論我國商標(biāo)確權(quán)機制的完善
發(fā)布時間：2018-08-13 19:06
【摘要】：商標(biāo)確權(quán)機制對于我國而言是一個制度“舶來品”，在我國發(fā)展歷史較短，我國對其適用是一個“被動移植”到“為我所用”的過程。起初并不是基于自身國情的制度選擇，在此過程中打上了深深的時代烙印，在我國實踐中也出現(xiàn)了不少的問題。商標(biāo)確權(quán)程序包括商標(biāo)確權(quán)行政程序和商標(biāo)確權(quán)司法程序。商標(biāo)確權(quán)行政程序內(nèi)部設(shè)置存在的問題有：惡意異議現(xiàn)象大量存在；確權(quán)周期過長，易造成權(quán)利虛幻現(xiàn)象；撤銷程序不合理（注冊商標(biāo)撤銷程序啟動不合理；“撤銷”與“無效”概念界定不清）。商標(biāo)司法程序設(shè)置存在的問題有：商標(biāo)確權(quán)訴訟案件原被告身份設(shè)置不合理；商標(biāo)確權(quán)司法審查分工不合理，易引起循環(huán)訴訟；商標(biāo)確權(quán)之訴與侵權(quán)之訴存在沖突。 針對我國實踐中商標(biāo)確權(quán)出現(xiàn)的問題，分析英、美、德、日四個國家的商標(biāo)注冊制度、商標(biāo)異議制度、商標(biāo)權(quán)終止制度及司法程序。認(rèn)為我國的商標(biāo)確權(quán)行政程序應(yīng)借鑒英國商標(biāo)禁止假冒的救濟程序，加大對未注冊商標(biāo)的保護力度；借鑒美國關(guān)于時限的規(guī)定，給商標(biāo)權(quán)人預(yù)留合理的期限，解決商標(biāo)侵權(quán)和商標(biāo)確權(quán)關(guān)于時限規(guī)定的沖突；借鑒國外的異議后置程序，并對異議主體進行限制，取消商標(biāo)異議復(fù)審制度；也可效仿英國的異議“冷靜期”制度，給予當(dāng)事人足夠的和解期限；要區(qū)分“撤銷”與“無效”的概念，改革現(xiàn)行的商標(biāo)撤銷制度。商標(biāo)確權(quán)司法程序可借鑒美國的司法審判制度，只列雙方當(dāng)事人為訴訟雙方，將商評委列為第三人，，二審只進行法律問題的審理；效仿德國的設(shè)立專門的知識產(chǎn)權(quán)法院來集中處理知識產(chǎn)權(quán)案件；可以引入日本的“當(dāng)事人訴訟”制度，當(dāng)事人可直接向法院提起行政訴訟，賦予法院對此類案件的司法變更權(quán)。但最理想的狀態(tài)是設(shè)置行政附帶民事訴訟程序。 我國商標(biāo)確權(quán)機制的完善需從以下幾個方面入手：深化對商標(biāo)權(quán)性質(zhì)的認(rèn)識，肯定商標(biāo)權(quán)是一種私權(quán)；把握好商標(biāo)確權(quán)的基本原則“意思自治原則、利益平衡原則、誠實信用原則”之間的關(guān)系；完善商標(biāo)確權(quán)行政程序和司法程序的銜接，主要包括完善商標(biāo)確權(quán)機制相關(guān)法律法規(guī)、改革商標(biāo)異議制度，提高確權(quán)效率、設(shè)立“商標(biāo)無效”宣告制度和完善商標(biāo)確權(quán)的司法審查程序。
[Abstract]:For our country, the mechanism of trademark confirmation right is a system "imported", and its application in China is a process from "passive transplantation" to "for our own use". At first, it is not based on its own national conditions of the system choice, in the process of making a deep brand of the times, in our practice has also appeared a lot of problems. Trademark confirmation procedure includes administrative procedure and judicial procedure. The problems existing in the administrative procedure of trademark confirmation are as follows: malevolent dissent exists in large quantities, the period of confirming right is too long, it is easy to cause the illusory phenomenon of right, the procedure of revocation is unreasonable (the procedure of revocation of registered trademark is not reasonable); The concepts of "revocation" and "invalidity" are not clearly defined. The problems of trademark judicial procedure include: unreasonable setting of original defendant's status in trademark confirmation right lawsuit; unreasonable division of labor in judicial review of trademark confirmation right, easy to cause circular litigation; conflict between trademark confirmation right lawsuit and infringement action. This paper analyzes the trademark registration system, trademark objection system, trademark termination system and judicial procedure in four countries: Britain, the United States, Germany and Japan, in view of the problems existing in the practice of trademark confirmation in our country. The author thinks that the administrative procedure of trademark confirmation right in our country should draw lessons from the relief procedure of prohibiting counterfeiting of British trademark, strengthen the protection of unregistered trademark, draw lessons from the provisions of the United States on the time limit, and set a reasonable time limit for the trademark owner. To resolve the conflict between trademark infringement and trademark confirmation right on the time limit; to draw lessons from the foreign post-objection procedure, and to restrict the subject of the objection and cancel the trademark objection review system; or to follow the British objection "cooling-off" system. It is necessary to distinguish the concept of "revocation" from "invalidity" and reform the current trademark revocation system. The judicial procedure of trademark confirmation right can draw lessons from the judicial trial system of the United States. Only the parties concerned are listed as the litigants, and the commercial judges are listed as the third party, and the second instance only deals with legal issues. Following the example of Germany, a special intellectual property court can be set up to deal with intellectual property cases in a centralized way, and the "litigant litigation" system in Japan can be introduced. The parties may directly file administrative proceedings to the court and endow the court with the right of judicial change in such cases. But the ideal state is to set up administrative incidental civil procedure. The perfection of the mechanism of trademark confirmation right in our country should start from the following aspects: deepening the understanding of the nature of trademark right, affirming that trademark right is a kind of private right, grasping the basic principle of trademark confirmation right "the principle of autonomy of will, the principle of balance of interests," The relationship between the principle of good faith and good faith, perfecting the connection between administrative procedure and judicial procedure of trademark confirmation right, mainly including perfecting the relevant laws and regulations of trademark confirmation right mechanism, reforming trademark dissent system, improving the efficiency of trademark confirmation right, Establish the system of declaring trademark invalid and perfect the judicial review procedure of trademark confirmation right.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：湘潭大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2013
