本文選題：知識產(chǎn)權(quán)仲裁　切入點：可仲裁性　出處：《廣東外語外貿(mào)大學(xué)》2017年碩士論文　論文類型：學(xué)位論文

【摘要】：在經(jīng)濟(jì)飛速發(fā)展和與國際接軌的今天,各種新型知識產(chǎn)權(quán)順應(yīng)而生,傳統(tǒng)訴訟因周期長,費用高,專業(yè)性不強(qiáng),保密性不好等缺點不再適合這種新型案件糾紛的解決,使得知識產(chǎn)權(quán)爭端呈現(xiàn)多元化解決的趨勢,知識產(chǎn)權(quán)仲裁以其自身的專業(yè)性,保密性,成本低,周期短,便于域外承認(rèn)和執(zhí)行,利于當(dāng)事人日后合作等優(yōu)點在多元化爭端解決機(jī)制中脫穎而出。目前大部分國家均承認(rèn)知識產(chǎn)權(quán)中有關(guān)合同性質(zhì)和侵權(quán)性質(zhì)的案件具有可仲裁性,但涉及知識產(chǎn)權(quán)有效性時,會因“公共政策”而拒絕承認(rèn)其具有可仲裁性。深入剖析知識產(chǎn)權(quán)案件,尤其是涉及到有效性案件時可以看出,因仲裁裁決結(jié)果具有相對性,只對當(dāng)事人產(chǎn)生約束力,故不足以造成“公共政策”中提及的危害國家利益等實質(zhì)性后果,所以筆者認(rèn)為知識產(chǎn)權(quán)案件均具有可仲裁性。本人對知識產(chǎn)權(quán)可仲裁性問題進(jìn)行深入研究,通過辨析相關(guān)概念,明確爭議問題,比較國外相關(guān)規(guī)定,從而得出知識產(chǎn)權(quán)糾紛具有可仲裁性的結(jié)論。從仲裁制度本身和非仲裁制度本身兩個緯度去反思我國對知識產(chǎn)權(quán)糾紛解決機(jī)制的不足,再從上述兩方面提出建議,進(jìn)一步完善相關(guān)規(guī)定,尤其是有關(guān)仲裁機(jī)構(gòu)與行政機(jī)關(guān)之間的銜接,從而保障知識產(chǎn)權(quán)仲裁的發(fā)展。本文主要分為四章。第一章對知識產(chǎn)權(quán)可仲裁性進(jìn)行概述,首先將仲裁和可仲裁性的概念進(jìn)行辨析,明確可仲裁性范圍,其次介紹知識產(chǎn)權(quán)案件的特點,然后列舉知識產(chǎn)權(quán)爭議的主要類型,最后闡述知識產(chǎn)權(quán)可仲裁的理由。第二章是主要概括了就目前來說知識產(chǎn)權(quán)仲裁被限制的原因,一個是“公共政策”的庇護(hù),另一個是知識產(chǎn)權(quán)仲裁本身的不足。第三章通過列舉國外對知識產(chǎn)權(quán)可仲裁性的規(guī)定和實踐,對比得出目前域外對知識產(chǎn)權(quán)仲裁的態(tài)度。第四章是結(jié)合我國現(xiàn)狀,結(jié)合第二章和第三章的內(nèi)容,從仲裁制度本身和非仲裁制度本身兩個維度來給我國知識產(chǎn)權(quán)仲裁的發(fā)展提出具有針對性的建議。
[Abstract]:With the rapid development of economy and the connection with the world, various new types of intellectual property rights come into being. Traditional litigation is no longer suitable for the settlement of this new type of case disputes because of its long period, high cost, low professionalism, poor confidentiality and so on. Intellectual property arbitration is characterized by its professionalism, confidentiality, low cost, short period, and convenient for extraterritorial recognition and enforcement. At present, most countries recognize the arbitrability of cases concerning the nature of contracts and infringement of intellectual property rights, but when it comes to the validity of intellectual property rights, A thorough analysis of intellectual property rights cases, especially when it comes to valid cases, shows that because of the relativity of the outcome of the arbitral award, it is binding only on the parties, Therefore, it is not enough to cause substantial consequences such as endangering the national interests mentioned in "public policy", so the author thinks that intellectual property rights cases are all arbitrable. I have made a thorough study on the arbitrability of intellectual property rights. By discriminating and analyzing the relevant concepts, clarifying the controversial issues, comparing the relevant provisions of foreign countries, From the two aspects of arbitration system and non-arbitration system itself to reflect on the shortcomings of the intellectual property dispute settlement mechanism in China, and then put forward suggestions from the above two aspects. To further improve the relevant provisions, especially the link between arbitration institutions and administrative agencies, so as to ensure the development of intellectual property arbitration. This paper is divided into four chapters. Chapter one summarizes the arbitrability of intellectual property. First of all, the concepts of arbitration and arbitrability are differentiated, the scope of arbitrability is clarified, the characteristics of intellectual property cases are introduced, and the main types of intellectual property disputes are listed. The second chapter mainly summarizes the reasons why intellectual property arbitration is restricted at present. One is the asylum of "public policy". The other is the deficiency of intellectual property arbitration itself. Chapter three compares the attitude of foreign countries on the arbitrability of intellectual property rights through enumerating the rules and practices of intellectual property arbitrability. Chapter 4th is based on the current situation in China. Combined with the content of the second and third chapters, the author puts forward some pertinent suggestions for the development of intellectual property arbitration in China from the two dimensions of arbitration system itself and non-arbitration system itself.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：廣東外語外貿(mào)大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類號】：D925.7

