本文選題：商標(biāo)產(chǎn)品平行進(jìn)口 + 權(quán)利限制原則　； 參考：《蘭州大學(xué)》2011年碩士論文

【摘要】：商標(biāo)產(chǎn)品平行進(jìn)口是指在國(guó)際貿(mào)易中,進(jìn)口商未經(jīng)進(jìn)口地商標(biāo)權(quán)人(包括商標(biāo)所有權(quán)人及商標(biāo)使用權(quán)人)同意,從境外進(jìn)口經(jīng)合法授權(quán)生產(chǎn)的帶相同商標(biāo)的同類(lèi)產(chǎn)品的行為�！虡�(biāo)產(chǎn)品平行進(jìn)口的根源其實(shí)是各個(gè)國(guó)家綜合國(guó)力的差異,其中起到主要作用的是經(jīng)濟(jì)科技水平和勞動(dòng)力成本的高低,科技水平高低代表了產(chǎn)品附加值的高低,勞動(dòng)力成本的高低直接決定著產(chǎn)品的價(jià)格,在追求利益最大化的驅(qū)使下造成了商標(biāo)產(chǎn)品平行進(jìn)口的產(chǎn)生。伴隨著我國(guó)經(jīng)濟(jì)的持續(xù)高速增長(zhǎng),科技水平的提高以及勞動(dòng)力成本不斷增長(zhǎng),我國(guó)正在由低成本產(chǎn)品制造市場(chǎng)向高成本產(chǎn)品制造市場(chǎng)轉(zhuǎn)變,商標(biāo)產(chǎn)品平行進(jìn)口案件在我國(guó)也就出現(xiàn)了。 本文從介紹米其林輪胎平行進(jìn)口案入手,在對(duì)案件進(jìn)行分析的基礎(chǔ)上,探究在我國(guó)法律無(wú)明文規(guī)定的現(xiàn)實(shí)情況下應(yīng)對(duì)商標(biāo)產(chǎn)品平行進(jìn)口問(wèn)題所依據(jù)的法律原則。本文的創(chuàng)新之處在于不同于以往的文章對(duì)商標(biāo)產(chǎn)品平行進(jìn)口提出立法的建議,而是立足于中國(guó)短時(shí)間內(nèi)不會(huì)有對(duì)此進(jìn)行立法的實(shí)際情況,試圖找出解決此問(wèn)題的合理的法律原則,探討司法實(shí)踐中所適用的法律原則。 本文共分四章： 第一章對(duì)案件進(jìn)行簡(jiǎn)要的介紹,針對(duì)判決引本出所要解決的問(wèn)題。通過(guò)分析發(fā)現(xiàn)在我國(guó)當(dāng)前法無(wú)明文規(guī)定,所以本文試圖從傳統(tǒng)理念與新近理念中找到合理的依據(jù)。 第二章通過(guò)對(duì)傳統(tǒng)理論權(quán)利用盡原則和地域性原則的分析,指出以這兩種原則在當(dāng)前是不適合我國(guó)國(guó)情的,無(wú)法合理解決本案。 第三章筆者比較傾向新近的權(quán)利限制原則和歸責(zé)原則,因此通過(guò)分析找到支持自己觀點(diǎn)的依據(jù),并且以前面發(fā)生過(guò)的案例作為論證的依據(jù)。最終得出其可以合理解決本案,且具有普遍的適用性。 第四章結(jié)論部分筆者主要分析了權(quán)利限制原則和歸責(zé)原則適用的優(yōu)越性并得出我國(guó)對(duì)待商標(biāo)產(chǎn)品平行進(jìn)口問(wèn)題的態(tài)度。
[Abstract]:Parallel import of trademark products means that in international trade the importer imports the same products with the same trademark without the consent of the trademark owner (including the owner of the trademark and the right to use the trademark) from abroad and is legally authorized to produce the same kind of product with the same trademark. The root of parallel import of trademark products is actually the difference in the overall national strength of various countries. Among them, the main role is the level of economic, technological and labor costs, and the level of science and technology represents the added value of the product. The level of labor cost directly determines the price of the product, which results in the parallel import of trademark products driven by the pursuit of profit maximization. With the continuous rapid growth of economy, the improvement of science and technology and the increasing of labor cost, our country is changing from the low cost product manufacturing market to the high cost product manufacturing market. The case of parallel import of trademark products has also appeared in our country. Based on the introduction of Michelin tire parallel import case and the analysis of the case, this paper explores the legal principles for dealing with the problem of parallel import of trademark products under the situation that there is no explicit law in our country. The innovation of this paper is that it is different from previous articles in proposing legislation on parallel import of trademark products, but based on the fact that China will not legislate on it in a short period of time. This paper tries to find out the reasonable legal principles to solve this problem and to explore the applicable legal principles in judicial practice. This paper is divided into four chapters: The first chapter gives a brief introduction to the case, aiming at the problems to be solved. Through the analysis, it is found that there is no explicit stipulation in the current law of our country, so this paper tries to find the reasonable basis from the traditional idea and the recent idea. In the second chapter, by analyzing the principle of exhaustion of rights and the principle of regionalism, the author points out that these two principles are not suitable for the situation of our country at present, and it is impossible to solve the case reasonably. In the third chapter, the author tends to the new principle of limitation of rights and the principle of imputation, so I find the basis to support my point of view through the analysis, and take the case that happened before as the proof basis. Finally, it can reasonably solve the case, and has universal applicability. In the fourth chapter, the author analyzes the superiority of applying the principle of limitation of rights and the principle of imputation, and concludes the attitude of our country to the problem of parallel import of trademark products.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：蘭州大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2011
【分類(lèi)號(hào)】：D997.1