【分類號】：D923.43
本文編號：2181903
[Abstract]:For our country, the mechanism of trademark confirmation right is a system "imported", and its application in China is a process from "passive transplantation" to "for our own use". At first, it is not based on its own national conditions of the system choice, in the process of making a deep brand of the times, in our practice has also appeared a lot of problems. Trademark confirmation procedure includes administrative procedure and judicial procedure. The problems existing in the administrative procedure of trademark confirmation are as follows: malevolent dissent exists in large quantities, the period of confirming right is too long, it is easy to cause the illusory phenomenon of right, the procedure of revocation is unreasonable (the procedure of revocation of registered trademark is not reasonable); The concepts of "revocation" and "invalidity" are not clearly defined. The problems of trademark judicial procedure include: unreasonable setting of original defendant's status in trademark confirmation right lawsuit; unreasonable division of labor in judicial review of trademark confirmation right, easy to cause circular litigation; conflict between trademark confirmation right lawsuit and infringement action. This paper analyzes the trademark registration system, trademark objection system, trademark termination system and judicial procedure in four countries: Britain, the United States, Germany and Japan, in view of the problems existing in the practice of trademark confirmation in our country. The author thinks that the administrative procedure of trademark confirmation right in our country should draw lessons from the relief procedure of prohibiting counterfeiting of British trademark, strengthen the protection of unregistered trademark, draw lessons from the provisions of the United States on the time limit, and set a reasonable time limit for the trademark owner. To resolve the conflict between trademark infringement and trademark confirmation right on the time limit; to draw lessons from the foreign post-objection procedure, and to restrict the subject of the objection and cancel the trademark objection review system; or to follow the British objection "cooling-off" system. It is necessary to distinguish the concept of "revocation" from "invalidity" and reform the current trademark revocation system. The judicial procedure of trademark confirmation right can draw lessons from the judicial trial system of the United States. Only the parties concerned are listed as the litigants, and the commercial judges are listed as the third party, and the second instance only deals with legal issues. Following the example of Germany, a special intellectual property court can be set up to deal with intellectual property cases in a centralized way, and the "litigant litigation" system in Japan can be introduced. The parties may directly file administrative proceedings to the court and endow the court with the right of judicial change in such cases. But the ideal state is to set up administrative incidental civil procedure. The perfection of the mechanism of trademark confirmation right in our country should start from the following aspects: deepening the understanding of the nature of trademark right, affirming that trademark right is a kind of private right, grasping the basic principle of trademark confirmation right "the principle of autonomy of will, the principle of balance of interests," The relationship between the principle of good faith and good faith, perfecting the connection between administrative procedure and judicial procedure of trademark confirmation right, mainly including perfecting the relevant laws and regulations of trademark confirmation right mechanism, reforming trademark dissent system, improving the efficiency of trademark confirmation right, Establish the system of declaring trademark invalid and perfect the judicial review procedure of trademark confirmation right.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：湘潭大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2013
【分類號】：D923.43
【參考文獻】
相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條
1 徐曉建;我國商標(biāo)確權(quán)行政程序與司法程序之重構(gòu)(上)[J];中華商標(biāo);2005年10期
2 崔文俊;;商標(biāo)確權(quán)司法審查的幾個問題[J];中華商標(biāo);2007年01期
3 鄭書前;;論知識產(chǎn)權(quán)保護雙軌制的沖突及協(xié)調(diào)[J];河南大學(xué)學(xué)報(社會科學(xué)版);2007年05期
4 王炳;;論知識生產(chǎn)難度與知識產(chǎn)權(quán)保護成比例原則[J];經(jīng)濟問題探索;2009年09期
5 包海波;美國知識產(chǎn)權(quán)保護制度的特點及發(fā)展趨勢[J];科技與經(jīng)濟;2003年06期
6 關(guān)永紅;石賓;;論我國商標(biāo)法中商標(biāo)確權(quán)機制的合理重構(gòu)[J];寧夏大學(xué)學(xué)報(人文社會科學(xué)版);2009年02期
7 姚建春;雷興長;;美國知識產(chǎn)權(quán)保護制度的特點分析[J];社科縱橫;2007年10期
8 莫于川;雷振;;我國《行政訴訟法》的修改路向、修改要點和修改方案——關(guān)于修改《行政訴訟法》的中國人民大學(xué)專家建議稿[J];河南財經(jīng)政法大學(xué)學(xué)報;2012年03期
9 楊光明;;后WTO時代國際貿(mào)易中的知識產(chǎn)權(quán)保護法律制度[J];現(xiàn)代法學(xué);2007年03期
10 崔冬;;再論擴大我國行政訴訟的司法變更權(quán)[J];西南政法大學(xué)學(xué)報;2009年04期
本文編號：2181903
本文鏈接：http://www.sikaile.net/falvlunwen/zhishichanquanfa/2181903.html
最近更新
教材專著
