本文關(guān)鍵詞：知識產(chǎn)權(quán)沖突法適當論　出處：《吉林大學(xué)》2017年博士論文　論文類型：學(xué)位論文

  更多相關(guān)文章： 知識產(chǎn)權(quán) 地域性 管轄權(quán) 法律適用 適當論

【摘要】：從沖突法的角度分析,知識產(chǎn)權(quán)是涉外民商事法律的特例,傳統(tǒng)觀念中對知識產(chǎn)權(quán)地域性的強調(diào)使得這個領(lǐng)域成為并不存在法律沖突的一隅,各個國家僅僅受理各自授予的知識產(chǎn)權(quán)產(chǎn)生的糾紛,并且適用內(nèi)國法律予以解決。涉外知識產(chǎn)權(quán)的保護多年來一直遵循國際公約保護的路徑,而這種保護使得涉外知識產(chǎn)權(quán)糾紛的解決在全球化語境和互聯(lián)網(wǎng)語境之下遭遇尷尬。對知識產(chǎn)權(quán)地域性的系統(tǒng)分析發(fā)現(xiàn),地域性不能構(gòu)成知識產(chǎn)權(quán)受沖突法保護的障礙,知識產(chǎn)權(quán)長期與沖突法無緣是知識產(chǎn)權(quán)的無形性、所涉的公共利益性、主權(quán)觀念、實踐因素、人們的態(tài)度等多種因素互相結(jié)合共同導(dǎo)致,而所有這些因素中,最主要的原因是人們對于知識產(chǎn)權(quán)地域性的偏見。知識產(chǎn)權(quán)私權(quán)性質(zhì)的確立、涉外知識產(chǎn)權(quán)領(lǐng)域的新情勢、沖突法自身的優(yōu)勢以及國際社會的共同利益使得知識產(chǎn)權(quán)和沖突法存在連接的基礎(chǔ)。由于各個國家知識產(chǎn)權(quán)在制度設(shè)計上的差異,無論是著作權(quán),還是商標權(quán)和專利權(quán),都會出現(xiàn)很多法律沖突,具體表現(xiàn)在知識產(chǎn)權(quán)的所有權(quán)、產(chǎn)生、效力、范圍、轉(zhuǎn)讓、保護、終止等各個方面。知識產(chǎn)權(quán)在國際民商事實踐日益緊密的今天,面臨著新的語境,在管轄權(quán)、法律適用、爭端解決模式、創(chuàng)制方式都取得了前所未有的發(fā)展。適當論由于豐富的內(nèi)涵應(yīng)當作為知識產(chǎn)權(quán)沖突法的指導(dǎo)理論,適當論不僅可以適用在知識產(chǎn)權(quán)的法律適用領(lǐng)域,還應(yīng)適用在知識產(chǎn)權(quán)的管轄權(quán)領(lǐng)域。知識產(chǎn)權(quán)逐漸擺脫傳統(tǒng)觀念的束縛,各國開始著手對知識產(chǎn)權(quán)沖突法保護的研究和立法,歷經(jīng)多年的努力,已經(jīng)取得了令人欣喜的成果,一些國家相繼在立法中制定了沖突法規(guī)則;各國知識產(chǎn)權(quán)司法實踐也逐漸在判例中突破了專屬管轄的限制,在法律適用方面也有所轉(zhuǎn)變;國際組織通過一系列國際性公約協(xié)調(diào)管轄權(quán)和法律適用;各國民間法律團體對知識產(chǎn)權(quán)的沖突法保護也給予持續(xù)的關(guān)注,取得了以ALI原則和CLIP原則和日韓知識產(chǎn)權(quán)國際私法原則為代表的較為優(yōu)秀的研究成果,這幾個研究成果以軟法的形式出現(xiàn),不具有強制的適用效力。涉外知識產(chǎn)權(quán)的管轄權(quán)和法律適用無論在理論方面還是實踐方面都取得了較大的進步,但是也存在著很多缺陷。管轄權(quán)和法律適用高度一體化,一些國家普遍混淆了管轄權(quán)的選擇和法律適用,立法管轄權(quán)和司法管轄權(quán)被專屬管轄權(quán)同化。管轄權(quán)方面,一些國家基于先進的理論研究成果和豐富的司法實踐逐漸突破了專屬管轄的限制,而另外一些國家固守知識產(chǎn)權(quán)的地域性仍然堅持專屬管轄,這些國家之間發(fā)生知識產(chǎn)權(quán)糾紛之后將會出現(xiàn)跛腳法律沖突,無法調(diào)和;國際社會不存在協(xié)調(diào)一致的管轄權(quán)規(guī)則以及國際協(xié)調(diào)的不足導(dǎo)致了管轄權(quán)方面的混亂,由此引發(fā)了諸多判決無法在其他國家得到承認和執(zhí)行。在法律適用方面,一些國家堅持適用權(quán)利來源地法律,而另外一些國家堅持適用權(quán)利保護地法律,還有一些國家發(fā)展了當事人意思自治、最密切聯(lián)系、結(jié)果選擇等法律適用規(guī)則與方法,國際社會沒有統(tǒng)一的法律適用規(guī)則導(dǎo)致了各個國家按照各自的偏好創(chuàng)制規(guī)則,同一案件在不同的國家審理將會出現(xiàn)完全不同的判決結(jié)果,國際私法所追求的無論案件在哪個國家審理、判決結(jié)果都具有一致性的目標在涉外知識產(chǎn)權(quán)領(lǐng)域無法達到。尋找適當?shù)墓茌牱ㄔ汉瓦m當法,是國際私法的兩大關(guān)懷。首先管轄權(quán)和法律適用應(yīng)當分別來對待,以適當?shù)睦砟畲_定適當?shù)墓茌牱ㄔ汉瓦m當法。在管轄權(quán)方面,應(yīng)當遵循適當?shù)姆绞竭x擇適當管轄法院。涉外知識產(chǎn)權(quán)合同糾紛首先應(yīng)當由當事人協(xié)議管轄,這充分體現(xiàn)了契約自由和私法自治的理念,沒有當事人的意思自治,建議由知識產(chǎn)權(quán)的實施地行使管轄權(quán)。當事人意思自治同樣應(yīng)當用來確定涉外知識產(chǎn)權(quán)侵權(quán)案件的管轄,但是在侵權(quán)領(lǐng)域,還應(yīng)當劃清當事人自治起決定性作用領(lǐng)域與國家主權(quán)應(yīng)起決定性作用領(lǐng)域之間的界限;沒有當事人意思自治的情況下,應(yīng)當對傳統(tǒng)的侵權(quán)管轄規(guī)則進行改良,使之適用在知識產(chǎn)權(quán)領(lǐng)域。知識產(chǎn)權(quán)的本體區(qū)分為所有權(quán)和產(chǎn)生、效力。涉外知識產(chǎn)權(quán)所有權(quán)糾紛的管轄要區(qū)分兩種情況,單純的所有權(quán)糾紛,不應(yīng)該實行專屬管轄,此時應(yīng)當適用其他的管轄規(guī)則;如果知識產(chǎn)權(quán)的所有權(quán)訴訟和知識產(chǎn)權(quán)的注冊、效力訴訟密不可分,那么基于合并管轄的優(yōu)勢,所有權(quán)訴訟與注冊、效力訴訟均應(yīng)當由知識產(chǎn)權(quán)注冊國法院專屬管轄。在知識產(chǎn)權(quán)的產(chǎn)生以及效力上,要區(qū)分注冊性權(quán)利和非注冊性權(quán)利,對于注冊性權(quán)利,注冊地法院應(yīng)為適當?shù)墓茌牱ㄔ?知識產(chǎn)權(quán)的效力作為侵權(quán)案件的先決案件,應(yīng)突破專屬管轄,適用侵權(quán)等其他的管轄規(guī)則。對于非注冊性權(quán)利,當事人自由選擇的法院應(yīng)作為首要的管轄法院,如果當事人沒有管轄權(quán)協(xié)議,被告的經(jīng)常居住地法院是適當?shù)墓茌牱ㄔ骸；ヂ?lián)網(wǎng)模式之下,應(yīng)當將協(xié)議管轄作為首要的管轄方式,但是要對單邊選擇法院的標準予以明確。針對網(wǎng)絡(luò)無所不在之侵權(quán)的特殊情況,采取CLIP中的集中管轄,由與侵權(quán)行為有實質(zhì)影響的一國法院行使全部管轄權(quán)的重任是對互聯(lián)網(wǎng)模式下產(chǎn)生新問題的及時規(guī)制。而規(guī)則之外,應(yīng)當建立適當—協(xié)調(diào)的模式,加強國際協(xié)調(diào),走多元化的路徑。