本文選題：商標(biāo)權(quán)　切入點：犯罪對象　出處：《西南政法大學(xué)》2014年碩士論文

【摘要】：知識產(chǎn)權(quán)作為新興產(chǎn)業(yè)，隨著人類進(jìn)入知識經(jīng)濟(jì)時代，在世界各國發(fā)揮著舉足輕重的作用。我國作為一個發(fā)展中的大國，基于本身發(fā)展和國際經(jīng)濟(jì)與貿(mào)易的需要，也十分重視知識產(chǎn)權(quán)的開發(fā)與保護(hù)。為此，我國2008年頒布了《國家知識產(chǎn)權(quán)戰(zhàn)略綱要》，旨在加強(qiáng)我國知識產(chǎn)權(quán)的開發(fā)、運用和保護(hù)能力，建設(shè)創(chuàng)新型國家。然而，我國當(dāng)前侵犯知識產(chǎn)權(quán)案件，隨著我國經(jīng)濟(jì)不斷發(fā)展呈現(xiàn)猖獗之勢，大案要案頻發(fā)，案件數(shù)量不斷增加，社會危害性嚴(yán)重，侵犯商標(biāo)權(quán)犯罪案件尤其突出。這不僅侵害了商標(biāo)權(quán)人的利益，破壞了公平有序的市場經(jīng)濟(jì)秩序，惡化投資環(huán)境，也阻礙我對外貿(mào)易的快速、健康發(fā)展。在我國刑法關(guān)于商標(biāo)犯罪的規(guī)定中，假冒注冊商標(biāo)罪是學(xué)界討論最多、司法實踐中適用較多的罪名，其本身存在的問題為司法適用帶來一些困擾。為此，筆者針對該罪存在的理論和實踐應(yīng)用中出現(xiàn)的問題進(jìn)行了梳理和分析，提出了自己的觀點，期望能對該罪的完善盡綿薄之力。 本文分為五個部分。第一個部分主要介紹了我國當(dāng)前商標(biāo)犯罪的概況。運用一些統(tǒng)計數(shù)據(jù)和一些案例說明當(dāng)前商標(biāo)犯罪的數(shù)量、趨勢以及犯罪特點等。由此提出商標(biāo)權(quán)刑法保護(hù)之必要性和緊急性。 第二個部分主要是對假冒注冊商標(biāo)犯罪的對象進(jìn)行了分析和認(rèn)定。在該罪中，對同一商品和相同商標(biāo)的認(rèn)定歷來是一個疑難問題，，最高人民法院聯(lián)合最高人民檢察院專門出臺了司法解釋對其進(jìn)行解釋說明，希望減少實踐認(rèn)定之中的模糊之處，但并沒有起到定紛止?fàn)幍男Ч�。筆者認(rèn)為同一種商品的認(rèn)定應(yīng)當(dāng)綜合考慮《商標(biāo)注冊用商品和服務(wù)國際分類表》和主消費者的主觀認(rèn)識。另一個關(guān)于對象的爭議就是服務(wù)商標(biāo)。我國假冒注冊商標(biāo)罪只規(guī)定了對商品商標(biāo)的保護(hù)，沒有將服務(wù)商標(biāo)作為保護(hù)對象。對此，有學(xué)者認(rèn)為應(yīng)當(dāng)將服務(wù)商標(biāo)納入刑法保護(hù)。筆者對此持肯定的觀點，認(rèn)為應(yīng)當(dāng)將服務(wù)商標(biāo)納入刑法的保護(hù)。 第三個部分，針對學(xué)界對同一種商品使用近似商標(biāo)，類似產(chǎn)品上使用相同商標(biāo)，類似產(chǎn)品上使用近似商標(biāo)三種商標(biāo)侵權(quán)行為以及反向假冒商標(biāo)行為是否應(yīng)當(dāng)納入刑法規(guī)制的爭議，筆者在分析和評價肯定論和否定論的基礎(chǔ)上，提出筆者自己的觀點。 第四個部分主要是筆者認(rèn)為現(xiàn)行法律關(guān)于假冒注冊商標(biāo)的罰金刑配置方式不合理，導(dǎo)致罰金數(shù)額虛高，罰金得不到執(zhí)行，使罰金刑的作用得不到發(fā)揮，也影響了判決的嚴(yán)肅性。筆者在分析和評價四種不同的罰金刑立法配置之后，提出了應(yīng)當(dāng)采用限額罰金制的觀點。 第五個部分通過“天價罰金案”引出假冒注冊商標(biāo)罪的犯罪數(shù)額計算方式產(chǎn)生的爭議。對于侵權(quán)商品標(biāo)價和實際銷售差距較大時，筆者認(rèn)為應(yīng)當(dāng)按照有利于被告的價格來認(rèn)定非法經(jīng)營數(shù)額，這符合刑法的謙抑性原則。
[Abstract]:Intellectual property as an emerging industry, with the coming of the era of knowledge economy, plays an important role in the world. China is a developing country, need development and international economic and trade based, also attaches great importance to intellectual property development and protection. Therefore, our country in 2008 promulgated the "outline of national intellectual property strategy", to strengthen the development of China's intellectual property rights, use and protection, the construction of an innovative country. However, China's current intellectual property infringement cases, with the present rampant China's economic development, frequent major cases, the number of cases increased, serious social harm, the crime of trademark infringement cases especially. This not only violated the interests of trademark, destroy a fair and orderly market economic order, the deterioration of the investment environment, fast speed, also hinder the healthy development of our foreign trade in my. Provisions on trademark crime in China's criminal law, the crime of counterfeiting registered trademarks is the largest academic discussion, in the judicial practice for more charges, the problems of its own for the judicial application bring some problems. Therefore, the author combs and analysis for the crime exists in theory and practice of the problem, put forward their own the view is expected to improve to this crime Mianbozhili.
This paper is divided into five parts. The first part mainly introduces the current situation of trademark crime in China. By using some statistical data and some cases, it explains the current number, trend and characteristics of trademark crime. Therefore, it is necessary and urgent to protect trademark right in criminal law.
The second part is the object of the crime of counterfeiting registered trademarks were analyzed and identified. In this crime, cognizance of the same commodity and the same trademark is always a difficult problem, the Supreme People's court and the Supreme People's Procuratorate issued a special judicial interpretation of the explanation, hoping to reduce the ambiguity that in practice, but did not play a mediating effect. The author thinks that the same kind of goods that should be considered "trademark registered by the international classification of goods and services and the main table > consumer's subjective understanding. Another controversy is about as service trademark. In China only the provisions of the crime of counterfeiting registered trademarks the protection of trademarks, service marks will not be protected. In this regard, some scholars believe that the service should be included in the criminal protection of trademark. The author holds a positive view, should be the service The trademark is included in the protection of the criminal law.
The third part, the academic use of similar trademarks on the same goods, the use of the same trademark on similar products, similar products on the use of similar trademarks three kinds of trademark infringement and counterfeit trademark reverse behaviors will be incorporated into the criminal law dispute, based on the analysis and evaluation to the negative theory and basis of conclusion, the author puts forward their point of view.
The fourth part is the author thinks that the current law of penalty configuration on counterfeit registered trademarks are not reasonable, resulting in the amount of the fine penalty is not high, the execution of fine penalty functions not play, also affects the seriousness of the decision. Based on the analysis and evaluation of four different legislative penalty configuration then, put forward should be used to limit fine system point of view.
Fifth part of the "super fine case" leads to the crime of counterfeiting registered trademarks crime amount calculation for infringement disputes. The price of goods and the actual sales gap is large, the author thinks that should be in accordance with the price for the defendant to determine the amount of illegal business, the character of the criminal law. The principle of modesty and

