PROPERTY AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS IN ADDITIVE MANUFACTURING (3D PRINTING): A SUI GENERIS PERSPECTIVE WITHIN CIVIL LAW

The article examines the complex civil-law regulation of digital and physical objects created through additive manufacturing technologies. Drawing on comparative analysis of the Uzbek Civil Code, the Laws on Copyright, Patents, and E-Commerce, and strategic documents such as the Strategy “Uzbekistan – 2030” and Digital Uzbekistan–2030, the study identifies significant legal gaps in defining ownership, authorship, and liability concerning 3D-printed objects and their digital design files (CAD models). The article contrasts Uzbekistan‘s framework with the approaches of the EU, USA, China, Germany, France, and post-Soviet jurisdictions, emphasizing how most countries rely on adapting existing property and intellectual property doctrines rather than introducing a new regulatory regime. The analysis highlights unresolved doctrinal issues such as the dual nature of 3D-printed property (digital and material), uncertainty of rights transfer in digital environments, and insufficient enforcement mechanisms for online infringements. Finally, the author proposes sui generis reforms within Uzbekistan‘s civil law – clarifying digital goods ownership, expanding copyright scope to CAD files, introducing limited-use exceptions, and strengthening IP enforcement online – aligning national legislation with international best practice and the technological goals of Strategy 2030.

TSUL LEGAL REPORT INTERNATIONAL ELECTRONIC SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL

JOURNAL DOI: 10.51788/tsul.lr. ISSUE DOI: 10.51788/tsul.lr.6.4. E-ISSN: 2181-1024

Founder: Tashkent State University of Law

INTERNATIONAL ELECTRONIC SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL VOLUME 6 ISSUE 4 DECEMBER 2025

JOURNAL DOI: 10.51788/tsul.lr. ISSUE DOI: 10.51788/tsul.lr.6.3. «TSUL Legal Report» international electronic scientific journal was registered by the Press and Information Agency of Uzbekistan on April 21, 2020, with certificate number 1342.The journal is included in the list of journals of the Higher Attestation Commission under the Ministry of Higher Education, Science and Innovations of the Republic of Uzbekistan. Copyright belongs to Tashkent State University of Law. All rights reserved. Use, distribution and reproduction of materials of the journal are carried out with the permission of the founder.

Editor: Elyor Mustafaev Graphic designer: Umid Sapaev Editorial office address: Tashkent, st. Sayilgoh, 35. Index 100047. Principal Contact Tel.: ([phone number hidden] Fax: ([phone number hidden] Website: legalreport.tsul.uz E-mail: info@legalreport.tsul.uz Publishing license № 174625, 29.11.2023. E-ISSN: 2181-1024

© 2025. TSUL – Tashkent State University of Law.

EDITOR–IN–CHIEF B. Khodjaev – Rector of Tashkent State University of Law, Doctor of Law, Professor

Z. Esanova – Deputy Rector for Scientific Affairs and Innovations of Tashkent State University of Law, Doctor of Law, Professor

E. Mustafaev – Chief Specialist of the Periodicals Sector of the Publishing Department of Tashkent State University of Law

N. Koutras – Kurtin Law School, PhD (Australia) H. Yeung – Associate Professor of Leicester Law School, University of Leicester, (UK) C. Kelley – Associate Professor of Law School of Arkansas University (USA) A. Younas – Researcher of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, General Director of Ai Mo Innovation Consultants (China) Sh. Al-Fatih – Lecturer of the University of Muhammadiyah Malang (Indonesia) A. Jaelani – Lecturer of Sebelas Maret University (Indonesia) N. Upadhyay – Associate Professor of the Department of Law and Programs of the Symbiosis Law School (India) Y. Ogurlu – Rector of Balıkesir University (Turkey) K. Molodyko – Chief Expert of the Institute of National and Comparative Law Research at the “School of Higher Economics” of the National Research University of Russia, Associate Professor of the Department of International Law (Russia)

N. AllahRakha – Lecturer of the Department of Cyber Law of Tashkent State University of Law, Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) in Law (Pakistan)

