【摘要】：知識產(chǎn)權(quán)侵權(quán)救濟體系,其內(nèi)容包括具有絕對權(quán)請求權(quán)性質(zhì)的知識產(chǎn)權(quán)請求權(quán)和債權(quán)請求權(quán)性質(zhì)的侵權(quán)損害賠償請求權(quán)以及不當?shù)美埱髾?quán)。知識產(chǎn)權(quán)請求權(quán),作為保護知識產(chǎn)權(quán)的防衛(wèi)性權(quán)利,其之于整個權(quán)利體系的重要地位毋庸置疑,本文將從知識產(chǎn)權(quán)請求權(quán)的理論和實踐意義開始,逐步對知識產(chǎn)權(quán)請求權(quán)的概念、性質(zhì)和特征進行闡述,并且對比分析我國知識產(chǎn)權(quán)救濟體系的現(xiàn)狀和不足,最后提出筆者對于構(gòu)建我國知識產(chǎn)權(quán)請求權(quán)制度的建議。 研究知識產(chǎn)權(quán)請求權(quán),首先,探討知識產(chǎn)權(quán)請求權(quán)在實踐上和理論上的立足之本。即實踐中,由于知識產(chǎn)權(quán)侵權(quán)行為的特征,要求知識產(chǎn)權(quán)請求權(quán)必須成為知識產(chǎn)權(quán)人所應(yīng)當被賦予的一項重要的救濟性權(quán)利。理論上,知識產(chǎn)權(quán)請求權(quán)與其他債權(quán)請求權(quán)共同組成了完整的知識產(chǎn)權(quán)侵權(quán)救濟體系,兩者從內(nèi)容和功能上相得益彰。厘清二者之間的區(qū)別和聯(lián)系,有助于明確知識產(chǎn)權(quán)請求權(quán)所應(yīng)當具有的概念和特征,以引出下文的討論。 其次,要明確其基本框架,包括知識產(chǎn)權(quán)請求權(quán)的概念性質(zhì)和特征。由于知識產(chǎn)權(quán)請求權(quán)從性質(zhì)和功能上與同為絕對權(quán)請求權(quán)的物權(quán)請求權(quán)有很多異曲同工之處,因此,方法上通過兩項請求權(quán)的對比研究,來明確知識產(chǎn)權(quán)請求權(quán)自身的理論體系。知識產(chǎn)權(quán)請求權(quán),其概念應(yīng)當包含了權(quán)利行使的條件、內(nèi)容以及目的,即當知識產(chǎn)權(quán)受到現(xiàn)實侵害或有侵害之危險時,知識產(chǎn)權(quán)人得以請求侵害人為或不為一定行為,來恢復(fù)對知識產(chǎn)權(quán)客體的獨占性支配的權(quán)利。知識產(chǎn)權(quán)請求權(quán),是為一項對知識產(chǎn)權(quán)侵權(quán)行為的救濟性權(quán)利,要求其本身依附于知識產(chǎn)權(quán)而生,但是,知識產(chǎn)權(quán)請求權(quán)的諸多特征又使得其在一定程度上獨立于知識產(chǎn)權(quán),因此其是一項獨立的請求權(quán)。在與物權(quán)請求權(quán)的進一步比較中,發(fā)現(xiàn)知識產(chǎn)權(quán)請求權(quán)的內(nèi)容上并不具有諸如恢復(fù)原狀、返還原物等傳統(tǒng)的絕對權(quán)請求權(quán)的內(nèi)容,但包含有廢棄請求權(quán)、獲取信息請求權(quán)等獨具特色的內(nèi)容。 明確了知識產(chǎn)權(quán)請求權(quán)的基本理論之后,進而要對立法現(xiàn)狀進行分析。通過對各國知識產(chǎn)權(quán)立法實踐的比較分析,找到我國知識產(chǎn)權(quán)請求權(quán)相關(guān)制度的缺陷和不足,以期引出對于我國知識產(chǎn)權(quán)請求權(quán)制度構(gòu)建的方向和目標。 在確定了知識產(chǎn)權(quán)請求權(quán)制度的特征和其應(yīng)當具有的內(nèi)容之后,下一步就要對知識產(chǎn)權(quán)請求權(quán)制度的構(gòu)建進行詳細的闡述。知識產(chǎn)權(quán)請求權(quán),其制度的構(gòu)建,應(yīng)當遵循私權(quán)自治、利益平衡以及禁止權(quán)利濫用的原則。并且從整個知識產(chǎn)權(quán)體系以至民法體系的角度出發(fā),進行立法模式的探討。通過對各國立法模式的借鑒,以及我國相關(guān)學者對于知識產(chǎn)權(quán)制度構(gòu)建的建議,筆者認為,構(gòu)建統(tǒng)一的知識產(chǎn)權(quán)請求權(quán)制度,并將其置于今后的民法典中更為合適。一方面體現(xiàn)知識產(chǎn)權(quán)在整個民法體系的地位,另一方面也對整個知識產(chǎn)權(quán)救濟體系進行系統(tǒng)歸納。在明確了知識產(chǎn)權(quán)請求權(quán)制度構(gòu)建的基本模式之后,就要詳細討論知識產(chǎn)權(quán)請求權(quán)所應(yīng)當包含的內(nèi)容。如前文所述,知識產(chǎn)權(quán)請求權(quán)不僅具有諸如其他絕對權(quán)請求權(quán)所包含的停止侵害請求權(quán)、排除妨害請求權(quán)以外,還應(yīng)當包括廢棄請求權(quán)、獲取信息請求權(quán)以及賠禮道歉、消除影響請求權(quán)。權(quán)利的生命在于行使,知識產(chǎn)權(quán)請求權(quán),其行使的主體應(yīng)當包括通過創(chuàng)造等活動而原始取得知識產(chǎn)權(quán)的權(quán)利人,以及通過許可合同等方式而繼受取得知識產(chǎn)權(quán)的各類被許可人。在各項請求權(quán)行使的過程中,還應(yīng)當滿足一定的條件。普遍意義上,應(yīng)當存在現(xiàn)實侵害或者侵害之虞,而各項具體的請求權(quán),還要求滿足其具體的行使條件。同時,任何權(quán)利的行使都不是毫無邊際的,知識產(chǎn)權(quán)請求權(quán)的行使,也應(yīng)當受到公共利益等的限制,才能準確體現(xiàn)知識產(chǎn)權(quán)請求權(quán)的價值。 綜上所述,本文主要探討了知識產(chǎn)權(quán)請求權(quán)從理論和實踐意義到制度分析和構(gòu)建的前世今生,在整個論述的過程中,嵌入了筆者的些許見解,行文重點在于厘清知識產(chǎn)權(quán)救濟體系的結(jié)構(gòu)和知識產(chǎn)權(quán)請求權(quán)所應(yīng)包含的內(nèi)容,以及該權(quán)利在行使過程中的所應(yīng)受到的限制,并且在制度構(gòu)建之處提出了自己的建議。
[Abstract]:Intellectual Property Rights Infringement Remedy system, which includes the absolute right of claim for intellectual property rights and claims for damages and unjust enrichment claims. Doubt, this article will start from the theoretical and practical significance of intellectual property rights claims, and gradually expound the concept, nature and characteristics of intellectual property rights claims, and comparative analysis of the current situation and shortcomings of China's intellectual property relief system, and finally put forward the author's suggestions for the construction of China's intellectual property rights claims system.
To study the right of claim for intellectual property, first of all, to explore the practical and theoretical basis of the right of claim for intellectual property. In practice, because of the characteristics of intellectual property infringement, the right of claim for intellectual property must become an important relief right that the intellectual property owner should be granted. The right to claim for other's rights constitutes a complete remedy system for intellectual property rights infringement, which complements each other in content and function. To clarify the difference and relationship between the two is helpful to clarify the concept and characteristics of the right to claim for intellectual property rights, so as to lead to the following discussion.
