發(fā)布時(shí)間：2018-06-13 00:32

  本文選題：植物新品種 + 植物新品種權(quán)�。� 參考：《安徽財(cái)經(jīng)大學(xué)》2017年碩士論文

【摘要】：植物品種作為農(nóng)業(yè)發(fā)展的重要生產(chǎn)資料,在人們的生活中扮演著及其重要的角色,培育優(yōu)良的植物品種也成為推動(dòng)我國(guó)農(nóng)業(yè)發(fā)展、提高核心競(jìng)爭(zhēng)力的重要環(huán)節(jié)。育種者花費(fèi)多年心血培育出了優(yōu)質(zhì)的作物品種,同時(shí)該作物品種必須符合一致性、新穎性以及特異性的要求才能被法律所保護(hù)。植物新品種權(quán)作為農(nóng)業(yè)領(lǐng)域的一項(xiàng)重要知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán),它是對(duì)育種者智力創(chuàng)新活動(dòng)的一種鼓勵(lì)和認(rèn)可。近年來,隨著優(yōu)良作物品種市場(chǎng)占有率的增加,侵犯植物新品種權(quán)的行為逐年增多,尤其針對(duì)玉米、小麥等大田作物,情況也變得越來越復(fù)雜,不再僅僅是對(duì)未授權(quán)的植物品種進(jìn)行生產(chǎn)及銷售行為,也伴隨著侵犯植物品種名稱標(biāo)識(shí)權(quán)以及假冒授權(quán)植物品種等行為。我國(guó)對(duì)植物新品種的法律保護(hù)起步較晚,法律規(guī)范也尚不完善,《植物新品種保護(hù)條例》是目前對(duì)植物新品種權(quán)保護(hù)效力最高的一項(xiàng)專門法規(guī)。隨著農(nóng)業(yè)科技的飛速發(fā)展,相關(guān)的法規(guī)很難適應(yīng)現(xiàn)在種業(yè)的新形勢(shì)和新要求,導(dǎo)致法官在審理相關(guān)案件時(shí)無所適從,尤其針對(duì)植物新品種權(quán)保護(hù)范圍的界定以及先用權(quán)和權(quán)利用盡原則的適用。由于法律尚沒有明確的規(guī)定,一般都是憑著審判的經(jīng)驗(yàn)或者其他知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)法的規(guī)定進(jìn)行審理,致使各地法院針對(duì)一樣的案情可能會(huì)做出不一樣的判決結(jié)果�！吨参镄缕贩N保護(hù)條例》的規(guī)定與專利法和刑法之間也缺乏有效的銜接,法院無法直接適用相關(guān)的規(guī)定追究侵權(quán)人的責(zé)任。為此,本文建議應(yīng)當(dāng)細(xì)化相關(guān)法律的規(guī)定,具體包括擴(kuò)大植物新品種權(quán)的適用范圍、引入先用權(quán)和權(quán)利用盡制度等方面,協(xié)調(diào)與其他法規(guī)之間的關(guān)系,給予司法審判更完善、更系統(tǒng)的法律支持。另一方面,由于植物品種的特殊性,鑒定受保護(hù)品種與侵權(quán)品種之間是否具有一致性成為判定是否構(gòu)成侵權(quán)的重要環(huán)節(jié)。目前司法鑒定體系缺乏統(tǒng)一的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)和專業(yè)的鑒定機(jī)構(gòu),而且植物品種鑒定方法的自身局限性也增加了審判的難度,為此完善植物新品種侵權(quán)的司法鑒定系統(tǒng)顯得日益重要。同時(shí)侵犯植物新品種權(quán)糾紛屬于民事案件,必須由權(quán)利人向法庭提交相關(guān)證據(jù)。由于侵權(quán)地點(diǎn)隱蔽性以及易受季節(jié)性影響的特點(diǎn),權(quán)利人要證明侵權(quán)人的主觀心理狀態(tài)以及因侵權(quán)造成的損失很難實(shí)現(xiàn),往往造成賠償?shù)臄?shù)額過低,不能切實(shí)維護(hù)品種權(quán)的利益。為此,對(duì)于屢見不鮮的侵權(quán)行為應(yīng)當(dāng)加大懲罰力度,明確損害賠償數(shù)額的具體計(jì)算方法,采用過錯(cuò)推定的原則以便將舉證責(zé)任合理分配給有能力提供證據(jù)一方。同時(shí),對(duì)于嚴(yán)重侵犯植物品種權(quán)的行為建立有效的懲罰性損害賠償金機(jī)制,以加大對(duì)品種權(quán)人的保護(hù)力度。
[Abstract]:Plant varieties, as an important means of production in the development of agriculture, play an important role in people's lives, and the cultivation of good plant varieties has become an important link to promote the agricultural development and improve the core competitiveness of our country. Breeders have spent years developing high-quality crop varieties that must meet the requirements of consistency novelty and specificity before they can be protected by law. As an important intellectual property in the field of agriculture, the new plant variety right is a kind of encouragement and recognition to the breeders' intellectual innovation activities. In recent years, with the increase of market share of fine crop varieties, the behavior of infringing new plant variety rights has increased year by year, especially for field crops such as corn, wheat, etc., and the situation has become more and more complicated. It is not only the production and sale of unauthorised plant varieties, but also the infringement of the right to identify plant varieties and the impersonation of authorized plant varieties. The legal protection of new plant varieties in China started late