在涉外知識產(chǎn)權(quán)的法律適用方面,最初的討論圍繞著權(quán)利來源國法律和被請求保護國法律,后發(fā)展了當事人意思自治選擇的法律、最密切聯(lián)系地法律等多個法律適用規(guī)則。涉外知識產(chǎn)權(quán)的適當法要盡最大可能保證發(fā)達國家和發(fā)展中國家的利益得到同樣的維護,制定的規(guī)則要有利于平衡多方的利益,要注意考慮知識產(chǎn)權(quán)自身的特征和性質(zhì)對規(guī)則的影響,應(yīng)當堅持國際私法中法律適用規(guī)則的多元化,采用法律適用的分割論。涉外知識產(chǎn)權(quán)合同的適當法應(yīng)該確認意思自治原則的首要地位,適用當事人選擇的法律;如果當事人之間沒有法律選擇協(xié)議或者協(xié)議無效,那么應(yīng)當適用與涉外知識產(chǎn)權(quán)合同具有最密切聯(lián)系的法律。而特征性履行方法可以作為確定最密切聯(lián)系地的方式,但是要區(qū)分不同的情況分別確定。涉外知識產(chǎn)權(quán)侵權(quán)案件的適當法同樣是在可以適用當事人意思自治原則的方面,適用當事人選擇的法律,沒有意思自治的,應(yīng)當以被保護國法為基本原則,輔以最密切聯(lián)系原則。同樣,知識產(chǎn)權(quán)的本體區(qū)分為所有權(quán)和產(chǎn)生、效力。對于著作權(quán)的所有權(quán)糾紛,應(yīng)該適用單一的作品創(chuàng)作時作者的住所地法,如果作者的住所地法與案件沒有密切的聯(lián)系,那么應(yīng)該適用最密切聯(lián)系原則確定應(yīng)該適用的法律;而對于商標權(quán)和專利權(quán)等需要注冊的權(quán)利,應(yīng)該適用被請求保護國法確定知識產(chǎn)權(quán)的歸屬。涉外知識產(chǎn)權(quán)的其他本體關(guān)系應(yīng)當適用保護國法�；ヂ�(lián)網(wǎng)模式之下,應(yīng)當綜合采用當事人意思自治、最密切聯(lián)系、結(jié)果選擇方法等多種方式。適當法之外,同時要加強國際協(xié)調(diào),建立適當—協(xié)調(diào)的多邊路徑。知識產(chǎn)權(quán)沖突法的適當論結(jié)合了知識產(chǎn)權(quán)自身的特點和屬性,權(quán)衡了所有法律參與人的得失,實現(xiàn)了國際私法正義效率的價值,在全球不同的法律體系、復(fù)雜的國際實踐中進行總結(jié)和歸納,在中立的角度確定管轄和法律適用的適度和正當。知識產(chǎn)權(quán)沖突法的適當論不僅包括法律適用上的適當,還包括管轄權(quán)的適當,適當論躍出法律適用領(lǐng)域,適用在管轄權(quán)領(lǐng)域;知識產(chǎn)權(quán)沖突法的適當論是根據(jù)涉外知識產(chǎn)權(quán)的權(quán)利性質(zhì)、法律關(guān)系的不同特點,秉承適當?shù)睦砟罱鉀Q管轄權(quán)和法律適用問題,這決定了知識產(chǎn)權(quán)沖突法的適當論必定不同于一般民商事領(lǐng)域;知識產(chǎn)權(quán)沖突法領(lǐng)域的適當論根據(jù)客觀實際的變化而調(diào)整規(guī)則的適用、隨著知識產(chǎn)權(quán)國際實踐的變遷不斷向前發(fā)展,這是適當論存在的客觀現(xiàn)實基礎(chǔ);知識產(chǎn)權(quán)沖突法領(lǐng)域的適當論由于“適度”、“正當”的屬性使得其規(guī)則契合了國際私法的價值目標;知識產(chǎn)權(quán)沖突法領(lǐng)域的適當論不僅包括沖突法,還應(yīng)該推進統(tǒng)一實體法的發(fā)展,統(tǒng)一實體法由于直接規(guī)定了權(quán)利和義務(wù)是調(diào)整涉外知識產(chǎn)權(quán)最適當?shù)姆ā?br/>[Abstract]:From the analysis of the conflict of laws, intellectual property rights is a special case of foreign-related civil and commercial law, the traditional concept of emphasis on intellectual property has become a corner in this field does not exist the conflict of law, all countries only accept their awarded the intellectual property disputes, and apply laws to solve. Years of foreign intellectual property protection path to follow the International Convention on the protection of, and this makes the protection of foreign intellectual property disputes under the context of globalization and the context of the Internet suffered embarrassment. On intellectual property system analysis, regional intellectual property protection by law does not constitute barriers, intellectual property rights and the conflict of laws is no long-term intangible intellectual property the question of public interest, sovereignty, practical factors, factors of people's attitudes and common cause with each other. All of these factors, the main reason is that people with intellectual property bias. The establishment of intellectual property in the new situation, the field of foreign intellectual property rights, common interests conflict and its advantages in the international community that intellectual property rights in the connection and conflict of laws. Due to the differences in the national intellectual property system design the matter is copyright, or trademark right and patent right, there will be many conflicts of law, specifically in the ownership of intellectual property rights, effectiveness, scope, protection, transfer, termination and other aspects. The intellectual property rights in the international civil and commercial practice close today, facing the new context. The applicable law in the jurisdiction, the dispute