本文選題：侵權(quán)貨物　切入點(diǎn)：知識產(chǎn)權(quán)　出處：《山西大學(xué)》2012年碩士論文

【摘要】：TRIPS協(xié)定的達(dá)成體現(xiàn)了知識產(chǎn)權(quán)保護(hù)的國際化趨勢。但美國和歐盟等發(fā)達(dá)國家并不滿足于維持TRIPS協(xié)定所規(guī)定的知識產(chǎn)權(quán)最低保護(hù)條款,而是在多邊、區(qū)域及雙邊領(lǐng)域同步推行其超TRIPS協(xié)定的知識產(chǎn)權(quán)保護(hù)戰(zhàn)略,至今仍存有爭議的ACTA協(xié)議就是一個(gè)典型例證。筆者認(rèn)為,無論是美國過于強(qiáng)化知識產(chǎn)權(quán)保護(hù),還是中國相對弱化知識產(chǎn)權(quán)的同時(shí)顧及第三方利益,都是TRIPS協(xié)定所允許的,是兩國經(jīng)濟(jì)利益存在差異的背景下導(dǎo)致的立法取向不同的結(jié)果。筆者回顧了2007年美國訴中國知識產(chǎn)權(quán)第一案,借以對筆者觀點(diǎn)加以佐證。 20世紀(jì)中期以來,隨著國際貿(mào)易的迅速發(fā)展,侵犯知識產(chǎn)權(quán)的非法貨物的國際貿(mào)易數(shù)量也呈上升趨勢；事實(shí)上,我國海關(guān)處置侵犯知識產(chǎn)權(quán)貨物的數(shù)量和由其引發(fā)的對外貿(mào)易糾紛也逐年增加。筆者通過檢索發(fā)現(xiàn),目前國內(nèi)學(xué)者的關(guān)注點(diǎn)通常局限于處置知識產(chǎn)權(quán)侵權(quán)貨物的海關(guān)執(zhí)法層面,極少有論著從立法角度對海關(guān)處置措施進(jìn)行分析。為此,筆者運(yùn)用法學(xué)專業(yè)知識,結(jié)合對相關(guān)技術(shù)知識的理解,借鑒國外先進(jìn)經(jīng)驗(yàn),就知識產(chǎn)權(quán)侵權(quán)貨物海關(guān)處置措施的立法問題進(jìn)行分析,通過對比國際國內(nèi)立法,認(rèn)識到我國知識產(chǎn)權(quán)海關(guān)保護(hù)立法的缺陷與完善必要性。 本論文首先對美國訴中國知識產(chǎn)權(quán)第一案進(jìn)行分析,揭示出發(fā)達(dá)國家推行超TRIPS協(xié)定的實(shí)質(zhì)；繼而立足我國目前知識產(chǎn)權(quán)侵權(quán)貨物海關(guān)執(zhí)法現(xiàn)狀,提出我國知識產(chǎn)權(quán)侵權(quán)貨物海關(guān)處置措施立法上的缺陷及完善的必要性。接下來通過借鑒知識產(chǎn)權(quán)侵權(quán)貨物海關(guān)處置措施的國際立法,對比知識產(chǎn)權(quán)侵權(quán)貨物海關(guān)處置措施的國內(nèi)立法相關(guān)規(guī)定,并結(jié)合我國的國情,多角度探析知識產(chǎn)權(quán)海關(guān)處置措施的國際立法趨勢,以求更準(zhǔn)確地把握我國的應(yīng)對策略。
[Abstract]:The conclusion of TRIPS Agreement reflects the international trend of intellectual property protection.However, the developed countries, such as the United States and the European Union, are not satisfied with maintaining the minimum protection provisions of intellectual property rights as stipulated in the TRIPS Agreement. Instead, they simultaneously implement their super-#en1# intellectual property protection strategies in the multilateral, regional and bilateral fields.The controversial ACTA protocol is a typical example.In my opinion, whether it is the United States to strengthen the protection of intellectual property rights, or China's relative weakening of intellectual property rights while taking into account the interests of third parties, it is permitted by the TRIPS Agreement.It is the result of different legislative orientation caused by the difference of economic interests between the two countries.The author reviewed the first case of American v. China intellectual property in 2007 to prove the author's point of view.Since the middle of the 20th century, with the rapid development of international trade, the amount of international trade in illegal goods infringing intellectual property rights has also been on the rise; in fact,The quantity of infringing intellectual property goods and the foreign trade disputes caused by them are increasing year by year.Through the search, the author found that the domestic scholars usually focus on the disposal of intellectual property rights infringement of goods in the level of customs law enforcement, rarely from the legislative point of view of the analysis of the measures of customs disposal.For this reason, the author applies the professional knowledge of law, combines the understanding of relevant technical knowledge, draws lessons from the foreign advanced experience, carries on the analysis to the intellectual property rights infringement goods customs disposal measure legislation question, through contrasts the international and the domestic legislation,It is necessary to realize the defects and perfection of the legislation on the customs protection of intellectual property in our country.This paper first analyzes the case of the United States v. China intellectual property right, reveals the essence of the super TRIPS agreement in developed countries, and then bases on the current situation of customs enforcement of intellectual property infringement goods in China.This paper puts forward the legislative defects and the necessity of perfecting the measures of customs disposal of intellectual property rights infringing goods in our country.Next, by drawing lessons from the international legislation on customs measures for handling goods infringing intellectual property rights, comparing the relevant provisions of domestic legislation on measures of customs disposal of goods infringing intellectual property rights, and combining with the national conditions of our country,This paper probes into the international legislative trend of the measures of customs disposal of intellectual property in order to grasp the countermeasures of our country more accurately.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：山西大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2012
【分類號】：D923.4;D922.294;D997.1

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 余敏友;廖麗;褚童;;知識產(chǎn)權(quán)邊境保護(hù)——現(xiàn)狀、趨勢與對策[J];法學(xué)評論;2010年01期

2 龔柏華;張偉華;;美國就“中國知識產(chǎn)權(quán)保護(hù)和執(zhí)行特定措施”與中國WTO磋商案評析[J];國際商務(wù)研究;2007年04期

3 李宗輝;;《反假冒貿(mào)易協(xié)定》(ACTA)的“表”與“里”[J];電子知識產(chǎn)權(quán);2011年08期

4 張紅;;馳名商標(biāo)保護(hù)及其海關(guān)邊境措施的適用[J];國際貿(mào)易;2009年02期

5 黃山;;論我國海關(guān)處理知識產(chǎn)權(quán)侵權(quán)案件制度的完善[J];科教文匯(上旬刊);2008年01期

6 董瀟麗;;TRIPS協(xié)議下我國知識產(chǎn)權(quán)邊境措施的完善[J];南方論刊;2010年10期

7 符騰丹;;我國海關(guān)知識產(chǎn)權(quán)保護(hù)制度探析[J];商場現(xiàn)代化;2008年17期

8 何力;;日本知識產(chǎn)權(quán)海關(guān)保護(hù)中的侵權(quán)認(rèn)定制度[J];上海海關(guān)學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2010年02期

9 韓帆;;從利益平衡角度看知識產(chǎn)權(quán)海關(guān)保護(hù)制度的保護(hù)體例設(shè)計(jì)[J];武漢船舶職業(yè)技術(shù)學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2009年05期

10 王娉娉;;ACTA與TRIPS關(guān)系及對中國產(chǎn)生的影響評析[J];現(xiàn)代商貿(mào)工業(yè);2011年15期

，

本文編號：1710695