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 張懷印;;瑞士巴塞爾珠寶鐘表展中的知識產(chǎn)權(quán)仲裁制度及其啟示[J];仲裁研究;2013年01期

2 顧艷鈺;;知識產(chǎn)權(quán)侵權(quán)糾紛可仲裁性問題探析[J];成都行政學(xué)院學(xué)報;2012年04期

3 李曉桃;袁曉東;;知識產(chǎn)權(quán)糾紛的可仲裁性研究[J];科技管理研究;2012年16期

4 倪靜;;論知識產(chǎn)權(quán)有效性爭議的可仲裁性——對公共政策理由的反思[J];江西社會科學(xué);2012年02期

5 鄒林X;;論爭議可仲裁性的概念與性質(zhì)[J];公民與法(法學(xué)版);2011年11期

6 盧青峰;;論知識產(chǎn)權(quán)糾紛的仲裁解決[J];特區(qū)經(jīng)濟(jì);2010年05期

7 牛強(qiáng);;知識產(chǎn)權(quán)糾紛的仲裁解決機(jī)制[J];天水行政學(xué)院學(xué)報;2010年02期

8 熊卡麗;;試論知識產(chǎn)權(quán)有效性糾紛的可仲裁性[J];中南財經(jīng)政法大學(xué)研究生學(xué)報;2009年04期

9 李鳳琴;;知識產(chǎn)權(quán)有效性爭議的可仲裁性研究[J];仲裁研究;2007年02期

10 張曉玲;王文奎;;國際商事仲裁可仲裁性與公共政策的關(guān)系及其演變[J];求索;2007年03期

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前7條

1 莊凱文;國際知識產(chǎn)權(quán)爭議的可仲裁性研究[D];安徽大學(xué);2013年

2 劉鴻業(yè);我國知識產(chǎn)權(quán)糾紛仲裁制度研究[D];湖南師范大學(xué);2011年

3 任冠儒;國際商事爭議可仲裁性問題研究[D];大連海事大學(xué);2009年

4 張艷琳;知識產(chǎn)權(quán)爭議的可仲裁性研究[D];中國政法大學(xué);2009年

5 沈雅琴;國際知識產(chǎn)權(quán)糾紛專門仲裁制度研究[D];廈門大學(xué);2008年

6 苗艷華;論爭議的可仲裁性[D];中國政法大學(xué);2007年

7 王瑩;知識產(chǎn)權(quán)仲裁研究[D];對外經(jīng)濟(jì)貿(mào)易大學(xué);2003年

，

本文編號：1609636