settlement mode, creation way has made the hitherto unknown development. Because of the rich connotation of proper theory should be used as the guiding theory of intellectual property law, The appropriate theory can not only applicable law in the field of intellectual property rights, intellectual property rights should also be applicable in the field of jurisdiction. Intellectual property rights gradually get rid of the shackles of traditional ideas, countries began the research and legislation on intellectual property rights protection law, after years of efforts, has made gratifying achievements, some countries in legislation established in the conflict rules; judicial practice of intellectual property rights in the case of countries gradually broke the exclusive jurisdiction restrictions in applicable law change; international organizations through a series of International Convention for the coordination of the jurisdiction and legal protection; conflict of national civil law group of intellectual property rights also given sustained attention, made the more outstanding research results to the ALI principle and the principle of CLIP and Japan as the representative of international intellectual property law principle, the research results in Soft law is not applicable. The effectiveness of mandatory foreign-related intellectual property rights of jurisdiction and application of law both in terms of theory and practice has made great progress, but there are also many defects. Jurisdiction and application of law is highly integrated, some countries generally confused for selection and legal jurisdiction. The legislative jurisdiction and jurisdiction by exclusive jurisdiction. The jurisdiction of assimilation, some countries advanced theory research and judicial practice based on the rich gradually broke through the exclusive jurisdiction of the restrictions, and other regional countries to intellectual property rights still insist on exclusive jurisdiction, there will be a lame legal conflict between these countries, after intellectual property disputes can not be reconciled; the international community does not exist consistent rules of jurisdiction and lack of international coordination in the jurisdiction. The chaos, which caused many decisions cannot be recognized and enforced in other countries. In the application of the law, some countries adhere to the law applicable source of rights, while others insist on the law applicable to the protection of the rights, and some countries develop the autonomy of the parties, the most closely linked, the choice of applicable law rules and methods. In each country according to their own preferences rule, the international community has no unified legal rules in the same case different judgment results will appear in different countries, international private law to pursue the case regardless of the country in which the trial verdict has the consistency of goals can not be achieved in the field of foreign intellectual property rights. Looking for an appropriate and proper law under the jurisdiction of the court, is the two largest concern of private international law. Firstly, jurisdiction is right and law should be treated respectively, With the proper idea of determining appropriate and proper law under the jurisdiction of the court. The jurisdiction, should follow the appropriate way to choose the appropriate jurisdiction. Foreign intellectual property disputes should be governed by the agreement of the parties, which fully embodies