and the legal norms are not perfect. The regulations on the Protection of New Plant varieties is the most effective special regulation for the protection of new plant varieties at present. With the rapid development of agricultural science and technology, it is very difficult for the relevant laws and regulations to adapt to the new situation and new requirements of the current seed industry. As a result, the judges are at a loss when trying relevant cases. Especially the definition of the scope of protection of new plant variety rights and the application of the principle of prior use and exhaustion of rights. As there are no clear provisions in the law, trials are generally conducted on the basis of trial experience or the provisions of other intellectual property laws. As a result, local courts may make different decisions on the same case. There is also a lack of effective linkage between the provisions of the regulations on the Protection of New Plant varieties and the Patent Law and the Criminal Law. The court cannot directly apply the relevant provisions to investigate the liability of the infringer. Therefore, this paper suggests that the provisions of relevant laws should be refined, including the expansion of the scope of application of new plant variety rights, the introduction of the system of prior use and exhaustion of rights, the coordination of the relationship with other laws and regulations, and the improvement of the administration of justice. More systematic legal support. On the other hand, because of the particularity of plant varieties, the identification of the consistency between protected varieties and infringing varieties becomes an important link in determining whether the infringement constitutes infringement. At present, the system of judicial identification is lack of uniform standard and professional appraisal institution, and the limitation of the method of plant variety identification also increases the difficulty of trial. Therefore, it is increasingly important to perfect the judicial identification system of new plant variety infringement. At the same time, the infringement of new plant variety rights is a civil case, which must be submitted by the obligee to the court. Due to the concealment of the infringing place and the characteristic of being susceptible to seasonal influence, it is difficult for the obligee to prove the subjective psychological state of the infringer and the loss caused by the infringement, which often results in the amount of compensation being too low. The interests of variety rights cannot be effectively safeguarded. Therefore, we should strengthen punishment for the common tort, make clear the concrete calculation method of the amount of damage compensation, adopt the principle of presumption of fault in order to reasonably distribute the burden of proof to the party who can provide evidence. At the same time, to establish an effective punitive damages mechanism for serious violations of plant variety rights, in order to increase the protection of the variety rights.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：安徽財(cái)經(jīng)大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類號(hào)】：D923.4

