本文選題：平行進口 + 專利�。� 參考：《復旦大學》2012年碩士論文

【摘要】：平行進口是指在國際貿(mào)易中,未經(jīng)知識產(chǎn)權權利人授權,進口由權利人或者經(jīng)權利人同意投放市場的產(chǎn)品或服務,或者進口與權利人的權利具有同源性的知識產(chǎn)權產(chǎn)品的行為或者現(xiàn)象。由于各種原因,知識產(chǎn)權產(chǎn)品在不同國家之間存在價格差異,因有利可圖,于是進口商從低價國購進產(chǎn)品,然后進口到價格較高的國家,或者某種產(chǎn)品因某些原因在本國市場上不可得,于是進口商設法從國外市場上獲得產(chǎn)品進口到本國。由于平行進口產(chǎn)品的價格低廉,對進口國的知識產(chǎn)權權利人在國內(nèi)銷售產(chǎn)品造成較大的沖擊,從而引發(fā)是否允許平行進口的問題。 現(xiàn)在,美國在專利和版權領域采用的是“國內(nèi)窮竭原則”,而在商標領域采取“地域性原則”和“普遍性原則”相結合。雖然美國自二戰(zhàn)以來就倡導自由貿(mào)易,但在《與貿(mào)易有關的知識產(chǎn)權協(xié)議》(TRIPS協(xié)議)的談判過程中,美國不主張把知識產(chǎn)權的“國際窮竭”論納入到該文件中,而是極力反對在TRIPS協(xié)議中規(guī)定允許平行進口。這似乎與其自由貿(mào)易理論背道而馳,但這真實反映了美國的心態(tài)：一方面要保護其跨國公司自由進入各國市場,另一方面希望給予美國知識產(chǎn)權人盡可能高的保護。 2009年生效實施的我國第三次修改后的《專利法》對平行進口問題作了規(guī)定,但只有一項條款,采用的是“國際窮竭原則”。國際窮竭原則對我國而言,并非最佳。隨著美國政府和跨國企業(yè)對我國知識產(chǎn)權維權的要求日益升溫,我國需要盡早規(guī)劃,制定、完善相關法律制度及規(guī)定,在商品國際自由流通與專利產(chǎn)品保護之間找到平衡點,以應對可能大量出現(xiàn)的平行進口現(xiàn)象。除此之外,應當未雨綢繆,為將來可能出現(xiàn)的在WTO框架內(nèi)達成解決這一問題的協(xié)議提供參考。 本文通過對相關國際法和美中法律制度的研究及梳理,認為TRIPS協(xié)議仍未明確對權利窮竭的限制,而是留由TRIPS成員的國內(nèi)法規(guī)制。通過比較分析美中兩國在TRIPS協(xié)議下自行決定專利產(chǎn)品平行進口的不同制度,從美國判例法的角度進行實證分析,希望對我國專利法修改以及相關司法解釋出臺中對于平行進口的權利限制問題提出借鑒,減少在知識產(chǎn)權國際貿(mào)易中的摩擦和代價。
[Abstract]:Parallel import refers to the import of products or services in international trade that are put on the market by the right holder or with the consent of the right holder without the authorization of the owner of the intellectual property right, Or the act or phenomenon of importing intellectual property products of the same origin as the rights of the right holder. For various reasons, there are price differences among different countries for intellectual property products. As a result of the profit, importers buy products from countries with low prices and then import them to countries with higher prices. Or a product is not available in the domestic market for some reason, so the importer tries to import the product from the foreign market. Because the price of parallel import products is low, it has a great impact on the right holders of intellectual property rights in importing countries to sell products at home, thus causing the question of whether parallel imports should be allowed. At present, the United States adopts the "domestic exhaustion principle" in the field of patent and copyright, while the "regional principle" and "universal principle" are adopted in the field of trademark. Although the United States has advocated free trade since World War II, during the negotiation of the trips Agreement, the United States did not advocate the inclusion of the "international exhaustion" of intellectual property rights in this document. It is strongly opposed to allowing parallel imports in trips. This may seem to run counter to its theory of free trade, but it is a true reflection of the American mentality: on the one hand, to protect the free access of its multinationals to national markets. On the other hand, we hope to give the IPR the highest possible protection in the United States. The third revised Patent Law, which came into effect in 2009, provides for parallel import, but there is only one provision. The International exhaustion principle was adopted. The principle of international exhaustion is not the best for our country. With the increasing demand of the US government and multinational enterprises for the protection of intellectual property rights in China, China needs to plan, formulate and improve relevant legal systems and regulations as soon as possible, so as to find a balance between the free international circulation of goods and the protection of patented products. In order to cope with the possible large number of parallel import phenomenon. In addition, we should prepare for a rainy day to provide a reference for the possible future agreement to solve this problem within the framework of WTO. Based on the study of relevant international law and US-China legal system, this paper holds that trips Agreement does not clearly limit the exhaustion of rights, but leaves the domestic laws and regulations of trips members. Through the comparative analysis of the different systems in which the United States and China decide the parallel import of patented products under trips Agreement, this paper makes an empirical analysis from the perspective of the case law of the United States. It is hoped that it can be used for reference to limit the rights of parallel import in the revision of patent law and the relevant judicial interpretation in order to reduce the friction and cost in the international trade of intellectual property.
【學位授予單位】：復旦大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2012
【分類號】：D997.1;D923.42;D971.2

【參考文獻】

相關博士學位論文 前2條

1 王弈通;國際貿(mào)易中知識產(chǎn)權的權利窮竭問題研究[D];復旦大學;2011年

2 孫文玲;論TRIPS協(xié)定下專利許可的反壟斷規(guī)制[D];復旦大學;2009年

，

本文編號：2019291