N. Rakhmonkulova – Professor of the Department of Private International Law of Tashkent State University of Law, Doctor of Law (Uzbekistan) A. Tadjibaeva – Associate Professor of the Department of Criminal Procedure Law of Tashkent State University of Law, Candidate of Legal Sciences (Uzbekistan) R. Urinboev – Professor of the Department of Sociology of Law of Lund University, Doctor of Law (Austria) M. Kudratov – Doctor of the University of Regensburg (Germany) Kh. Radjapov – Associate Professor of the Department of Business Law of Tashkent State University of Law, Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) in Law (Uzbekistan) O. Narziev – Professor of the Department of Private International Law of Tashkent State University of Law, Doctor of Law (Uzbekistan) Sh. Rahmonov – Head of the Department of International Law and Human Rights of Tashkent State University of Law, Doctor of Law, Professor (Uzbekistan)

Volume 6, ISSUE 4 (2025) E-ISSN: 2181-1024

12.00.02 – CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW. FINANCE AND CUSTOMS LAW

JAHONOV SHOHRUH SHUHRAT UGLI Legal analysis of journalistic investigation ............................................................................4 SAYFIDDINOV AQLIDDIN ANVARJON UGLI The role and powers of local councils in the field of local budget management in Uzbekistan ........................................................................................................................9

12.00.03 – CIVIL LAW. BUSINESS LAW. FAMILY LAW. INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LAW

SHERMATOV NURIDDIN AKTAM UGLI Property and intellectual property rights in additive manufacturing (3D printing): a sui generis perspective within civil law ........................................................................... 18 RAHMATOV AZIZBEK ISKANDAR UGLI The role of mezzanine capital in financing entrepreneurial activity and its legal regulation ........................................................................................................................... 25

12.00.08 – CRIMINAL LAW. CRIMINAL-EXECUTIVE LAW

OTABOEV BOBUR IBRAT UGLI Concept and characteristics of terrorism financing ........................................................... 38

MUMINOV ASILBEK HUSNIDDINOVICH International legal regulation of the right to internet access: a new generation of human rights .................................................................................................................. 48

E-ISSN: 2181-1024 Volume 6, ISSUE 4 (2025) TSUL Legal Report 3

TSUL LEGAL REPORT Journal home page: www.legalreport.tsul.uz

Received: 25.11.2025 Accepted: 04.12.2025 Published: 30.12.2025

PROPERTY AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS IN ADDITIVE MANUFACTURING (3D PRINTING): A SUI GENERIS PERSPECTIVE WITHIN CIVIL LAW Shermatov Nuriddin Aktam ugli, Lecturer of the Department of Civil Law, Tashkent State University of Law ORCID: 0009-0008-0547-6258 e‑mail: shermatov.nuriddin@internet.uz

Abstract. The article examines the complex civil‑law regulation of digital and physical objects created through additive manufacturing technologies. Drawing on comparative analysis of the Uzbek Civil Code, the Laws on Copyright, Patents, and E‑Commerce, and strategic documents such as the Strategy “Uzbekistan – 2030” and Digital Uzbekistan–2030, the study identifies significant legal gaps in defining ownership, authorship, and liability concerning 3D‑printed objects and their digital design files (CAD models). The article contrasts Uzbekistan’s framework with the approaches of the EU, USA, China, Germany, France, and post‑Soviet jurisdictions, emphasizing how most countries rely on adapting existing property and intellectual property doctrines rather than introducing a new regulatory regime. The analysis highlights unresolved doctrinal issues such as the dual nature of 3D‑printed property (digital and material), uncertainty of rights transfer in digital environments, and insufficient enforcement mechanisms for online infringements. Finally, the author proposes sui generis reforms within Uzbekistan’s civil law – clarifying digital goods ownership, expanding copyright scope to CAD files, introducing limited‑use exceptions, and strengthening IP enforcement online – aligning national legislation with international best practice and the technological goals of Strategy 2030. Keywords: additive manufacturing, 3D printing, property rights, intellectual property, digital goods, CAD files, copyright, sui generis regulation

Introduction Additive manufacturing (“3D printing”) represents one of the most profound technological shifts in contemporary production, enabling the direct transformation of digital data into physical objects. This process disrupts traditional civil‑law concepts of property, ownership, and creativity by combining two fundamentally different legal domains: intangible intellectual creations and tangible material objects. As a result, conventional legal doctrines are increasingly

18 TSUL Legal Report Volume 6, ISSUE 4 (2025) E-ISSN: 2181-1024

challenged in their ability to regulate authorship, ownership, reproduction, transfer, and liability in relation to both the digital design file and the printed object.

Additive manufacturing (“3D printing”) raises complex questions for both property law and intellectual property (IP) law. Experts observe that conventional IP categories – copyright, design, patent, and trademark – can cover many aspects of 3D printing. For example, “copyright will protect the originality of a work and the creator’s right to reproduce it” (Malaty, E., & Rostama, 2017), meaning an original object or its digital design file can be protected as an artistic or literary work.