【相似文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 ;我國(guó)首次授予農(nóng)業(yè)植物新品種權(quán)[J];種子世界;2000年08期

2 ;南方植物新品種權(quán)代理事務(wù)所成立[J];南京林業(yè)大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(自然科學(xué)版);2002年01期

3 劉君;植物新品種權(quán)及品種權(quán)申請(qǐng)[J];中國(guó)種業(yè);2002年12期

4 ;認(rèn)真貫徹《植物新品種保護(hù)條例》保護(hù)農(nóng)業(yè)植物新品種權(quán)人的合法權(quán)益[J];河北農(nóng)業(yè);2003年06期

5 ;“植物新品種權(quán)”解讀[J];蔬菜;2004年02期

6 謝瑞禮;王軍;;侵犯植物新品種權(quán)證據(jù)的收集與舉證[J];中國(guó)種業(yè);2007年01期

7 呂偉霞;;植物新品種權(quán)的保護(hù)及完善[J];西南交通大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2007年02期

8 ;侵犯植物新品種權(quán)的認(rèn)定——北京聯(lián)創(chuàng)種業(yè)有限公司訴王應(yīng)鵬侵犯植物新品種權(quán)糾紛[J];司法業(yè)務(wù)文選;2008年39期

9 侯仰坤;張勁柏;閆祥升;龔先友;王宇;;植物新品種權(quán)侵權(quán)類型和必要證據(jù)問題研究[J];中國(guó)種業(yè);2008年12期

10 ;致河北省植物新品種權(quán)人的一封公開信[J];現(xiàn)代農(nóng)村科技;2011年05期

相關(guān)會(huì)議論文 前2條

1 牟萍;;“雙重保護(hù)禁止”我們需不需要——植物新品種權(quán)與植物的專利保護(hù)間的兩難抉擇[A];專利法研究（2004）[C];2005年

2 王懷慶;;農(nóng)業(yè)植物新品種侵權(quán)的表現(xiàn)、原因及對(duì)策[A];探索社會(huì)主義司法規(guī)律與完善民商事法律制度研究——全國(guó)法院第23屆學(xué)術(shù)討論會(huì)獲獎(jiǎng)?wù)撐募ㄏ拢C];2011年

相關(guān)重要報(bào)紙文章 前10條

1 姚潤(rùn)豐;中國(guó)7年授予農(nóng)業(yè)植物新品種權(quán)747件[N];農(nóng)資導(dǎo)報(bào);2006年

2 吳允波邋閻繼勇;植物新品種權(quán)沒了“免費(fèi)午餐”[N];農(nóng)資導(dǎo)報(bào);2008年

3 YMG記者 徐中華　通訊員 沈俊立;煙臺(tái)獲得植物新品種權(quán)115項(xiàng) 占全省的74%[N];煙臺(tái)日?qǐng)?bào);2009年

4 董峻;我國(guó)10年共受理植物新品種權(quán)申請(qǐng)6348件[N];中國(guó)改革報(bào);2009年

5 農(nóng)通;我首次授予農(nóng)業(yè)植物新品種權(quán)[N];農(nóng)民日?qǐng)?bào);2000年

6 記者 熊燕;我省4個(gè)含笑新品種獲國(guó)家植物新品種權(quán)證[N];云南日?qǐng)?bào);2012年

7 本報(bào)記者 曹茸;我國(guó)農(nóng)業(yè)植物新品種權(quán)申請(qǐng)突破1萬件[N];農(nóng)民日?qǐng)?bào);2012年

8 記者 王旭東;國(guó)家局公告授予95項(xiàng)植物新品種權(quán)[N];中國(guó)綠色時(shí)報(bào);2014年

9 記者 王繼晟;植物新品種權(quán)應(yīng)得到法律保護(hù)[N];市場(chǎng)報(bào);2001年

10 倪曉;植物新品種權(quán)將受司法保護(hù)[N];法制日?qǐng)?bào);2007年

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前10條

1 王燕軍;論植物新品種權(quán)之刑法保護(hù)[D];中國(guó)人民大學(xué);2008年

2 王浩;侵權(quán)法視野下植物新品種權(quán)的司法保護(hù)研究[D];西南財(cái)經(jīng)大學(xué);2010年

3 王莉;侵犯植物新品種權(quán)犯罪的確立研究[D];西南政法大學(xué);2012年

4 李仿;林業(yè)植物新品種權(quán)法律保護(hù)研究[D];東北林業(yè)大學(xué);2015年

5 邱偉玲;論植物新品種權(quán)擴(kuò)張下我國(guó)農(nóng)民留種權(quán)規(guī)則的完善[D];天津大學(xué);2014年

6 呂方軍;農(nóng)業(yè)植物新品種權(quán)保護(hù)問題研究[D];山東農(nóng)業(yè)大學(xué);2014年

7 陳雪靜;制種企業(yè)植物新品種權(quán)保護(hù)的司法途徑研究[D];蘭州大學(xué);2016年

8 王倩;我國(guó)植物新品種權(quán)的司法保護(hù)問題研究[D];安徽財(cái)經(jīng)大學(xué);2017年

9 蔡亮;植物新品種權(quán)保護(hù)研究[D];華中師范大學(xué);2007年

10 呂英英;我國(guó)植物新品種權(quán)保護(hù)現(xiàn)狀與對(duì)策研究[D];華僑大學(xué);2011年

，

本文編號(hào)：2011784