本文選題：商標專用權　切入點：行政執(zhí)法　出處：《華東政法大學》2014年碩士論文　論文類型：學位論文

【摘要】：商標專用權是商標權人對其注冊商標享有的具有排他性的權利。商標侵權行為在日常生活中隨處可見，我國每年都在加大行政執(zhí)法力度用以杜絕此類行為的發(fā)生，然而效果欠佳。工商行政管理部門對于侵犯商標專用權的行為具有行政處罰的權力，同時由于我國對知識產(chǎn)權的保護采取“雙軌制”模式，侵犯商標專用權的行為也可能涉嫌構成知識產(chǎn)權犯罪。因此，就產(chǎn)生了行政執(zhí)法機關如何移送涉嫌構成犯罪的違法行為至司法機關的問題。 本文除導言外，共分為四章，分別從規(guī)范分析、實證分析、原因分析以及完善建議四個方面展開論述。 第一章商標“兩法銜接”之規(guī)范分析，將規(guī)定商標侵權行為的行政法律法規(guī)與刑事法律條文作為本章的分析對象，通過對法律法規(guī)條文的剖析，逐條梳理在商標侵權中同時受兩個部門法調整的違法行為。通過對法律規(guī)范的拆分與整合，分析出我國在商標專用權保護中對于違法案件之所以難以移送的立法層面原因。 第二章商標“兩法銜接”之實證分析，通過分析知識產(chǎn)權局、商標局以及法院的年度報告，從中提取相關數(shù)據(jù)來反映當前我國在商標執(zhí)法中的案件移送情況，，以及近幾年商標刑事判決與行政處罰的數(shù)量關系。通過幾組數(shù)據(jù)的對比分析，發(fā)現(xiàn)在“兩法銜接”中依舊存在著有案不移、以罰代刑等現(xiàn)象。 第三章商標“兩法銜接”不暢之原因分析。通過前兩章的闡述，可以得出在商標侵權領域中銜接難主要表現(xiàn)為有案不移、以罰代刑。那么產(chǎn)生這種現(xiàn)象的原因主要有三個方面：1、立法上存在不一致，導致了案件在移送時無法做到有序對接，法律規(guī)范上的缺口給了行政執(zhí)法機關自由裁量的權力。2、程序上存在兩種適用模式，導致了行政執(zhí)法機關在案件移送的過程中出現(xiàn)了兩種不同的結果。3、監(jiān)督機制不完善，無論再好的執(zhí)法都需要具備相應的監(jiān)督機制，在“兩法銜接”中也不例外，缺少必要且全面的監(jiān)督機制，是違法案件沒有全部得到移送的原因之一。 第四章商標“兩法銜接”之完善建議。通過上文的分析，指出了我國“兩法銜接”機制運用于商標專用權保護上的困難表現(xiàn)及原因分析。本章則是分別對這些造成銜接困難的原因提出完善建議，以期能夠建立一個更為有效、具有可操作性的“兩法銜接”機制。
[Abstract]:Trademark exclusive right is the exclusive right of trademark owner to its registered trademark. Trademark infringement can be seen everywhere in daily life. However, the effect is not good. The administrative department for industry and commerce has the power of administrative punishment for the infringement of trademark exclusive rights. At the same time, the protection of intellectual property rights in our country adopts a "two-track system" model. The infringement of trademark exclusive rights may also be suspected of constituting an intellectual property crime. Therefore, the question arises as to how the administrative law enforcement agencies transfer the illegal acts suspected to constitute a crime to the judicial organs. In addition to the introduction, this paper is divided into four chapters, from normative analysis, empirical analysis, cause analysis and suggestions to improve the four aspects. The first chapter is the normative analysis of trademark "two laws linking up", which takes administrative laws and criminal laws and regulations that stipulate trademark infringement as the analysis object of this chapter, and through the analysis of laws and regulations, Through the separation and integration of legal norms, this paper analyzes the legislative reasons why it is difficult to transfer illegal cases in the protection of trademark exclusive rights in China. Chapter II empirical analysis of trademark "two laws link", through the analysis of the intellectual property Office, the Trademark Office and the court of the annual report, extract relevant data to reflect the current law enforcement in China in the transfer of cases, Through the comparison and analysis of several groups of data, it is found that there are still some phenomena in "two laws linking up", such as not shifting cases and replacing punishment with punishment. The third chapter analyzes the reasons why the "two methods" are not smooth. Through the exposition of the first two chapters, it can be concluded that the difficulty of linking up in the field of trademark infringement is mainly manifested in the absence of cases. To substitute punishment for punishment. Well, the main reasons for this phenomenon are three aspects: 1. There is inconsistency in legislation, which leads to the fact that the cases cannot be docked in an orderly manner when they are transferred. The gap in legal norms gives the administrative law enforcement agencies the discretion of the power. There are two applicable modes in the procedure, which leads to two different results of the administrative law enforcement agencies in the process of transferring cases, and the supervision mechanism is not perfect. No matter how good the law enforcement is, it is necessary to have the corresponding supervision mechanism. The lack of necessary and comprehensive supervision mechanism is one of the reasons why all illegal cases are not transferred. Chapter IV: suggestions for the perfection of the Trademark "two laws join". Through the above analysis, The paper points out that the mechanism of "two laws joining" is difficult to apply to the protection of trademark exclusive right in our country and the reasons are analyzed. This chapter is to put forward some suggestions to perfect the reasons of these difficulties in connection, in order to establish a more effective one. The mechanism of "two methods joining" is operable.
【學位授予單位】：華東政法大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2014
【分類號】：D923.43;D922.1;D925.2

【參考文獻】

相關期刊論文 前10條

1 時延安;;行政處罰權與刑罰權的糾葛及其厘清[J];東方法學;2008年04期

2 周佑勇;劉艷紅;;行政執(zhí)法與刑事司法相銜接的程序機制研究[J];東南大學學報(哲學社會科學版);2008年01期

3 周佑勇,劉艷紅;論行政處罰與刑罰處罰的適用銜接[J];法律科學.西北政法學院學報;1997年02期

4 劉莘;行政刑罰──行政法與刑法的銜接[J];法商研究(中南政法學院學報);1995年06期

5 周佑勇,劉艷紅;行政刑法性質的科學定位(上)——從行政法與刑法的雙重視野考察[J];法學評論;2002年02期

6 周佑勇,劉艷紅;行政刑法性質的科學定位(下)——從行政法與刑法的雙重視野考察[J];法學評論;2002年04期

7 張耕;知識產(chǎn)權執(zhí)法若干問題探討——TRIPS與我國知識產(chǎn)權法律有關問題的比較研究[J];貴州大學學報(社會科學版);2003年04期

8 曹福來;;論稅務行政處罰與刑事處罰的銜接[J];江西社會科學;2006年08期

9 章劍生;;違反行政法義務的責任:在行政處罰與刑罰之間——基于《行政處罰法》第7條第2款之規(guī)定而展開的分析[J];行政法學研究;2011年02期

10 張道許;;知識產(chǎn)權保護中“兩法銜接”機制研究[J];行政法學研究;2012年02期

相關博士學位論文 前1條

1 王春麗;行政執(zhí)法與刑事司法銜接研究[D];華東政法大學;2013年

本文編號：1648480