Industrial design rights cover an object’s shape or aesthetic form, while patents protect its technical functions or innovations (and even 3D trademarks can protect product shapes). Likewise, many commentators treat a digital 3D (Ebrahim, 2016) model (design file) as akin to software: it requires “a personalized intellectual effort” and thus qualifies for copyright protection. In some jurisdictions (e.g., France’s Intellectual Property Code Art. L613‑4), supplying or offering to supply a 3D print file of a patented product is itself prohibited (Malaty, E., & Rostama, 2017). Thus, under existing law “3D files and those using 3D printing for non-commercial purposes” are largely addressable by current IP regimes. That said, commentators note unresolved issues – e.g., who is the “author” or “inventor” if one person designs an object, another digitizes it, and another prints it; and whether printer owners might deserve sui generis rights akin to performers or producers (Malaty, E., & Rostama, 2017) – indicating that unique 3D-printing scenarios may require novel legal thinking.

In Central Asian jurisdictions, including Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan, disputes directly addressing additive manufacturing remain limited; however, existing intellectual property practice provides relevant indications. Copyright law in the region already recognizes computer programs and technical documentation as protected works, which allows CAD files used for 3D printing to fall within the scope of copyright protection where originality is present. In practice, enforcement has focused on unauthorized digital reproduction and distribution rather than the physical printed object.

Industrial design protection in Central Asia has been invoked primarily in relation to consumer goods and industrial components. National IP offices apply functionality-based exclusions similar to those found in European civil-law systems, which suggests that the 3D printing of purely functional spare parts may fall outside design protection. This approach implicitly accommodates additive manufacturing, even in the absence of explicit regulation.

Patent law offers stronger protection in the region, particularly through doctrines addressing indirect infringement. The transfer of technical documentation or digital models enabling the reproduction of patented inventions may be qualified as unlawful use of patented technology, especially where commercial intent is established (European Patent Office [EPO], 2020). By contrast, trademark enforcement related to 3D-printed goods remains underdeveloped, with practical emphasis placed on traditional counterfeit goods rather than digitally manufactured items.

Overall, Central Asian practice reflects an adaptive but fragmented application of traditional civil law IP doctrines to additive manufacturing. This regulatory gap further supports the need for a sui generis civil-law approach that explicitly addresses digital design files, decentralized production, and the blurred boundary between private and commercial use in 3D printing.

Against this background, the study seeks to assess whether existing civil-law doctrines sufficiently address the legal realities of additive manufacturing or whether a specialized, sui generis regulatory approach is required. The central research question guiding this article is: To what extent does Uzbekistan’s civil and intellectual property

E-ISSN: 2181-1024 Volume 6, ISSUE 4 (2025) TSUL Legal Report 19

framework provide adequate protection for property and IP rights arising from additive manufacturing, and what normative reforms are necessary to ensure legal certainty and balance? The main purpose of this article is to critically examine the intersection of property law and intellectual property law in the context of additive manufacturing, highlighting the challenges posed by digital design files, decentralized production, and the hybrid nature of 3D-printed objects. It aims to evaluate the adequacy of Uzbekistan’s existing civil-law and IP framework and to propose normative reforms or a sui generis approach that ensures both legal certainty and balanced protection for rights holders and users. Methods This research adopts a doctrinal and comparative legal methodology designed to provide a structured and systematic analysis of additive manufacturing within civil law. The study is based on a critical examination of normative legal sources, including the Civil Code of the Republic of Uzbekistan, the Laws on Copyright and Related Rights, Patents, Industrial Designs, the E-Commerce Law (2022), and strategic policy documents such as “Digital Uzbekistan–2030” and the State Program on Intellectual Property Development (2022–2026).

