商標(biāo)案件中在先著作權(quán)的權(quán)屬認定
發(fā)布時間：2018-08-23 10:53
【摘要】：在商標(biāo)授權(quán)案件和商標(biāo)確權(quán)案件中常常涉及到在先著作權(quán)權(quán)屬認定,但是至今仍未形成統(tǒng)一的裁判標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。針對商標(biāo)案件中在先著作權(quán)的權(quán)屬認定問題,其爭議點大多集中在商標(biāo)注冊證和著作權(quán)登記證明對在先著作權(quán)權(quán)屬認定的證明效力,以及舉證責(zé)任的證明標(biāo)準(zhǔn)�！巴覆煌小钡臅r常發(fā)生。本文擬對此問題的典型案例進行對比分析,進而指出上述爭議點在我國實踐中的分歧之處,然后找出分歧的癥結(jié)之處,最后進行理論分析,希望能夠厘清商標(biāo)案件中在先著作權(quán)權(quán)屬認定的裁判標(biāo)準(zhǔn),以期能為我國司法實踐提供一些參考之處。第一章主要通過對商標(biāo)確權(quán)案件和商標(biāo)授權(quán)案件中涉及到在先著作權(quán)權(quán)屬認定的典型案例進行對比分析,將相關(guān)案例的判決要旨進行總結(jié)梳理�？偨Y(jié)出商評委和法院對商標(biāo)注冊證和著作權(quán)登記證明的證明效力,以及舉證責(zé)任的證明標(biāo)準(zhǔn)存在分歧之處,進而導(dǎo)致“同案不同判”的情況。通過案例分析可以發(fā)現(xiàn),現(xiàn)階段,我國實踐中對于商標(biāo)案件中在先著作權(quán)權(quán)屬認定的分歧點主要在于:1.單獨的商標(biāo)注冊證的證明效力。有的機關(guān)認為商標(biāo)注冊證具有證明著作權(quán)權(quán)屬的效力,但是有的機關(guān)認為商標(biāo)注冊證的署名并非著作權(quán)法意義上的署名,不具有著作權(quán)權(quán)屬的證明效力。2.在先商標(biāo)注冊證和在后著作權(quán)登記證明的效力。有的機關(guān)認為如果登記時間晚于爭議或者異議商標(biāo)的著作權(quán)登記證明上記載的作品創(chuàng)作時間早于異議或者爭議商標(biāo),結(jié)合在先商標(biāo)注冊證的時間證明,則完成了對在先著作權(quán)的初步舉證責(zé)任,在沒有相反證據(jù)的情況下就可以推定享有在先著作權(quán)。有的機關(guān)認為在先商標(biāo)注冊證和在后著作權(quán)登記證明已經(jīng)完成充分的舉證責(zé)任,可以直接證明在先著作權(quán)權(quán)屬。有的機關(guān)否認在先商標(biāo)注冊證和在后著作權(quán)登記證明結(jié)合后對在先著作權(quán)權(quán)屬的證明效力。3.舉證責(zé)任的證明標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。有的機關(guān)認為商標(biāo)案件中在先著作權(quán)的權(quán)屬認定的舉證責(zé)任的證明標(biāo)準(zhǔn)不宜太高,只需到達到高度蓋然性標(biāo)準(zhǔn)即可。但是有的機關(guān)認為鑒于商標(biāo)案件的特殊性,需要提高舉證責(zé)任的證明標(biāo)準(zhǔn),即需要達到確實充分的程度,否則將架空《商標(biāo)法》的立法體系。第二章主要針對商標(biāo)案件中在先著作權(quán)權(quán)屬認定的分歧原因進行系統(tǒng)地分析,首先概括地總結(jié)了商標(biāo)案件中在先著作權(quán)權(quán)屬認定產(chǎn)生分歧的根本原因是因為立法不明確。然后,分別詳細地介紹了商標(biāo)案件中在先著作權(quán)權(quán)屬認定的直接原因,即商標(biāo)注冊證和著作權(quán)登記證明對在先著作權(quán)權(quán)屬認定的證明效力有待明確,以及舉證責(zé)任的證明標(biāo)準(zhǔn)有待明確。第三章針對商標(biāo)案件中的在先著作權(quán)權(quán)屬認定提出了一系列解決建議。第一,法院應(yīng)出臺司法解釋:1.明確商標(biāo)注冊證的證明效力,首先,商標(biāo)注冊證上的署名并非著作權(quán)法意義上的署名,不具有證明著作權(quán)權(quán)屬的效力;其次,商標(biāo)注冊證上的注冊時間可以作為著作權(quán)權(quán)屬的在先性的證據(jù)。2.明確舉證責(zé)任的證明標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。商標(biāo)案件中在先著作權(quán)權(quán)屬的認定不宜采取過于嚴(yán)格的證明標(biāo)準(zhǔn),只需要高度蓋然性的程度即可。第二,在沒有相關(guān)明確立法規(guī)定的情況下,應(yīng)先發(fā)布指導(dǎo)性案例,以供商標(biāo)評審委員會和相關(guān)法院參考。第三,加強對人員執(zhí)法和司法人員的監(jiān)督。鑒于舉證責(zé)任的證明標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的判定是由審判人員根據(jù)舉證責(zé)任的證明標(biāo)準(zhǔn)在內(nèi)心形成的內(nèi)心確信,而在形成內(nèi)心確信的過程中是具有一定的主觀性。因此,加強對執(zhí)法人員和司法人員的監(jiān)督,在約束執(zhí)法人員和司法人員權(quán)力的同時,盡量提升上述人員的職業(yè)化和獨立化。進而,是執(zhí)法人員和司法人員的裁判更加公正合理。本文結(jié)論與現(xiàn)有結(jié)論的最大不同之處在于:1.筆者認為,商標(biāo)案件中在先著作權(quán)權(quán)屬認定的關(guān)鍵在于事實認定,而事實認定的關(guān)鍵在于證據(jù)問題,而證據(jù)問題的關(guān)鍵在于證據(jù)的證明力和證明標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的確定,因此,明確證據(jù)的證明力和證明標(biāo)準(zhǔn),將直接有效地解決商標(biāo)案件中在先著作權(quán)的權(quán)屬認定;2.筆者認為,談?wù)撋虡?biāo)注冊證對在先著作權(quán)權(quán)屬的證明效力時,不能籠統(tǒng)的一概而論,應(yīng)該分別從商標(biāo)注冊證的不同角度談?wù)?即商標(biāo)注冊證的署名和注冊時間;3.筆者認為,在后著作權(quán)登記證明對在先著作權(quán)的證明效力是明確的,并不是商標(biāo)案件中在先著作權(quán)權(quán)屬認定產(chǎn)生分歧的原因之一,真正原因是舉證責(zé)任的證明標(biāo)準(zhǔn)不統(tǒng)一;4.筆者認為,針對商標(biāo)案件中的在先著作權(quán)認定而言,在行政程序和行政訴訟程序中的證明標(biāo)準(zhǔn)應(yīng)采取高度蓋然性的證明標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。在商標(biāo)案件中在先著作權(quán)的權(quán)屬認定中,判定證明標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的過程需要依靠內(nèi)心確信,而內(nèi)心確信的形成具有主觀性和不確定性,因此需要通過加強監(jiān)督來維護裁判結(jié)果的公平合理。
[Abstract]:In trademark authorization cases and trademark confirmation cases, the determination of prior copyright ownership is often involved, but there is still no uniform standard of adjudication. "Different judgments in the same case" often occurs. This paper intends to make a comparative analysis of the typical cases of this issue, and then points out the differences in the above-mentioned controversial points in China's practice, and then finds out the crux of the differences, and finally makes a theoretical analysis, hoping to clarify the trademark cases in the previous works. The first chapter mainly analyzes the typical cases of trademark confirmation and trademark authorization, and summarizes the gist of the judgment of relevant cases. There are differences in the validity of trademark registration certificate and copyright registration certificate, as well as the standard of proof of the burden of proof, which leads to the situation of "different judgments in the same case". Some authorities believe that the trademark registration certificate has the validity to prove the copyright ownership, but others believe that the signature of the trademark registration certificate is not the signature of the copyright law, and does not have the validity to prove the copyright ownership. 