the freedom of contract and the concept of autonomy of private law, without the autonomy of the parties, as suggested by the enforcement of intellectual property rights the exercise of jurisdiction. The autonomy of the parties should also be used to determine the jurisdiction of foreign-related IPR infringement cases, but also in the field of tort, should draw the party autonomy plays a decisive role in the field of national sovereignty and should play a decisive role in the field of boundaries between the autonomy of parties; no case should be rules to improve the traditional. The application in the field of intellectual property. The intellectual property rights body divided into ownership and production effect. Foreign-related intellectual property rights Under the jurisdiction of ownership disputes to distinguish two cases, simple ownership disputes, should not be the exclusive jurisdiction, the jurisdiction rules should apply to the other; if the ownership of the intellectual property litigation and intellectual property registration, the effectiveness of litigation are inseparable, so based on the combined advantages of litigation and jurisdiction, ownership registration, validity shall be by the intellectual property litigation registered in the exclusive jurisdiction of the court. In the formation of the intellectual property rights and the effectiveness, to distinguish between registered rights and non registered rights for the registration of rights, the court shall be registered under the jurisdiction of the court proper; validity of intellectual property rights as a prerequisite in cases of infringement cases, should break through the exclusive jurisdiction, infringement and other jurisdiction rules for non registered rights, the parties should be free to choose the court under the jurisdiction of the court of the first, if the parties have no jurisdiction by agreement, the defendant Ordinary residence court is under the jurisdiction of the court proper. The Internet mode, should be as the primary way of agreement jurisdiction jurisdiction, but the unilateral choice of court standards to be clear. According to the special situation of network omnipresent infringement, take centralized jurisdiction in CLIP, the task by a state court have substantial effect and infringement of the exercise all jurisdiction is timely regulation of new issues to the Internet mode. And the rules, should establish appropriate coordination mode, strengthen international coordination and diversification path. The application of the law in foreign-related intellectual property rights, the initial discussions around the country of origin of law and requested protection law, after the development of the autonomy of choice of law, the most closely linked to the law and other legal rules. The proper law of foreign-related intellectual property rights to the greatest extent possible to ensure the developed The state and the interests of the developing countries have the same maintenance, the rules should be conducive to balance the interests of the parties, should pay attention to consider the impact of characteristics and the nature of their own intellectual property rights of the rules, should adhere to the diversification of private international law in the legal rules, the laws applicable to the segmentation theory. The proper law of foreign-related intellectual property rights contract should be confirmed the primacy of the principle of autonomy, the choice of applicable law; if there is no agreement or the agreement is invalid choice of law between the parties, it shall apply with foreign-related intellectual property rights contract is most closely linked to the law. But the characteristic performance can be identified as the most closely linked to the way, but to distinguish between different situations. To determine the appropriate law of foreign-related intellectual property infringement cases is also can be applied to the principle of party autonomy, for the parties Choice of law, no autonomy, should be protected by law as the basic principle, supplemented by the principle of the closest connection. Similarly, the body is divided into intellectual property ownership and production effect. For the copyright ownership disputes, should be applied to single works for the law of domicile, if the author of the domicile law and cases are not closely linked, it should be applied to the principle of close contact should determine the applicable laws; and for trademark and patent registration rights, should apply lex protectionis to determine the intellectual property rights of ownership. Other ontology relation should be applied to the protection of foreign intellectual property law. The Internet mode, should be the autonomy of the parties, the most closely linked, the selection method of a variety of ways. The appropriate method, at the same time to strengthen international coordination, establish appropriate coordination of multi The side path of intellectual property conflicts. Appropriate combination characteristics and attributes of their own intellectual property rights, legal participants weighed all the pros and cons of justice, efficiency of international private law value in the legal system of global, international practice in the complex are summarized and concluded, in a neutral point of view to determine the applicable law and jurisdiction the moderate and proper. The appropriate theory of conflict of laws of intellectual property includes not only the legal application of the appropriate jurisdiction, including appropriate, proper application of the field out of law, applicable in the field of jurisdiction; conflict of law of intellectual property right is right according to the nature of foreign-related intellectual property rights, the different characteristics of the legal relationship, adhering to the appropriate the idea to solve the problem of the jurisdiction and the applicable law, which determines the appropriate intellectual property conflicts must be different from the general field of civil and commercial law; conflict of laws in the field of intellectual property. For when the change according to the objective reality and the adjustment rules, with the change of the international practice of intellectual property development, it is appropriate to the objective and realistic foundation of existence; the conflict of laws in the field of intellectual property right on the "appropriate", "legitimate" attribute makes fit the value goal of the private international law rules on the appropriate; the conflict of laws in the field of intellectual property includes not only the conflict of laws, should also promote the development of the uniform substantive law, because of the direct provision of uniform substantive law rights and obligations is the most appropriate adjustment of foreign intellectual property law.

【學(xué)位授予單位】：吉林大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：博士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類號】：D997.1
，

本文編號：1360082