發(fā)布時間：2018-05-03 06:05

  本文選題：商標產(chǎn)品平行進口 + 權利限制原則　； 參考：《蘭州大學》2011年碩士論文

【摘要】：商標產(chǎn)品平行進口是指在國際貿(mào)易中,進口商未經(jīng)進口地商標權人(包括商標所有權人及商標使用權人)同意,從境外進口經(jīng)合法授權生產(chǎn)的帶相同商標的同類產(chǎn)品的行為�！虡水a(chǎn)品平行進口的根源其實是各個國家綜合國力的差異,其中起到主要作用的是經(jīng)濟科技水平和勞動力成本的高低,科技水平高低代表了產(chǎn)品附加值的高低,勞動力成本的高低直接決定著產(chǎn)品的價格,在追求利益最大化的驅(qū)使下造成了商標產(chǎn)品平行進口的產(chǎn)生。伴隨著我國經(jīng)濟的持續(xù)高速增長,科技水平的提高以及勞動力成本不斷增長,我國正在由低成本產(chǎn)品制造市場向高成本產(chǎn)品制造市場轉變,商標產(chǎn)品平行進口案件在我國也就出現(xiàn)了。 本文從介紹米其林輪胎平行進口案入手,在對案件進行分析的基礎上,探究在我國法律無明文規(guī)定的現(xiàn)實情況下應對商標產(chǎn)品平行進口問題所依據(jù)的法律原則。本文的創(chuàng)新之處在于不同于以往的文章對商標產(chǎn)品平行進口提出立法的建議,而是立足于中國短時間內(nèi)不會有對此進行立法的實際情況,試圖找出解決此問題的合理的法律原則,探討司法實踐中所適用的法律原則。 本文共分四章： 第一章對案件進行簡要的介紹,針對判決引本出所要解決的問題。通過分析發(fā)現(xiàn)在我國當前法無明文規(guī)定,所以本文試圖從傳統(tǒng)理念與新近理念中找到合理的依據(jù)。 第二章通過對傳統(tǒng)理論權利用盡原則和地域性原則的分析,指出以這兩種原則在當前是不適合我國國情的,無法合理解決本案。 第三章筆者比較傾向新近的權利限制原則和歸責原則,因此通過分析找到支持自己觀點的依據(jù),并且以前面發(fā)生過的案例作為論證的依據(jù)。最終得出其可以合理解決本案,且具有普遍的適用性。 第四章結論部分筆者主要分析了權利限制原則和歸責原則適用的優(yōu)越性并得出我國對待商標產(chǎn)品平行進口問題的態(tài)度。
[Abstract]:Parallel import of trademark products means that in international trade the importer imports the same products with the same trademark without the consent of the trademark owner (including the owner of the trademark and the right to use the trademark) from abroad and is legally authorized to produce the same kind of product with the same trademark. The root of parallel import of trademark products is actually the difference in the overall national strength of various countries. Among them, the main role is the level of economic, technological and labor costs, and the level of science and technology represents the added value of the product. The level of labor cost directly determines the price of the product, which results in the parallel import of trademark products driven by the pursuit of profit maximization. With the continuous rapid growth of economy, the improvement of science and technology and the increasing of labor cost, our country is changing from the low cost product manufacturing market to the high cost product manufacturing market. The case of parallel import of trademark products has also appeared in our country. Based on the introduction of Michelin tire parallel import case and the analysis of the case, this paper explores the legal principles for dealing with the problem of parallel import of trademark products under the situation that there is no explicit law in our country. The innovation of this paper is that it is different from previous articles in proposing legislation on parallel import of trademark products, but based on the fact that China will not legislate on it in a short period of time. This paper tries to find out the reasonable legal principles to solve this problem and to explore the applicable legal principles in judicial practice. This paper is divided into four chapters: The first chapter gives a brief introduction to the case, aiming at the problems to be solved. Through the analysis, it is found that there is no explicit stipulation in the current law of our country, so this paper tries to find the reasonable basis from the traditional idea and the recent idea. In the second chapter, by analyzing the principle of exhaustion of rights and the principle of regionalism, the author points out that these two principles are not suitable for the situation of our country at present, and it is impossible to solve the case reasonably. In the third chapter, the author tends to the new principle of limitation of rights and the principle of imputation, so I find the basis to support my point of view through the analysis, and take the case that happened before as the proof basis. Finally, it can reasonably solve the case, and has universal applicability. In the fourth chapter, the author analyzes the superiority of applying the principle of limitation of rights and the principle of imputation, and concludes the attitude of our country to the problem of parallel import of trademark products.
【學位授予單位】：蘭州大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2011
【分類號】：D997.1

【參考文獻】

相關期刊論文 前10條

1 陳明國;蔣敏;;商標侵權的歸責原則[J];中華商標;2006年07期

2 王秋華;平行進口與商標權保護[J];當代法學;2002年11期

3 馬莉君;;淺議我國商標權產(chǎn)品的平行進口[J];法制與社會;2009年11期

4 劉啟正;;地域性理論與商標平行進口[J];貴州警官職業(yè)學院學報;2009年01期

5 馬翔翔;;淺析商標侵權的歸責原則[J];甘肅政法成人教育學院學報;2007年05期

6 潘曉寧;;商標權限制理論分析[J];華東理工大學學報(社會科學版);2009年03期

7 黃偉;;知識產(chǎn)權權利限制的法理分析[J];內(nèi)江科技;2007年03期

8 范曉宇;;商標權平行進口的法律對策分析——以商標功能論為中心[J];科學經(jīng)濟社會;2007年04期

9 劉啟正;沈玉曼;;商標權利限制對消費者的保護[J];科技信息;2008年26期

10 任軍民;;我國專利權權利用盡原則的理論體系[J];法學研究;2006年06期

相關碩士學位論文 前10條

1 羅燕飛;商標侵權損害賠償制度研究[D];四川大學;2003年

2 張玲;商標產(chǎn)品平行進口問題研究[D];安徽大學;2005年

3 桑學敏;商標商品平行進口法律問題研究[D];哈爾濱工程大學;2006年

4 曹輝;論權利用盡原則和貿(mào)易自由化的關系[D];中國海洋大學;2006年

5 王金穎;商標產(chǎn)品平行進口的法律問題研究[D];東北財經(jīng)大學;2007年

6 魏巖松;商標平行進口法律問題研究[D];大連海事大學;2008年

7 李媛;商標權限制研究[D];中南大學;2007年

8 曾禮慶;知識產(chǎn)權權利限制研究[D];中國政法大學;2008年

9 王鳳;專利產(chǎn)品修理和再造法律問題研究[D];湖南大學;2009年

10 王宏偉;商標產(chǎn)品平行進口問題法律研究[D];中國海洋大學;2009年

，

本文編號：1837286