Secondly, it is necessary to clarify its basic framework, including the conceptual nature and characteristics of intellectual property rights claims. As there are many similarities and differences between intellectual property rights claims and real rights claims which are absolute claims in nature and function, the method is to clarify the intellectual property rights claims themselves through the comparative study of the two claims. Theoretical system. The concept of intellectual property claim should include the conditions, contents and purposes of the exercise of the right, that is, when the intellectual property rights are actually infringed or in danger of infringement, the intellectual property owner can request the infringer to do something or not to restore the exclusive control over the object of intellectual property rights. Right is a remedial right for infringement of intellectual property rights, which requires that it be attached to intellectual property rights. However, many characteristics of intellectual property claim make it independent of intellectual property rights to a certain extent, so it is an independent claim. The content of the right of claim does not contain the traditional absolute right of claim such as restoring the original state and returning the restored objects, but it contains the unique contents such as the right of abandonment and the right of obtaining information.
After clarifying the basic theory of intellectual property rights claims, we should analyze the current situation of legislation. Through the comparative analysis of the legislative practice of intellectual property rights in various countries, we can find the defects and deficiencies of the relevant systems of intellectual property rights claims in China, so as to lead to the direction and objectives of the construction of the system of intellectual property rights claims in China.
After defining the characteristics and contents of the intellectual property claim system, the next step is to elaborate the construction of the intellectual property claim system. The construction of the intellectual property claim system should follow the principles of private autonomy, balance of interests and prohibition of abuse of rights. From the point of view of the system and the civil law system, this paper discusses the legislative mode. Through the reference of the legislative mode of various countries and the suggestions of the relevant scholars on the construction of the intellectual property system, the author thinks that it is more appropriate to construct a unified intellectual property claim system and put it in the future civil code. On the one hand, it reflects the intellectual property. The position of right in the whole civil law system, on the other hand, it systematically summarizes the whole intellectual property remedy system. After clarifying the basic model of the system of intellectual property claim, it is necessary to discuss in detail the content of intellectual property claim. The right to claim includes the right to stop infringement, excluding the right to infringement, and it should also include the right to abandon the claim, the right to obtain information, the right to apologize and the right to cancel the influence of the claim. The obligee and all kinds of licensees who acquire intellectual property rights by means of licensing contracts should also satisfy certain conditions in the process of exercising each claim. Generally speaking, there should be a danger of actual infringement or infringement, and each specific claim should also satisfy its specific exercising conditions. The exercise of any right is not limitless. The exercise of the right to claim for intellectual property rights should also be restricted by the public interest, so as to accurately reflect the value of the right to claim for intellectual property rights.
To sum up, this paper mainly discusses the theoretical and practical significance of intellectual property rights claims to the system analysis and construction of the past and present life, in the whole process of discussion, embedded some of the author's views, the focus of the text is to clarify the structure of the intellectual property rights relief system and the content of intellectual property rights claims, as well as the rights in the The restrictions in the course of exercising the system are put forward and some suggestions are put forward.
【學位授予單位】：東北財經(jīng)大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2013
【分類號】：D923.4

