本文選題：TRIPS協(xié)議　切入點：知識產(chǎn)權(quán)濫用　出處：《遼寧大學(xué)》2012年碩士論文

【摘要】：現(xiàn)代經(jīng)濟的發(fā)展形勢要求每個國家都參與其中,正因為如此,知識產(chǎn)權(quán)在世界范圍內(nèi)的交流頻率加快。知識產(chǎn)權(quán)貿(mào)易已經(jīng)和貨物貿(mào)易,服務(wù)貿(mào)易成為WTO體系內(nèi)的國際貿(mào)易的三大支柱。知識產(chǎn)權(quán)逐漸成為國家間、企業(yè)間爭奪的目標(biāo)。在國際貿(mào)易中,與知識產(chǎn)權(quán)有關(guān)的國際糾紛也逐漸增多,突出表現(xiàn)為知識產(chǎn)權(quán)濫用的問題。 本文首先在通過分析國際公約的規(guī)定以及國內(nèi)學(xué)者的研究成果基礎(chǔ)上,對這—問題進行界定。在國際公約當(dāng)中并沒有明確的闡述知識產(chǎn)權(quán)濫用的內(nèi)涵,各國政府可以根據(jù)國內(nèi)實情進行具體的規(guī)定。接著在國際貿(mào)易的背景下,從實體法與程序法的角度列舉出幾種主要的知識產(chǎn)權(quán)濫用行為�，F(xiàn)實生活中,這些行為不會按照書本上的定義發(fā)生,因此在進行貿(mào)易交流時,要根據(jù)合同內(nèi)容進行具體的區(qū)分。本文也不——列舉,只是闡述幾種主要行為。在此基礎(chǔ)上,接下來分別從國際法和典型國內(nèi)立法的角度對這個問題進行規(guī)制。在與國際貿(mào)易緊密相關(guān)的TRIPS協(xié)議中,雖然沒有具體說明對此問題規(guī)制的方法,但是它提供了最低要求,即各國可以在國內(nèi)法中結(jié)合具體國情制定不違反公約的具體規(guī)定。以美國和歐盟為代表的發(fā)達國家和地區(qū)將規(guī)制此問題與反壟斷法進行銜接,而以巴西和印度為代表的發(fā)展中國家更多的是適應(yīng)國際公約的條款,用知識產(chǎn)權(quán)相關(guān)法來進行規(guī)制。最后闡述中國對這個問題的法律規(guī)定。雖然經(jīng)歷了忽視規(guī)制,注重保護的階段,但《反壟斷法》的出臺,開始提出規(guī)制這個問題了。即使規(guī)定的不深入不詳細,但已經(jīng)做出進步�！秾＠ā返认嚓P(guān)知識產(chǎn)權(quán)法的修改也是為了更好地適應(yīng)國際公約的規(guī)定。作者在此基礎(chǔ)上,借鑒美國、巴西等國家的經(jīng)驗,提出進一步的完善建議。 本文在分析國際公約規(guī)定的基礎(chǔ)上,在國際貿(mào)易的背景下,用結(jié)合案例的形式闡述界定知識產(chǎn)權(quán)濫用行為及其幾種主要的表現(xiàn)形式。并且在通過對比分析技術(shù)水平、經(jīng)濟實力不同的國家對此問題規(guī)制的不同的前提下,結(jié)合中國現(xiàn)有的相關(guān)法律法規(guī)的具體規(guī)定,旨在對中國規(guī)制這一問題提出參考和借鑒。
[Abstract]:The development of the modern economy requires every country to participate in it. Because of this, the frequency of intellectual property rights (IPR) exchanges in the world has accelerated. Intellectual property trade has been trading with goods. Trade in services has become the three pillars of international trade in the WTO system. Intellectual property rights have gradually become the target of competition among countries and enterprises. In international trade, the number of international disputes related to intellectual property rights has also gradually increased. The problem of intellectual property abuse is prominent. First of all, this paper defines this problem on the basis of analyzing the provisions of international conventions and the research results of domestic scholars. There is no clear explanation of the connotation of intellectual property abuse in international conventions. In the context of international trade, governments can then list several major forms of intellectual property abuse from the perspective of substantive and procedural law... in real life, These acts do not occur as defined in the book, so trade exchanges should be based on specific distinctions based on the content of the contract. Then the problem is regulated from the angle of international law and typical domestic legislation. In the TRIPS agreement, which is closely related to international trade, although it does not specify the method of regulating this issue, it provides the minimum requirements. That is, countries can make specific provisions that do not violate the Convention in the light of the specific national conditions in their domestic laws. Developed countries and regions represented by the United States and the European Union will link up this issue with the anti-monopoly law. While the developing countries, represented by Brazil and India, are more likely to adapt to the provisions of international conventions and regulate them with IPR related laws. Finally, the legal provisions of China on this issue have been elaborated. Although it has experienced neglect of regulation, Attention is paid to the stage of protection, but with the introduction of the Anti-monopoly Law, the issue of regulation has begun to be raised. However, progress has been made. The revision of relevant intellectual property laws such as Patent Law is also aimed at better adapting to the provisions of international conventions. On this basis, the author draws lessons from the experiences of the United States, Brazil and other countries and puts forward suggestions for further improvement. Based on the analysis of the provisions of international conventions and under the background of international trade, this paper expounds the definition of abuse of intellectual property rights and its main manifestations in the form of case studies. On the premise of different regulation on this issue in different countries with different economic strength, combined with the specific provisions of relevant laws and regulations in China, the purpose of this paper is to provide a reference and reference for China to regulate this issue.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：遼寧大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2012
【分類號】：D996.1;D997.1