2. The validity of the trademark registration certificate before and the copyright registration certificate after. If the registration time is later than that recorded on the copyright registration certificate of the disputed or dissident trademark or the creation time of the disputed trademark is earlier than that recorded on the copyright registration certificate of the disputed trademark or the disputed trademark, combined with the time certificate of the prior trademark registration, the preliminary burden of proof of the prior copyright is fulfilled, and the prior work can be presumed to enjoy without the contrary evidence. Some authorities believe that the prior trademark registration certificate and the subsequent copyright registration certificate have completed the full burden of proof, and can directly prove the prior copyright ownership. Others deny the effectiveness of the prior trademark registration certificate and the subsequent copyright registration certificate combined to prove the prior copyright ownership. 3. The standard of proof of the burden of proof. The authorities believe that the standard of proof of the burden of proof in the affirmation of the ownership of prior copyright in trademark cases should not be too high, just to reach the high probability standard. Chapter 2 mainly analyzes the reasons for the divergence in the determination of prior copyright ownership in trademark cases. First, it summarizes the basic reasons for the divergence in the determination of prior copyright ownership in trademark cases because the legislation is not clear. Then, it introduces the prior works in trademark cases in detail. The direct reason for the affirmation of copyright ownership is that the validity of the trademark registration certificate and the copyright registration certificate to the affirmation of prior copyright ownership needs to be clarified, and the standard of proof of the burden of proof needs to be clarified. To clarify the proof effect of a trademark registration certificate, first of all, the signature on the trademark registration certificate is not a signature in the sense of copyright law and does not have the effect of proving the ownership of copyright; secondly, the registration time on the trademark registration certificate can be used as proof of the prior ownership of copyright. 2. The standard of proof of the clear burden of proof. First, the determination of copyright ownership should not adopt too strict standards of proof, just a high degree of probability. Second, in the absence of relevant clear legislative provisions, guidance cases should be issued for reference by the Trademark Review and Adjudication Commission and relevant courts. Third, strengthen the supervision of law enforcement and judicial personnel. The judgment of the standard of proof of the burden of proof is the inner conviction formed by the judge according to the standard of proof of the burden of proof, and it has certain subjectivity in the process of forming the inner conviction. The conclusion of this paper is different from the existing conclusion: 1. The author believes that the key to the prior determination of copyright ownership in trademark cases lies in fact, while the key to the fact determination lies in evidence, and the evidence problem. The key lies in the confirmation of the proof power and standard of proof, therefore, defining the proof power and standard of proof will directly and effectively solve the confirmation of the ownership of prior copyright in trademark cases; 2. The author thinks that when discussing the proof effect of trademark registration certificate on the ownership of prior copyright, we can not generalize it, but should follow it separately. The author thinks that the proof effect of the certificate of post-copyright registration on the prior copyright is clear, not one of the reasons for the divergence in the determination of the prior copyright ownership in the trademark case, but the real reason is that the proof standard of the burden of proof is not uniform. 