Here’s methodological framework organized as a clear table:

Textual Analysis of Interpretation of Legal Statutory Provisions Doctrine

Examines Civil & IP Clarifies Principles & Law Doctrinal Basis

Comparative analysis includes civil-law systems (Russia, Germany, France, and EU Member States) and common-law jurisdictions (United States, China) to identify dominant regulatory patterns and deviations in the treatment of 3D printing. The study also uses international materials, including WIPO policy discussions, to assess global trends concerning the possible emergence of sui generis regimes. This methodological approach allows evaluation of Uzbekistan’s framework both in isolation and within the broader context of global legal development, ensuring analytical coherence and policy relevance. Discussion The analysis demonstrates that while most jurisdictions rely on adapting existing

Comparative Identification of Evaluation of Foreign Normative Gaps & Legal Systems Inconsistencies

Identifies Best Assesses Practices from Other Inadequacies of Jurisdictions Current Law

intellectual property doctrines, they nevertheless acknowledge unresolved legal challenges associated with the hybrid nature of 3D printing. Internationally, civil-law jurisdictions have approached 3D printing within their IP and property codes (Kantaros, 2024). In Russia (a civil-law system), legal analysts note that a 3D model obtained by scanning a copyrighted sculpture “will be protected by copyright as a digital copy”. Conversely, if a model is created by creative effort from scratch, it is an independent copyrightable work. Russian commentators even suggest that 3D models could be registered as industrial designs or three-dimensional trademarks, securing separate protection for the same design under different regimes. The same principle holds elsewhere

20 TSUL Legal Report Volume 6, ISSUE 4 (2025) E-ISSN: 2181-1024

in Europe: for example, EU law allows unregistered or registered design rights in shapes, copyright protection for creative CAD files, and patents for functional inventions. The European Commission has prioritized 3D printing for innovation, but no EU-wide “3D-specific” law exists – rather, existing IP laws apply (Deloitte Legal, 2017). In fact, a WIPO study notes that current IP law in most countries suffices to cover 3D printing in practice. It even raises the question of a hypothetical sui generis right: “would it make sense to consider creating a sui generis right for 3D printing” similar to database protection?. So far, no country has created a dedicated “3D Printing IP” right; instead, legal systems adapt their established civil-law doctrines to these novel digital-physical products (World Intellectual Property Organization [WIPO], 2020).

In common-law jurisdictions like the USA, similar principles apply by analogy. A 3D design file can be copyrighted as a “literary work” or computer program, and printing a patented item without permission is patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. §271. U.S. courts have recognized that copyright in a digital file extends to any unauthorized reproductions of the described object. Hobbyist printing for private use falls under the U.S. fair-use doctrine (similar to other private-use exceptions), but substantial copying of protected objects is actionable. China likewise applies its patent, copyright and design laws to 3D printing; Chinese scholars urge combining enforcement of copyright (for design files) and patent/trademark laws for printed products. Globally, the trend is to rely on existing IP rights rather than inventing entirely new categories, even as policymakers debate whether any unique “sui generis” regimes are needed.

Uzbek law currently addresses 3D-printed goods through its general civil and IP laws, without a bespoke 3D-printing statute. The Civil Code defines the objects of civil rights to include “inventions, industrial designs, and works of science, literature, art and other results of intellectual activity.” This codifies intellectual creations as property in themselves (as civil-law “objects”). Thus, an original 3D model file or a printed object embodying a patentable invention fits within Uzbekistan’s notions of property: patents, designs, and copyrights are considered intangible “property rights” that can be owned, transferred, or licensed.

Under Uzbek patent law, inventions receive up to 20 years of protection, industrial designs 10 years, and utility models 5 years (Law on Invention, 2022). In practice, a 3D-printed product replicating a patented machine or component would infringe the patentee’s exclusive rights unless a license is obtained. Likewise, if a printed object’s shape is covered by a registered design patent, production may be forbidden. The law even allows patent terms to be extended in exceptional cases. Uzbekistan’s copyright law extends to all creative works (“science, literature and art resulting from creative activity”) and explicitly includes three-dimensional creations such as “sculptures [and] models.” This implies an original 3D design created by an artist or engineer could be protected as a creative work. Copyright automatically vests in the author, while patents/designs require registration.

For digital design files, Uzbekistan presently relies on its new E-Commerce Law (2022), which defines “digital products” as “electronic copies of objects of intellectual property” (Law on Electronic Commerce, 2022). In other words, a 3D CAD file sold or downloaded online is treated as a digital copy of some copyrighted or patented work. E-Commerce Law Articles 20–21 set formal requirements for digital sales contracts (e.g. confirmation by receipts or system messages), but they focus on transaction formalities, not substantive IP rights. In practice, a 3D file is typically licensed (not “sold”) under user agreements, leaving unresolved questions: is the user a licensee or owner of the digital product? Can they freely print it? Current Uzbek law does not

E-ISSN: 2181-1024 Volume 6, ISSUE 4 (2025) TSUL Legal Report 21

clearly define ownership of downloaded digital goods. Meanwhile, once a user prints an object, that tangible object becomes the user’s personal property under general ownership rules, but this does not override any outstanding IP claims on the design.

