本文選題：假冒注冊(cè)商標(biāo)罪 + 客觀行為　； 參考：《華東政法大學(xué)》2013年碩士論文

【摘要】：我國(guó)現(xiàn)行《刑法》第二百一十三條規(guī)定了“假冒注冊(cè)商標(biāo)罪”，對(duì)未經(jīng)注冊(cè)商標(biāo)所有人許可，，在同一種商品上使用與其注冊(cè)商標(biāo)相同的商標(biāo)，情節(jié)嚴(yán)重的行為進(jìn)行了刑法規(guī)制。刑法法條規(guī)定的簡(jiǎn)潔性使得該法條無(wú)法適應(yīng)商標(biāo)法領(lǐng)域的專業(yè)性，從而不具有可操作性，無(wú)法在司法實(shí)踐中得以適用，畢竟“同一種商品”、“相同的商標(biāo)”等都需要相應(yīng)的認(rèn)定標(biāo)準(zhǔn)來(lái)予以認(rèn)定。為了解決此種困境，相關(guān)的國(guó)家機(jī)關(guān)出臺(tái)了一系列的司法解釋對(duì)該刑法條文予以釋義，有些司法解釋為實(shí)踐操作提供了切實(shí)有效的指導(dǎo)意見(jiàn)，但有些司法解釋無(wú)疑是雪上添霜，反而使得人們對(duì)該法條的具體適用產(chǎn)生了更大的困惑。而且隨著我國(guó)社會(huì)主義市場(chǎng)經(jīng)濟(jì)制度的確立和經(jīng)濟(jì)社會(huì)的快速發(fā)展，商標(biāo)侵權(quán)行為的多樣性和復(fù)雜性與日俱增，加之，與國(guó)際社會(huì)對(duì)商標(biāo)權(quán)刑法保護(hù)范圍擴(kuò)大化的趨勢(shì)相較而言，我國(guó)現(xiàn)行《刑法》對(duì)商標(biāo)權(quán)的保護(hù)范圍顯得過(guò)于狹窄，故很有需要對(duì)假冒注冊(cè)的服務(wù)商標(biāo)的行為、反向假冒行為和商標(biāo)淡化行為入罪的必要性進(jìn)行探討。本文共分了五個(gè)部分對(duì)上述問(wèn)題進(jìn)行探討。 第一部分是關(guān)于假冒注冊(cè)商標(biāo)罪的概況，從司法實(shí)踐中假冒注冊(cè)商標(biāo)罪發(fā)生的頻繁性和嚴(yán)重性論及了關(guān)注假冒注冊(cè)商標(biāo)罪的必要性，從假冒注冊(cè)商標(biāo)罪的立法現(xiàn)狀引出了下文將要論述的話題。 第二部分在梳理相關(guān)法律法規(guī)和司法解釋規(guī)定的基礎(chǔ)上，結(jié)合學(xué)者們的觀點(diǎn)和筆者的認(rèn)識(shí)，從“未經(jīng)注冊(cè)商標(biāo)所有人許可”、“同一種商品”、“相同的商標(biāo)”和“使用”這幾個(gè)方面具體闡述對(duì)假冒注冊(cè)商標(biāo)罪客觀行為的認(rèn)定。 第三部分著重對(duì)假冒注冊(cè)商標(biāo)罪情節(jié)認(rèn)定中的數(shù)額和假冒商標(biāo)數(shù)進(jìn)行了闡述，筆者認(rèn)為從權(quán)利人的角度出發(fā)對(duì)犯罪情節(jié)進(jìn)行認(rèn)定，不僅有利于保護(hù)注冊(cè)商標(biāo)專用權(quán)和國(guó)家的商標(biāo)管理制度，還有利于司法實(shí)踐中的操作。 第四部分以假冒注冊(cè)商標(biāo)罪侵犯的客體為基準(zhǔn)，就假冒注冊(cè)商標(biāo)罪與其他侵犯知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)犯罪的關(guān)系，與生產(chǎn)、銷售偽劣產(chǎn)品罪的關(guān)系以及與損害商業(yè)信譽(yù)、商品聲譽(yù)罪的關(guān)系分情況進(jìn)行了論述。 第五部分在必要性原則的指導(dǎo)下，筆者對(duì)服務(wù)商標(biāo)、反向假冒行為和商標(biāo)淡化行為有無(wú)必要進(jìn)行刑法規(guī)制進(jìn)行闡述。
[Abstract]:Article 213 of the present Criminal Law of our country stipulates the crime of "counterfeiting registered trademark". The criminal law regulates the use of the same trademark on the same commodity without the permission of the owner of the registered trademark, the circumstances of which are serious. The brevity of the provisions of the criminal law makes it unable to adapt to the specialization in the field of trademark law, so it is not operable and can not be applied in judicial practice, after all, "the same commodity", "the same trademark" and so on all need the corresponding confirmation standard to be recognized. In order to solve this dilemma, the relevant state organs have issued a series of judicial interpretations to interpret the provisions of the Criminal Law. Some judicial interpretations have provided practical and effective guidance for the practical operation, but some judicial interpretations are undoubtedly adding to the snow. On the contrary, people have more confusion about the specific application of the law. Moreover, with the establishment of socialist market economy system and the rapid development of economic society, the diversity and complexity of trademark infringement are increasing day by day. Compared with the tendency of the international community to expand the scope of criminal law protection of trademark rights, the scope of protection of trademark rights in the current Criminal Law of our country is too narrow, so it is very necessary to deal with the acts of counterfeiting registered service trademarks. The necessity of decriminalization of reverse counterfeiting and trademark dilution is discussed. This paper is divided into five parts to discuss the above problems. The first part is about the general situation of the crime of counterfeiting registered trademark. It discusses the necessity of paying attention to the crime of counterfeiting registered trademark from the frequent and serious nature of the crime of counterfeiting registered trademark in judicial practice. From the legislation of the crime of counterfeiting registered trademark leads to the topic to be discussed below. The second part, on the basis of combing the relevant laws and regulations and judicial interpretation provisions, combining the views of scholars and the author's understanding, from "without the permission of the owner of registered trademark", "the same kind of goods", "the same trademark" and "use" are described in detail to identify the objective behavior of the crime of counterfeiting registered trademark. The third part focuses on the amount and the number of counterfeit trademarks in the determination of the circumstances of the crime of counterfeiting registered trademark. The author thinks that from the perspective of the obligee, the author determines the circumstances of the crime. It is not only conducive to the protection of the exclusive right of registered trademark and the national trademark management system, but also conducive to the operation in judicial practice. The fourth part, based on the object infringed by the crime of counterfeiting registered trademark, deals with the relationship between the crime of counterfeiting registered trademark and other crimes of infringing intellectual property rights, with the crime of producing and selling fake and inferior products, and with the damage to commercial reputation. The relation of commodity reputation crime is discussed. In the fifth part, under the guidance of the principle of necessity, the author expounds whether it is necessary to regulate service trademark, reverse counterfeiting and trademark dilution.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：華東政法大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2013
【分類號(hào)】：D924.33

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前1條

1 史強(qiáng);;服務(wù)商標(biāo)的刑法規(guī)制[J];中華商標(biāo);2009年08期

本文編號(hào)：1964031