【學(xué)位授予單位】：西南政法大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2014
【分類號】：D924.33

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 羅正紅;;英美商標(biāo)權(quán)刑事保護(hù)[J];中華商標(biāo);2008年03期

2 趙秉志 ,劉志偉;海峽兩岸侵害商標(biāo)犯罪立法之比較[J];法學(xué)評論;1994年05期

3 陽瑞剛;;論馳名商標(biāo)的刑法保護(hù)[J];廣東廣播電視大學(xué)學(xué)報;2008年01期

4 任彥君;;論反向假冒商標(biāo)行為的犯罪化[J];甘肅政法成人教育學(xué)院學(xué)報;2007年06期

5 趙旭;;深圳市某區(qū)假冒注冊商標(biāo)犯罪情況分析[J];法制與社會;2012年15期

6 劉遠(yuǎn)山;;論我國侵犯商標(biāo)權(quán)犯罪的定罪和處罰及其刑法完善[J];河北法學(xué);2006年03期

7 孫萬懷;侵犯知識產(chǎn)權(quán)犯罪刑事責(zé)任基礎(chǔ)構(gòu)造比較[J];華東政法學(xué)院學(xué)報;1999年02期

8 郝守才;罰金刑種類的比較研究[J];河南大學(xué)學(xué)報(社科版);1998年01期

9 盛亞;孔莎莎;;中國知識產(chǎn)權(quán)政策的演變(1985-2009)——一個量化的視角[J];科技進(jìn)步與對策;2011年23期

10 田宏杰;王然;;中外知識產(chǎn)權(quán)刑法保護(hù)趨向比較研究[J];國家行政學(xué)院學(xué)報;2012年06期

相關(guān)博士學(xué)位論文 前1條

1 邢綃紅;罰金刑立法配置研究[D];吉林大學(xué);2013年

本文編號：1663879