4. The author holds that the standard of proof in administrative and administrative proceedings should be highly probable for the determination of prior copyright in trademark cases. Therefore, we need to strengthen supervision to safeguard the fairness and rationality of the referee's results.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：華東政法大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2015
【分類號】：D923.41
[Abstract]:In trademark authorization cases and trademark confirmation cases, the determination of prior copyright ownership is often involved, but there is still no uniform standard of adjudication. "Different judgments in the same case" often occurs. This paper intends to make a comparative analysis of the typical cases of this issue, and then points out the differences in the above-mentioned controversial points in China's practice, and then finds out the crux of the differences, and finally makes a theoretical analysis, hoping to clarify the trademark cases in the previous works. The first chapter mainly analyzes the typical cases of trademark confirmation and trademark authorization, and summarizes the gist of the judgment of relevant cases. There are differences in the validity of trademark registration certificate and copyright registration certificate, as well as the standard of proof of the burden of proof, which leads to the situation of "different judgments in the same case". Some authorities believe that the trademark registration certificate has the validity to prove the copyright ownership, but others believe that the signature of the trademark registration certificate is not the signature of the copyright law, and does not have the validity to prove the copyright ownership. 2. The validity of the trademark registration certificate before and the copyright registration certificate after. If the registration time is later than that recorded on the copyright registration certificate of the disputed or dissident trademark or the creation time of the disputed trademark is earlier than that recorded on the copyright registration certificate of the disputed trademark or the disputed trademark, combined with the time certificate of the prior trademark registration, the preliminary burden of proof of the prior copyright is fulfilled, and the prior work can be presumed to enjoy without the contrary evidence. Some authorities believe that the prior trademark registration certificate and the subsequent copyright registration certificate have completed the full burden of proof, and can directly prove the prior copyright ownership. Others deny the effectiveness of the prior trademark registration certificate and the subsequent copyright registration certificate combined to prove the prior copyright ownership. 3. The standard of proof of the burden of proof. The authorities believe that the standard of proof of the burden of proof in the affirmation of the ownership of prior copyright in trademark cases should not be too high, just to reach the high probability standard. Chapter 2 mainly analyzes the reasons for the divergence in the determination of prior copyright ownership in trademark cases. First, it summarizes the basic reasons for the divergence in the determination of prior copyright ownership in trademark cases because the legislation is not clear. Then, it introduces the prior works in trademark cases in detail. The direct reason for the affirmation of copyright ownership is that the validity of the trademark registration certificate and the copyright registration certificate to the affirmation of prior copyright ownership needs to be clarified, and the standard of proof of the burden of proof needs to be clarified. To clarify the proof effect of a trademark registration certificate, first of all, the signature on the trademark registration certificate is not a signature in the sense of copyright law and does not have the effect of proving the ownership of copyright; secondly, the registration time on the trademark registration certificate can be used as proof of the prior ownership of copyright. 