Beyond existing codes, Uzbekistan’s policy documents signal attention to digital innovation and IP modernization. The “Digital Uzbekistan–2030” strategy (2020 Presidential Decree UP-6079) emphasizes “active development of the digital economy” and the commercialization of advanced IT projects. It specifically calls for practical use of technologies like artificial intelligence and support for tech-transfer of innovative developments. Likewise, the State program on Intellectual Property (2022–2026) (Resolution PR-221) explicitly aims at “elimination of existing gaps and contradictions in IP legislation” and continuous improvement based on world practice. These high-level directives imply that Uzbekistan recognizes the need to update its laws for emerging technologies. Indeed, recent presidential decrees in niche industries show 3D printing entering state policy: for example, a 2023 decree (PP-331) ordered study of “3D-printing technologies in the production of shoe parts” to enhance the leather and footwear sector (Resolution No. PP-331, 2023).

However, gaps remain. No Uzbek law specifically addresses 3D printing or digital models. The Civil Code treats all IP outputs as property, but it does not distinguish digital designs from other intangible assets. Copyright law covers creative works broadly, yet does not explicitly address 3D files or private 3D printing exceptions. Patent law protects printed inventions, but there is no clarity on whether producing a one-off 3D-printed item at home falls under a private-use exemption (unlike some countries’ patent laws).

Moreover, the e-commerce framework treats 3D design files as digital products, but offers no substantive IP rule: it defines what they are but not how their rights are used or transferred. Practically, unauthorized distribution of a protected 3D design file would be actionable as copyright or patent infringement under Uzbek law, but the law lacks any 3D-specific penalties or compliance measures.

Results The results reveal that Uzbekistan’s reliance on conventional civil law mechanisms provides only partial legal certainty for additive manufacturing. The dual digital-physical nature of 3D printing challenges classical doctrines, as ownership of the tangible object does not equate to unrestricted rights over the underlying intellectual content.

These reforms do not necessarily entail creating an entirely new IP category but represent sui generis adaptation of existing norms, aligning with Uzbekistan’s strategic objectives under Digital Uzbekistan–2030 and its intellectual property reform agenda.

Key challenges include: (1) Lack of explicit protection for digital 3D models. Although copyright can cover a creative CAD design, users and courts may not clearly classify a complex model (e.g. a parametric engineering file) as copyrightable or not. (2) Ambiguity of ownership/licensing for digital goods. Uzbek law should clarify whether a downloaded 3D model is sold as an asset or licensed, and what rights the recipient has. (3) Absence of a private-use exception. Without guidance, a citizen printing a patented component at home technically infringes the patent, even if intended for private use. (4) Enforcement difficulty. Policing IP on the internet (e.g. infringement on 3D file sharing sites) requires effective intermediary liability rules, which Uzbekistan is only beginning to develop (IP Strategy calls for modern enforcement by digital means). (5) No sui generis regime. There is no special IP category for 3D printing (contrast “database” rights in EU). This may be acceptable short-term, but as global best practice evolves, Uzbekistan may need unique provisions.

Additionally, to improve the system, Uzbekistan could consider the following measures:

22 TSUL Legal Report Volume 6, ISSUE 4 (2025) E-ISSN: 2181-1024

Reform By filling identified legal gaps, Area / Proposed Action Rationale / Example Uzbekistan can better protect innovators Measure while promoting advanced manufacturing. Amend the Civil Code (e.g., Article Aligns with the The IP Strategy’s call to eliminate 81) to explicitly E-Commerce legislative gaps aligns with creating a Clarify include “digital Law’s definition of clearer regime for 3D printing. Given Digital designs” or “digital products” Goods in “computer models” and ensures Uzbekistan’s rapid push for digital economy Civil Law as transferable 3D models are development, it is timely to integrate property, or define consistently treated additive manufacturing into its civil/IP the transfer of in transactions. digital files. laws. Uzbekistan may ultimately not need Amend Copyright Prevents uncertainty a wholly new “sui generis 3D right”, but Law to affirm about copyrightability it will need sui generis thinking – tailored that computer of 3D designs and adjustments within its civil law framework – Expand models and digital supports the IP Copyright mock-ups fall Strategy’s goal so that digital models and 3D-printed goods Scope under “works of of aligning with are governed with the same clarity and art” or “computer international best balance as other property and IP assets. programs.” practices. Balances innovation Conclusion with enforcement: Additive manufacturing presents Create a narrowly allows families a new hybrid paradigm where digital to print spare Introduce tailored personal- creativity directly generates tangible parts at home Limited Use use exception for while prohibiting property, destabilizing traditional civil-law Exceptions non-commercial 3D printing. commercial copying. classifications. Uzbekistan’s current legal Exception must be framework formally recognizes intellectual clearly defined to protect IP incentives. creations as civil law objects, yet fails Emulates France’s to adequately address the specific risks Strengthen rules for online Article L613-4 IP and complexities posed by 3D printing Address Code; enables Infringing intermediaries; treat rights holders to sue technologies. infringing 3D print The study concludes that Uzbekistan File uploaders of illegal files as means of Distribution implementing a files, supporting IP does not require the creation of a new Strategy’s Internet patent. standalone “3D printing right,” but enforcement goals. Encourage use rather demands targeted sui generis of digital rights normative adaptation within existing Helps rights holders Support management monitor and identify civil and intellectual property systems. (DRM) for 3D Technical files, including unauthorized prints, Clarifying digital ownership, strengthening Measures as recommended by enforcement mechanisms, and refining unique identifiers, WIPO. watermarks, or licensing rules are essential to ensure blockchain tracking. balanced legal protection and innovation Conduct specialized legal education and Ensures correct promotion. application of IP Raise industry outreach law; for instance, By modernizing its civil law framework Awareness (workshops in line with global practice and national recognizing copyright and Training for judges, customs officials, in a single 3D-printed development strategies, Uzbekistan can chair design. businesses). secure legal predictability while fostering Use national strat-Allows policymakers technological progress, positioning to track global trends Monitor and egies (“Uzbekistan itself as a responsive and forward- (e.g., EU database-Adapt via – 2030” and “Digital right analogues for looking jurisdiction in regulating additive Strategy Uzbekistan– 2030”) 2030 to update laws and 3D printing) and manufacturing. refine Uzbek law fund IT research. accordingly.

E-ISSN: 2181-1024 Volume 6, ISSUE 4 (2025) TSUL Legal Report 23

1. Deloitte Legal. (2017). 3D printing and the law: Key legal issues. https://www2. deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/uk/Documents/legal/deloitte-uk-legal-3d-printing-andthe-law.pdf 2. Ebrahim, T.J. (2016). 3D printing: Digital infringement & digital regulation. Northwestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property, 14(2), 1–42. 3. European Commission. (2019). 3D printing: A policy brief. https://ec.europa.eu/ docsroom/documents/39804 4. European Patent Office. (2020). Patents and additive manufacturing: The 3D printing revolution. https://documents.epo.org/projects/babylon/eponet.nsf/0/1F5DC9D01E 5. French Intellectual Property Code, Art. L613-4. https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/ 6. Kantaros, A. (2024). Intellectual property challenges in the age of 3D printing: Navigating the digital copycat dilemma. Applied Sciences, 14(23), 11448. https://doi. org/10.3390/app142311448 7. Laurie, G., Sims, A., & Hunter, D. (Eds.). (2021). The Oxford handbook of intellectual property law. Oxford University Press. 8. Law of the Republic of Uzbekistan No. LRU-629 “On Copyright and Related Rights” (2020). 9. Law of the Republic of Uzbekistan No. LRU-792 “On Electronic Commerce” (2022). 10. Law of the Republic of Uzbekistan No. 1062-XII “On Inventions, Utility Models and Industrial Designs” (as amended). 11. Malaty, E., & Rostama, G. (2017, February). 3D printing and IP law. WIPO Magazine, (1). https://www.wipo.int/en/web/wipo-magazine/articles/3d-printing-and-iplaw-39896 12. Resolution of the President of the Republic of Uzbekistan No. PP-331 (2023). https://lex.uz/en/docs/7560499 13. World Intellectual Property Organization. (2020). Intellectual property and the 3D printing industry. https://www.wipo.int/edocs/pubdocs/en/wipo_pub_1055.pdf 14. Zvezdina, A. (2020). Legal regulation of 3D printing in Russia and the world. Law and Economics Journal, (3). 15. European Parliament. (2018). Intellectual property rights and 3D printing. https:// www.europarl.europa.eu

24 TSUL Legal Report Volume 6, ISSUE 4 (2025) E-ISSN: 2181-1024

TSUL LEGAL REPORT INTERNATIONAL ELECTRONIC SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL