論我國商標確權機制的完善
發(fā)布時間：2018-08-13 19:06
【摘要】：商標確權機制對于我國而言是一個制度“舶來品”，在我國發(fā)展歷史較短，我國對其適用是一個“被動移植”到“為我所用”的過程。起初并不是基于自身國情的制度選擇，在此過程中打上了深深的時代烙印，在我國實踐中也出現(xiàn)了不少的問題。商標確權程序包括商標確權行政程序和商標確權司法程序。商標確權行政程序內部設置存在的問題有：惡意異議現(xiàn)象大量存在；確權周期過長，易造成權利虛幻現(xiàn)象；撤銷程序不合理（注冊商標撤銷程序啟動不合理；“撤銷”與“無效”概念界定不清）。商標司法程序設置存在的問題有：商標確權訴訟案件原被告身份設置不合理；商標確權司法審查分工不合理，易引起循環(huán)訴訟；商標確權之訴與侵權之訴存在沖突。 針對我國實踐中商標確權出現(xiàn)的問題，分析英、美、德、日四個國家的商標注冊制度、商標異議制度、商標權終止制度及司法程序。認為我國的商標確權行政程序應借鑒英國商標禁止假冒的救濟程序，加大對未注冊商標的保護力度；借鑒美國關于時限的規(guī)定，給商標權人預留合理的期限，解決商標侵權和商標確權關于時限規(guī)定的沖突；借鑒國外的異議后置程序，并對異議主體進行限制，取消商標異議復審制度；也可效仿英國的異議“冷靜期”制度，給予當事人足夠的和解期限；要區(qū)分“撤銷”與“無效”的概念，改革現(xiàn)行的商標撤銷制度。商標確權司法程序可借鑒美國的司法審判制度，只列雙方當事人為訴訟雙方，將商評委列為第三人，，二審只進行法律問題的審理；效仿德國的設立專門的知識產權法院來集中處理知識產權案件；可以引入日本的“當事人訴訟”制度，當事人可直接向法院提起行政訴訟，賦予法院對此類案件的司法變更權。但最理想的狀態(tài)是設置行政附帶民事訴訟程序。 我國商標確權機制的完善需從以下幾個方面入手：深化對商標權性質的認識，肯定商標權是一種私權；把握好商標確權的基本原則“意思自治原則、利益平衡原則、誠實信用原則”之間的關系；完善商標確權行政程序和司法程序的銜接，主要包括完善商標確權機制相關法律法規(guī)、改革商標異議制度，提高確權效率、設立“商標無效”宣告制度和完善商標確權的司法審查程序。
[Abstract]:For our country, the mechanism of trademark confirmation right is a system "imported", and its application in China is a process from "passive transplantation" to "for our own use". At first, it is not based on its own national conditions of the system choice, in the process of making a deep brand of the times, in our practice has also appeared a lot of problems. Trademark confirmation procedure includes administrative procedure and judicial procedure. The problems existing in the administrative procedure of trademark confirmation are as follows: malevolent dissent exists in large quantities, the period of confirming right is too long, it is easy to cause the illusory phenomenon of right, the procedure of revocation is unreasonable (the procedure of revocation of registered trademark is not reasonable); The concepts of "revocation" and "invalidity" are not clearly defined. The problems of trademark judicial procedure include: unreasonable setting of original defendant's status in trademark confirmation right lawsuit; unreasonable division of labor in judicial review of trademark confirmation right, easy to cause circular litigation; conflict between trademark confirmation right lawsuit and infringement action. This paper analyzes the trademark registration system, trademark objection system, trademark termination system and judicial procedure in four countries: Britain, the United States, Germany and Japan, in view of the problems existing in the practice of trademark confirmation in our country. The author thinks that the administrative procedure of trademark confirmation right in our country should draw lessons from the relief procedure of prohibiting counterfeiting of British trademark, strengthen the protection of unregistered trademark, draw lessons from the provisions of the United States on the time limit, and set a reasonable time limit for the trademark owner. To resolve the conflict between trademark infringement and trademark confirmation right on the time limit; to draw lessons from the foreign post-objection procedure, and to restrict the subject of the objection and cancel the trademark objection review system; or to follow the British objection "cooling-off" system. It is necessary to distinguish the concept of "revocation" from "invalidity" and reform the current trademark revocation system. The judicial procedure of trademark confirmation right can draw lessons from the judicial trial system of the United States. Only the parties concerned are listed as the litigants, and the commercial judges are listed as the third party, and the second instance only deals with legal issues. Following the example of Germany, a special intellectual property court can be set up to deal with intellectual property cases in a centralized way, and the "litigant litigation" system in Japan can be introduced. The parties may directly file administrative proceedings to the court and endow the court with the right of judicial change in such cases. But the ideal state is to set up administrative incidental civil procedure. The perfection of the mechanism of trademark confirmation right in our country should start from the following aspects: deepening the understanding of the nature of trademark right, affirming that trademark right is a kind of private right, grasping the basic principle of trademark confirmation right "the principle of autonomy of will, the principle of balance of interests," The relationship between the principle of good faith and good faith, perfecting the connection between administrative procedure and judicial procedure of trademark confirmation right, mainly including perfecting the relevant laws and regulations of trademark confirmation right mechanism, reforming trademark dissent system, improving the efficiency of trademark confirmation right, Establish the system of declaring trademark invalid and perfect the judicial review procedure of trademark confirmation right.
【學位授予單位】：湘潭大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2013
【分類號】：D923.43
本文編號：2181903
[Abstract]:For our country, the mechanism of trademark confirmation right is a system "imported", and its application in China is a process from "passive transplantation" to "for our own use". At first, it is not based on its own national conditions of the system choice, in the process of making a deep brand of the times, in our practice has also appeared a lot of problems. Trademark confirmation procedure includes administrative procedure and judicial procedure. The problems existing in the administrative procedure of trademark confirmation are as follows: malevolent dissent exists in large quantities, the period of confirming right is too long, it is easy to cause the illusory phenomenon of right, the procedure of revocation is unreasonable (the procedure of revocation of registered trademark is not reasonable); The concepts of "revocation" and "invalidity" are not clearly defined. The problems of trademark judicial procedure include: unreasonable setting of original defendant's status in trademark confirmation right lawsuit; unreasonable division of labor in judicial review of trademark confirmation right, easy to cause circular litigation; conflict between trademark confirmation right lawsuit and infringement action. This paper analyzes the trademark registration system, trademark objection system, trademark termination system and judicial procedure in four countries: Britain, the United States, Germany and Japan, in view of the problems existing in the practice of trademark confirmation in our country. The author thinks that the administrative procedure of trademark confirmation right in our country should draw lessons from the relief procedure of prohibiting counterfeiting of British trademark, strengthen the protection of unregistered trademark, draw lessons from the provisions of the United States on the time limit, and set a reasonable time limit for the trademark owner. To resolve the conflict between trademark infringement and trademark confirmation right on the time limit; to draw lessons from the foreign post-objection procedure, and to restrict the subject of the objection and cancel the trademark objection review system; or to follow the British objection "cooling-off" system. It is necessary to distinguish the concept of "revocation" from "invalidity" and reform the current trademark revocation system. The judicial procedure of trademark confirmation right can draw lessons from the judicial trial system of the United States. Only the parties concerned are listed as the litigants, and the commercial judges are listed as the third party, and the second instance only deals with legal issues. Following the example of Germany, a special intellectual property court can be set up to deal with intellectual property cases in a centralized way, and the "litigant litigation" system in Japan can be introduced. The parties may directly file administrative proceedings to the court and endow the court with the right of judicial change in such cases. But the ideal state is to set up administrative incidental civil procedure. The perfection of the mechanism of trademark confirmation right in our country should start from the following aspects: deepening the understanding of the nature of trademark right, affirming that trademark right is a kind of private right, grasping the basic principle of trademark confirmation right "the principle of autonomy of will, the principle of balance of interests," The relationship between the principle of good faith and good faith, perfecting the connection between administrative procedure and judicial procedure of trademark confirmation right, mainly including perfecting the relevant laws and regulations of trademark confirmation right mechanism, reforming trademark dissent system, improving the efficiency of trademark confirmation right, Establish the system of declaring trademark invalid and perfect the judicial review procedure of trademark confirmation right.
【學位授予單位】：湘潭大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2013
【分類號】：D923.43
【參考文獻】
相關期刊論文 前10條
1 徐曉建;我國商標確權行政程序與司法程序之重構(上)[J];中華商標;2005年10期
2 崔文俊;;商標確權司法審查的幾個問題[J];中華商標;2007年01期
3 鄭書前;;論知識產權保護雙軌制的沖突及協(xié)調[J];河南大學學報(社會科學版);2007年05期
4 王炳;;論知識生產難度與知識產權保護成比例原則[J];經(jīng)濟問題探索;2009年09期
5 包海波;美國知識產權保護制度的特點及發(fā)展趨勢[J];科技與經(jīng)濟;2003年06期
6 關永紅;石賓;;論我國商標法中商標確權機制的合理重構[J];寧夏大學學報(人文社會科學版);2009年02期
7 姚建春;雷興長;;美國知識產權保護制度的特點分析[J];社科縱橫;2007年10期
8 莫于川;雷振;;我國《行政訴訟法》的修改路向、修改要點和修改方案——關于修改《行政訴訟法》的中國人民大學專家建議稿[J];河南財經(jīng)政法大學學報;2012年03期
9 楊光明;;后WTO時代國際貿易中的知識產權保護法律制度[J];現(xiàn)代法學;2007年03期
10 崔冬;;再論擴大我國行政訴訟的司法變更權[J];西南政法大學學報;2009年04期
本文編號：2181903
本文鏈接：http://sikaile.net/falvlunwen/zhishichanquanfa/2181903.html
教材專著