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 陳明國(guó);蔣敏;;商標(biāo)侵權(quán)的歸責(zé)原則[J];中華商標(biāo);2006年07期

2 王秋華;平行進(jìn)口與商標(biāo)權(quán)保護(hù)[J];當(dāng)代法學(xué);2002年11期

3 馬莉君;;淺議我國(guó)商標(biāo)權(quán)產(chǎn)品的平行進(jìn)口[J];法制與社會(huì);2009年11期

4 劉啟正;;地域性理論與商標(biāo)平行進(jìn)口[J];貴州警官職業(yè)學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2009年01期

5 馬翔翔;;淺析商標(biāo)侵權(quán)的歸責(zé)原則[J];甘肅政法成人教育學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2007年05期

6 潘曉寧;;商標(biāo)權(quán)限制理論分析[J];華東理工大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2009年03期

7 黃偉;;知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)權(quán)利限制的法理分析[J];內(nèi)江科技;2007年03期

8 范曉宇;;商標(biāo)權(quán)平行進(jìn)口的法律對(duì)策分析——以商標(biāo)功能論為中心[J];科學(xué)經(jīng)濟(jì)社會(huì);2007年04期

9 劉啟正;沈玉曼;;商標(biāo)權(quán)利限制對(duì)消費(fèi)者的保護(hù)[J];科技信息;2008年26期

10 任軍民;;我國(guó)專(zhuān)利權(quán)權(quán)利用盡原則的理論體系[J];法學(xué)研究;2006年06期

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前10條

1 羅燕飛;商標(biāo)侵權(quán)損害賠償制度研究[D];四川大學(xué);2003年

2 張玲;商標(biāo)產(chǎn)品平行進(jìn)口問(wèn)題研究[D];安徽大學(xué);2005年

3 桑學(xué)敏;商標(biāo)商品平行進(jìn)口法律問(wèn)題研究[D];哈爾濱工程大學(xué);2006年

4 曹輝;論權(quán)利用盡原則和貿(mào)易自由化的關(guān)系[D];中國(guó)海洋大學(xué);2006年

5 王金穎;商標(biāo)產(chǎn)品平行進(jìn)口的法律問(wèn)題研究[D];東北財(cái)經(jīng)大學(xué);2007年

6 魏巖松;商標(biāo)平行進(jìn)口法律問(wèn)題研究[D];大連海事大學(xué);2008年

7 李媛;商標(biāo)權(quán)限制研究[D];中南大學(xué);2007年

8 曾禮慶;知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)權(quán)利限制研究[D];中國(guó)政法大學(xué);2008年

9 王鳳;專(zhuān)利產(chǎn)品修理和再造法律問(wèn)題研究[D];湖南大學(xué);2009年

10 王宏偉;商標(biāo)產(chǎn)品平行進(jìn)口問(wèn)題法律研究[D];中國(guó)海洋大學(xué);2009年

，

本文編號(hào)：1837286