2. The standard of proof of the clear burden of proof. First, the determination of copyright ownership should not adopt too strict standards of proof, just a high degree of probability. Second, in the absence of relevant clear legislative provisions, guidance cases should be issued for reference by the Trademark Review and Adjudication Commission and relevant courts. Third, strengthen the supervision of law enforcement and judicial personnel. The judgment of the standard of proof of the burden of proof is the inner conviction formed by the judge according to the standard of proof of the burden of proof, and it has certain subjectivity in the process of forming the inner conviction. The conclusion of this paper is different from the existing conclusion: 1. The author believes that the key to the prior determination of copyright ownership in trademark cases lies in fact, while the key to the fact determination lies in evidence, and the evidence problem. The key lies in the confirmation of the proof power and standard of proof, therefore, defining the proof power and standard of proof will directly and effectively solve the confirmation of the ownership of prior copyright in trademark cases; 2. The author thinks that when discussing the proof effect of trademark registration certificate on the ownership of prior copyright, we can not generalize it, but should follow it separately. The author thinks that the proof effect of the certificate of post-copyright registration on the prior copyright is clear, not one of the reasons for the divergence in the determination of the prior copyright ownership in the trademark case, but the real reason is that the proof standard of the burden of proof is not uniform. 4. The author holds that the standard of proof in administrative and administrative proceedings should be highly probable for the determination of prior copyright in trademark cases. Therefore, we need to strengthen supervision to safeguard the fairness and rationality of the referee's results.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：華東政法大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2015
【分類號】：D923.41
【相似文獻】
相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條
1 梁晏婷;從“新搜案”看著作權(quán)保護[J];軟件工程師;2002年04期
2 柳勵和;高校普及著作權(quán)知識的迫切性[J];株洲工學(xué)院學(xué)報;2002年S1期
3 翟霞;網(wǎng)絡(luò)傳播與著作權(quán)保護[J];理論學(xué)刊;2002年05期
4 余波;著作權(quán)保護的社會學(xué)考量[J];中國出版;2004年12期
5 王媛;;著作權(quán)保護問題淺析[J];中共鄭州市委黨校學(xué)報;2004年03期
6 石瓶門;;網(wǎng)絡(luò)發(fā)展與著作權(quán)保護不能互為代價[J];中國信息界;2004年19期
7 劉靜玲;檔案與著作權(quán)保護[J];蘭臺世界;2005年12期
8 香江波;對著作權(quán)的限制通常分為哪些種類[J];出版參考;2005年10期
9 韓蘇閩;;圖書館數(shù)字資源著作權(quán)的保護和使用[J];醫(yī)學(xué)信息;2006年03期
10 任玉翠;;數(shù)字圖書館數(shù)據(jù)庫著作權(quán)保護研究[J];江西社會科學(xué);2006年11期
相關(guān)會議論文 前10條
1 張俊霞;;論網(wǎng)絡(luò)信息著作權(quán)的刑法保護[A];中國犯罪學(xué)學(xué)會第十八屆學(xué)術(shù)研討會論文集（下冊）[C];2009年
2 闞有清;;圖書館服務(wù)與著作權(quán)的合理使用[A];福建省圖書館學(xué)會2008年學(xué)術(shù)年會論文集[C];2008年
3 龐怡;楊紅春;;試論網(wǎng)絡(luò)環(huán)境下信息資源共建共享涉及的著作權(quán)保護問題[A];信息時代科技情報研究、科技期刊編輯學(xué)術(shù)論文集[C];2004年
4 侯翠香;;新環(huán)境下科技期刊的著作權(quán)保護[A];中國氣象學(xué)會2005年年會論文集[C];2005年
5 毛旭;;館藏文獻的著作權(quán)保護和歸屬[A];文化大省建設(shè)中的圖書館現(xiàn)代化——浙江省圖書館學(xué)會第八次學(xué)術(shù)研討會論文集[C];2001年
6 曹越;;從想像到現(xiàn)實——中國情境下的著作權(quán)[A];全球信息化時代的華人傳播研究：力量匯聚與學(xué)術(shù)創(chuàng)新——2003中國傳播學(xué)論壇暨CAC/CCA中華傳播學(xué)術(shù)研討會論文集（下冊）[C];2004年
7 吳淑金;李強;陳兵;袁寧;杜冠輝;陳嘉偉;宋妮妮;;論網(wǎng)絡(luò)環(huán)境下學(xué)術(shù)期刊的著作權(quán)及其保護[A];“廣東科技情報服務(wù)促進廣東經(jīng)濟發(fā)展”綜合研討會論文集[C];2007年
8 鞏R，
本文編號：2198862
本文鏈接：http://sikaile.net/falvlunwen/minfalunwen/2198862.html
最近更新
教材專著
