Violation is a legal and form of civil fault in which a binding agreement or negotiated exchange between one or more contracting parties is not rewarded by non-compliance or interference with the performance of the other party. A violation occurs when a party does not fulfill all or part of its contractual obligation, or expresses its intention to fail the undertaking or does not appear to be able, by other means, to fulfil its contractual obligation. In the event of a breach of contract, the damage suffered must be paid by the offence to the victim. The dispute erupted when a licensee of a software program modified the software in violation of the licensing conditions. The software development company, the licensee, has claimed damages for copyright infringement of the software and damages for violating the software license. The French court of first instance held that, under French law, “there are two separate provisions for intellectual property liability, one of which is an unauthorized liability in the event of a violation of the author`s operating rights, as stipulated by law, on the other hand, contractual liability in the event of a breach of a copyright protected by a contract.” Where the license agreement is limited to its scope and the taker acts outside the scope, the licensee can sue for infringement. In order to impose itself, the licensee must demonstrate that the terms of the licence are restrictions on the scope of the licence and non-independent contractual agreements and that the holder`s actions are beyond the scope of the licence. In some cases, the courts have found that a licensing agreement has created both contractual agreements and terms, contractual agreements and restrictions on the scope of the licence. In such cases, the courts have held that there are both offences and grounds for offence. In this case, it is a matter of “compensating, defending and keeping unscathed.” However, the funder should try to limit the obligation to “compensation.” Indeed, if the undertaking involves the duty of defence, the compensation officer is also responsible for the cost of defending the allegations of infringement and not just the proven cases of infringement. As far as the language “not to be unscathed” is concerned, there are two schools of thought, what this means: the Directive on respect for intellectual property rights (Directive 2004/48) (Directive 2004/48/ EC) contains a number of enforcement measures, procedures and remedies that EU Member States must make available to IP holders to combat intellectual property infringements.1 In particular, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruled that failure to comply with an intellectual property rights clause in a software licensing agreement should be regarded as a “violation of intellectual property rights” within the meaning of the enforcement directive and not as a mere infringement. Therefore, the holder of intellectual property rights should be able to benefit from the guarantees of the latter directive, regardless of the (national) liability regime (contractual or non-contractual).
This is the most important part of compensation. In the example, the IP part of the compensation (part b) is not limited to losses, etc.