【參考文獻】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 王先林;關(guān)注知識產(chǎn)權(quán)濫用問題[J];安徽科技;2004年03期

2 辛柏春;;TRIPS協(xié)定與國際貿(mào)易中的知識產(chǎn)權(quán)壁壘[J];北方法學(xué);2009年01期

3 喬生;中國限制外國企業(yè)對知識產(chǎn)權(quán)濫用的立法思考[J];法律科學(xué).西北政法學(xué)院學(xué)報;2004年01期

4 李明德;;“知識產(chǎn)權(quán)濫用”是一個模糊命題[J];電子知識產(chǎn)權(quán);2007年10期

5 王先林;;實施知識產(chǎn)權(quán)戰(zhàn)略與防止知識產(chǎn)權(quán)濫用——《國家知識產(chǎn)權(quán)戰(zhàn)略綱要》中防止知識產(chǎn)權(quán)濫用解讀[J];中國發(fā)明與專利;2008年09期

6 郭壽康;萬勇;;中國外貿(mào)法限制知識產(chǎn)權(quán)濫用措施制度研究[J];法學(xué)家;2005年05期

7 張偉君;單曉光;;WTO框架下完善我國知識產(chǎn)權(quán)濫用規(guī)制制度的若干思考[J];法學(xué)家;2008年02期

8 馮曉青;;論知識產(chǎn)權(quán)法與競爭法在促進有效競爭方面的平衡與協(xié)調(diào)[J];河北法學(xué);2008年07期

9 呂明瑜;;論知識產(chǎn)權(quán)壟斷法律控制的理論基礎(chǔ)[J];河北法學(xué);2009年02期

10 姚立國;張炳生;;從TRIPs協(xié)議第40條談知識產(chǎn)權(quán)濫用的競爭法規(guī)制[J];河北法學(xué);2009年09期

相關(guān)博士學(xué)位論文 前1條

1 陳劍玲;論對外貿(mào)易中的知識產(chǎn)權(quán)濫用及其法律規(guī)制[D];對外經(jīng)濟貿(mào)易大學(xué);2007年

，

本文編號：1687880