本文選題：平行進(jìn)口 + 專(zhuān)利　； 參考：《復(fù)旦大學(xué)》2012年碩士論文

【摘要】：平行進(jìn)口是指在國(guó)際貿(mào)易中,未經(jīng)知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)權(quán)利人授權(quán),進(jìn)口由權(quán)利人或者經(jīng)權(quán)利人同意投放市場(chǎng)的產(chǎn)品或服務(wù),或者進(jìn)口與權(quán)利人的權(quán)利具有同源性的知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)產(chǎn)品的行為或者現(xiàn)象。由于各種原因,知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)產(chǎn)品在不同國(guó)家之間存在價(jià)格差異,因有利可圖,于是進(jìn)口商從低價(jià)國(guó)購(gòu)進(jìn)產(chǎn)品,然后進(jìn)口到價(jià)格較高的國(guó)家,或者某種產(chǎn)品因某些原因在本國(guó)市場(chǎng)上不可得,于是進(jìn)口商設(shè)法從國(guó)外市場(chǎng)上獲得產(chǎn)品進(jìn)口到本國(guó)。由于平行進(jìn)口產(chǎn)品的價(jià)格低廉,對(duì)進(jìn)口國(guó)的知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)權(quán)利人在國(guó)內(nèi)銷(xiāo)售產(chǎn)品造成較大的沖擊,從而引發(fā)是否允許平行進(jìn)口的問(wèn)題。 現(xiàn)在,美國(guó)在專(zhuān)利和版權(quán)領(lǐng)域采用的是“國(guó)內(nèi)窮竭原則”,而在商標(biāo)領(lǐng)域采取“地域性原則”和“普遍性原則”相結(jié)合。雖然美國(guó)自二戰(zhàn)以來(lái)就倡導(dǎo)自由貿(mào)易,但在《與貿(mào)易有關(guān)的知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)協(xié)議》(TRIPS協(xié)議)的談判過(guò)程中,美國(guó)不主張把知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)的“國(guó)際窮竭”論納入到該文件中,而是極力反對(duì)在TRIPS協(xié)議中規(guī)定允許平行進(jìn)口。這似乎與其自由貿(mào)易理論背道而馳,但這真實(shí)反映了美國(guó)的心態(tài)：一方面要保護(hù)其跨國(guó)公司自由進(jìn)入各國(guó)市場(chǎng),另一方面希望給予美國(guó)知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)人盡可能高的保護(hù)。 2009年生效實(shí)施的我國(guó)第三次修改后的《專(zhuān)利法》對(duì)平行進(jìn)口問(wèn)題作了規(guī)定,但只有一項(xiàng)條款,采用的是“國(guó)際窮竭原則”。國(guó)際窮竭原則對(duì)我國(guó)而言,并非最佳。隨著美國(guó)政府和跨國(guó)企業(yè)對(duì)我國(guó)知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)維權(quán)的要求日益升溫,我國(guó)需要盡早規(guī)劃,制定、完善相關(guān)法律制度及規(guī)定,在商品國(guó)際自由流通與專(zhuān)利產(chǎn)品保護(hù)之間找到平衡點(diǎn),以應(yīng)對(duì)可能大量出現(xiàn)的平行進(jìn)口現(xiàn)象。除此之外,應(yīng)當(dāng)未雨綢繆,為將來(lái)可能出現(xiàn)的在WTO框架內(nèi)達(dá)成解決這一問(wèn)題的協(xié)議提供參考。 本文通過(guò)對(duì)相關(guān)國(guó)際法和美中法律制度的研究及梳理,認(rèn)為T(mén)RIPS協(xié)議仍未明確對(duì)權(quán)利窮竭的限制,而是留由TRIPS成員的國(guó)內(nèi)法規(guī)制。通過(guò)比較分析美中兩國(guó)在TRIPS協(xié)議下自行決定專(zhuān)利產(chǎn)品平行進(jìn)口的不同制度,從美國(guó)判例法的角度進(jìn)行實(shí)證分析,希望對(duì)我國(guó)專(zhuān)利法修改以及相關(guān)司法解釋出臺(tái)中對(duì)于平行進(jìn)口的權(quán)利限制問(wèn)題提出借鑒,減少在知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)國(guó)際貿(mào)易中的摩擦和代價(jià)。
[Abstract]:Parallel import refers to the import of products or services in international trade that are put on the market by the right holder or with the consent of the right holder without the authorization of the owner of the intellectual property right, Or the act or phenomenon of importing intellectual property products of the same origin as the rights of the right holder. For various reasons, there are price differences among different countries for intellectual property products. As a result of the profit, importers buy products from countries with low prices and then import them to countries with higher prices. Or a product is not available in the domestic market for some reason, so the importer tries to import the product from the foreign market. Because the price of parallel import products is low, it has a great impact on the right holders of intellectual property rights in importing countries to sell products at home, thus causing the question of whether parallel imports should be allowed. At present, the United States adopts the "domestic exhaustion principle" in the field of patent and copyright, while the "regional principle" and "universal principle" are adopted in the field of trademark. Although the United States has advocated free trade since World War II, during the negotiation of the trips Agreement, the United States did not advocate the inclusion of the "international exhaustion" of intellectual property rights in this document. It is strongly opposed to allowing parallel imports in trips. This may seem to run counter to its theory of free trade, but it is a true reflection of the American mentality: on the one hand, to protect the free access of its multinationals to national markets. On the other hand, we hope to give the IPR the highest possible protection in the United States. The third revised Patent Law, which came into effect in 2009, provides for parallel import, but there is only one provision. The International exhaustion principle was adopted. The principle of international exhaustion is not the best for our country. With the increasing demand of the US government and multinational enterprises for the protection of intellectual property rights in China, China needs to plan, formulate and improve relevant legal systems and regulations as soon as possible, so as to find a balance between the free international circulation of goods and the protection of patented products. In order to cope with the possible large number of parallel import phenomenon. In addition, we should prepare for a rainy day to provide a reference for the possible future agreement to solve this problem within the framework of WTO. Based on the study of relevant international law and US-China legal system, this paper holds that trips Agreement does not clearly limit the exhaustion of rights, but leaves the domestic laws and regulations of trips members. Through the comparative analysis of the different systems in which the United States and China decide the parallel import of patented products under trips Agreement, this paper makes an empirical analysis from the perspective of the case law of the United States. It is hoped that it can be used for reference to limit the rights of parallel import in the revision of patent law and the relevant judicial interpretation in order to reduce the friction and cost in the international trade of intellectual property.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：復(fù)旦大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2012
【分類(lèi)號(hào)】：D997.1;D923.42;D971.2

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)博士學(xué)位論文 前2條

1 王弈通;國(guó)際貿(mào)易中知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)的權(quán)利窮竭問(wèn)題研究[D];復(fù)旦大學(xué);2011年

2 孫文玲;論TRIPS協(xié)定下專(zhuān)利許可的反壟斷規(guī)制[D];復(fù)旦大學(xué);2009年

，

本文編號(hào)：2019291