protection in Kazakhstan differ significantly from international standards, making it difficult for right holders to enforce their rights outside the country. The study also showed that existing enforcement mechanisms are often ineffective in the digital environment, where the distribution of content and anonymity of users create additional challenges. Based on these findings, recommendations were made to improve trademark protection in Kazakhstan, emphasizing the development of more adaptive legal instruments for the digital age. [Practical implications] The article highlights gaps in Kazakhstan's trademark protection and suggests legal reforms and tech innovations to improve enforcement and ensure fair competition. [Originality/value] This paper highlights deficiencies in Kazakhstan's digital trademark protection and proposes innovative solutions, offering valuable guidance for policymakers and businesses.
[Purpose] The text addresses the admissibility of registering domain names without distinctiveness, in particular generic and descriptive expressions. In this way, it seeks to deepen the debate on the classification of domain names as atypical distinctive signs, helping to clarify the issue of exclusivity associated with it. [Methodology] Analysis of the Regras de Registo de Nomes de Domínio de .PT, as well as the relevant doctrine and case law on domain names. Comparison with the legal framework of trademarks and trade names, which are paradigmatic examples of typical distinctive signs. [Findings] The registration of domain names without distinctiveness constitutes a restriction on freedom of competition, contrary to the requirement of availability. It also encourages speculative and abusive behaviour, which may constitute unfair competition.
[Purpose] The article is devoted to a review and comparative analysis of the legislation of Ukraine and UK in the search for common and different approaches to the legal regulation of intellectual property created by artificial intelligence (AI). The study also analyzes the legal status of intellectual property created with the help of AI, evaluates the relevance of legislative acts and the need for changes through the prism of Ukraine's reception of Great Britain's approaches. In addition, the article aims to implement and develop proposals for improving legal regulation, discuss the ethical and legal implications of intelligent AI products, and, finally, form recommendations for further research in the context of regulating the intellectual power of AI based on the analysis of the legislation of both countries. [Methodology/approach/design] The study employs a wide methodological toolkit—analysis and synthesis, comparative legal method, and structural-functional method—to examine similarities and differences in the regulation of intellectual property rights (IPR) and intellectual power in Ukraine and the UK. Comparing these systems is valuable for analyzing economic potential, competitiveness, legal improvement, and knowledge economy development. In the global economy, countries prioritize building intellectual power. The UK’s knowledge economy significantly contributes to its GDP, while Ukraine, though possessing potential, needs stronger mechanisms for IPR protection and commercialization. The UK's developed legal system provides successful examples Ukraine could adapt to boost competitiveness. A robust IPR framework directly impacts investment attractiveness; the UK attracts investors due to reliable innovation protection, a model Ukraine should emulate to enhance its investment climate. Intellectual property also drives innovation, and the UK's public and private initiatives to commercialize research offer lessons for Ukraine. Moreover, the comparison helps assess Ukraine’s legislative progress toward European integration, learning from the UK's experiences within and outside the EU. Overall, this analysis identifies strategic directions for strengthening Ukraine’s IPR system, enhancing innovation protection, and improving economic competitiveness. [Findings] The differences between the Anglo-American and Romano-German legal families, to which Great Britain and Ukraine belong, respectively, dictate the difference in the interpretation of the concepts of "intellectual property rights" and "intellectual power". It is expedient for Ukraine to pay attention to the approaches of legislative regulation of developments created with the help of intellectual activity - first of all, with the aim of protecting the rights of product developers (authors).
[Purpose] The medical field is one of the most regular targets of cybersecurity assaults, which occur extensively worldwide. Medical data security is of extreme importance. Medical data, often stored electronically, faces frequent attacks from both internal and external sources during transmission and storage. Data breaches are an important concern in the healthcare industry. Attackers may target medical data for financial gain or identity theft. Even a single breach can expose sensitive patient information. [Methodology/approach/design] Cybersecurity measures are critical for safeguarding patient information and maintaining the integrity of healthcare applications in an increasingly digital healthcare landscape. [Findings] Legal software systems with updated software are essential, along with ensuring that the medical data is only accessible to authorised persons. [Practical implications] This paper explores the areas of cybersecurity relevant to healthcare applications, emphasizing the risks posed by well-known threats such as WannaCry, Medjack, NotPetya, and brainjacking.
