本文選題：商標(biāo)權(quán)　切入點：工商行政管理　出處：《復(fù)旦大學(xué)》2013年碩士論文

【摘要】：作為我國知識產(chǎn)權(quán)保護“雙軌制”的重要一環(huán),我國知識產(chǎn)權(quán)行政管理機關(guān)一直以來都承擔(dān)了對侵權(quán)行為予以行政查處的職能。而商標(biāo)行政管理體系中商標(biāo)局、商標(biāo)評審委員會由于其內(nèi)設(shè)于商標(biāo)侵權(quán)行政管理機關(guān)——國家工商行政管理總局這一特殊關(guān)系,使得我國工商行政管理部門在對商標(biāo)侵權(quán)行為的查處方面相較著作權(quán)與專利權(quán)而言更具特殊性。而隨著商標(biāo)權(quán)私權(quán)的屬性越發(fā)獲得理論界和實務(wù)界的認(rèn)可,工商行政管理部門對于商標(biāo)侵權(quán)認(rèn)定職能由于其與司法認(rèn)定的可能沖突而成為了爭議的焦點。筆者從行政法視角對“雙軌制”在商標(biāo)侵權(quán)認(rèn)定方面的不足加以論證,探討現(xiàn)行商標(biāo)法中“公共利益”要件的模糊導(dǎo)致的行政權(quán)力隨意介入民事糾紛,商標(biāo)權(quán)行政保護本身具體行政行為屬性上的復(fù)合性,行政保護之后的訴訟屬于民事訴訟抑或行政訴訟以及因此所形成的程序誤讀和認(rèn)定沖突等問題。同時,筆者結(jié)合其他國家和地區(qū)的實踐,討論商標(biāo)權(quán)保護“雙軌制”本身的優(yōu)劣,并就建立統(tǒng)一的商標(biāo)行政管理機構(gòu)、設(shè)立商標(biāo)專門法院、“三審合一”等舉措以及其對解決工商行政管理局剝離商標(biāo)侵權(quán)認(rèn)定職能的可行性進(jìn)行介紹和分析,但這些舉措由于并未將商標(biāo)侵權(quán)認(rèn)定的權(quán)力統(tǒng)一至工商行政管理部門或司法機關(guān),并不能根本性地解決行政保護與司法保護在商標(biāo)侵權(quán)認(rèn)定上的沖突問題。最后,筆者借此《商標(biāo)法》修法之契機,提出引入類刑事訴訟的新訴訟模式,并結(jié)合新《商標(biāo)法》提出對于該設(shè)想可能的立法建議,即明確商標(biāo)侵權(quán)所可能涉及的“公共利益”并規(guī)定行政權(quán)力介入商標(biāo)侵權(quán)糾紛的條件,同時賦予工商行政管理部門作為涉及公共利益的商標(biāo)侵權(quán)行為中提起訴訟的原告資格,收回其直接對于此類商標(biāo)侵權(quán)行為進(jìn)行認(rèn)定的權(quán)力。
[Abstract]:As an important part of the "dual track" system of intellectual property protection in China, the intellectual property administrative authorities of our country have all along assumed the function of administrative investigation and punishment of infringement. In the trademark administration system, the Trademark Office, The Trademark Review and Adjudication Board has a special relationship with the State Administration for Industry and Commerce, the administrative organ of trademark infringement, It makes the administrative department of industry and commerce of our country have more particularity than copyright and patent right in investigating and dealing with trademark infringement. But with the property of private right of trademark getting more and more recognition in theory and practice, The administrative department for industry and commerce has become the focus of controversy because of the possible conflict between the function of trademark infringement and judicial cognizance. The author demonstrates the deficiency of "two-track system" in trademark infringement from the angle of administrative law. This paper probes into the ambiguity of the elements of "public interest" in the current trademark law, which results in the arbitrary involvement of administrative power in civil disputes, and the compounding nature of the administrative protection of trademark rights on the attributes of specific administrative acts. The litigation after administrative protection belongs to civil action or administrative lawsuit, and the procedural misreading and cognizance conflict formed as a result. At the same time, the author combines the practice of other countries and regions. This paper discusses the merits and demerits of the dual track system of trademark right protection, and sets up a unified trademark administrative organization. The establishment of a special trademark court, "three trials in one" and other measures, as well as its feasibility of resolving the problem of stripping off the trademark infringement identification function by the Administration for Industry and Commerce, is introduced and analyzed. However, because these measures have not unified the power to identify trademark infringement to the administrative department for industry and commerce or the judicial organ, they cannot fundamentally resolve the conflict between administrative protection and judicial protection in the identification of trademark infringement. Finally, Taking the opportunity of amending the Trademark Law, the author puts forward a new litigation mode of introducing the kind of criminal procedure, and puts forward some possible legislative suggestions for the assumption, combining with the new Trademark Law. That is, to clarify the "public interest" that may be involved in trademark infringement, and to stipulate the conditions for administrative power to intervene in trademark infringement disputes, and at the same time to give the administrative department for industry and commerce the plaintiff qualification to initiate litigation in trademark infringement involving public interest. To withdraw its right to directly identify such trademark infringement.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：復(fù)旦大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2013
【分類號】：D923.43

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前2條

1 胡瀟瀟;;知識產(chǎn)權(quán)行政執(zhí)法與民事訴訟的沖突與協(xié)調(diào)——以知識產(chǎn)權(quán)侵權(quán)救濟為視角[J];貴州警官職業(yè)學(xué)院學(xué)報;2009年03期

2 馮漢橋;;論強化中國特色知識產(chǎn)權(quán)司法保護體制的幾個著力點[J];廣西社會科學(xué);2011年08期

，

本文編號：1669672