【參考文獻】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 王鵬;謝冬慧;;論侵害知識產(chǎn)權(quán)的不當?shù)美埱髾?quán)[J];東北大學學報(社會科學版);2009年05期

2 劉紅兵;;知識產(chǎn)權(quán)侵權(quán)物的司法處置——以知識產(chǎn)權(quán)請求權(quán)為中心的思考[J];電子知識產(chǎn)權(quán);2009年01期

3 吳漢東;試論知識產(chǎn)權(quán)的“物上請求權(quán)”與侵權(quán)賠償請求權(quán)——兼論《知識產(chǎn)權(quán)協(xié)議》第45條規(guī)定之實質(zhì)精神[J];法商研究(中南政法學院學報);2001年05期

4 唐昭紅;論人格權(quán)請求權(quán)與知識產(chǎn)權(quán)請求權(quán)的確立——對侵權(quán)的民事責任制度的再次詰難[J];法商研究(中南政法學院學報);2002年02期

5 李揚;;知識產(chǎn)權(quán)請求權(quán)的限制[J];法商研究;2010年04期

6 龔賽紅;;關(guān)于侵權(quán)責任形式的解讀——兼論絕對權(quán)請求權(quán)的立法模式[J];法學雜志;2010年04期

7 崔建遠;絕對權(quán)請求權(quán)抑或侵權(quán)責任方式[J];法學;2002年11期

8 鄭成思;私權(quán)、知識產(chǎn)權(quán)與物權(quán)的權(quán)利限制[J];法學;2004年09期

9 房素素;;物權(quán)請求權(quán)與債權(quán)請求權(quán)的異同分析[J];經(jīng)營管理者;2011年22期

10 季蓉;;絕對權(quán)請求權(quán)與侵權(quán)請求權(quán)的競合問題[J];廣西政法管理干部學院學報;2011年04期

，

本文編號：2178924