“吉百利诉商评委驳回商标异议案”的行政法分析

发布时间：2018-08-28 07:49

【摘要】：近年来,因知识产权侵权而进行的行政诉讼越来越多,其中又以商标侵权为主。对于驰名商标的认定,我国现行法律还无严格可寻的法律条款。并且有关知识产权的行政诉讼也不同于一般行政诉讼,具有独立性。在司法实践过程中存在较多问题。并且驰名商标的认定在我国法律上的概念一直是相对模糊的,没有严格的评审的法律根据。其中有很大的人为认识因素在里面。这与我国依法治国这一治国的基本方针有较大的差异。在法国,没有与我国的商标评审委员会相类似的机构,对于商标等相关的知识产权的认定是由法院来评审的。这与我国的司法认定机制基本相同。同一评审机制只有一个部门对以评审,而不是我国的那种具有两种评审机关进行评审。笔者认为,商标评审委员会是由国家工商行政管理总局设立负责商标评审的专门行政执法机构,其在行政诉讼中具有行政主体资格是无可厚非的。对于驰名商标的认定,应该有切实可依的法律根据。根据我国《商标法》的相关规定,结合《巴黎公约》,法院在审判实践中,当国内法与国际法相冲突的时候,应优先使用国际法。本文旨在通过吉百利糖果公司诉商标评审委员会的典型案例,讨论在我国行政诉讼中,侵犯知识产权类案件的相关问题以及行政诉讼中行政主体资格的认定以及相关法律程序。并着重论述行政撤销判决的具体适用,并结合案例,研究撤销判决对本案的应用价值及整个行政诉讼中撤销判决的价值所在。本文总共分四部分第一部分介绍本文的案例,并总结案例引发的法律问题。第二部分对商标评审委员会作为行政诉讼被告主体资格的分析。第三部分对案件法律分析及行政违法行为的认定。第四部分对本案有关撤销判决的内容进行分析阐述。
[Abstract]:In recent years, there are more and more administrative litigation due to intellectual property infringement, including trademark infringement. For the recognition of well-known trademark, there are no strict legal provisions in our current law. And the administrative litigation about intellectual property is also different from the general administrative litigation, with independence. There are many problems in judicial practice. And the legal concept of well-known trademark in our country has been relatively vague, there is no strict evaluation of the legal basis. There are a lot of artificial factors in it. This and our country rule by law this basic principle of ruling the country has big difference. In France, there is no similar body to the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board in our country, and the determination of trademark and other related intellectual property rights is judged by the court. This with our country's judicial cognizance mechanism is basically the same. The same review mechanism has only one department to review, not our country with two types of review organs to review. The author thinks that the Trademark Review Board is set up by the State Administration for Industry and Commerce as a special administrative law enforcement agency in charge of trademark review. For the recognition of well-known trademarks, there should be a practical legal basis. According to the relevant provisions of the Trademark Law of our country and the Paris Convention, the court should give priority to the use of international law when the domestic law conflicts with the international law in the trial practice. Through the typical case of Cadbury Candy Company v. the Trademark Review Board, this paper discusses the related problems of intellectual property infringement cases in administrative litigation in our country, as well as the determination of the qualification of administrative subject and the relevant legal procedures in administrative litigation. It also discusses the application of the administrative revocation judgment, and studies the application value of the annulment judgment to the case and the value of the revocation judgment in the whole administrative litigation. This paper is divided into four parts: the first part introduces the case of this paper, and summarizes the legal problems caused by the case. The second part analyzes the qualification of trademark review board as the defendant of administrative litigation. The third part is the legal analysis of cases and the determination of administrative illegal acts. The fourth part analyzes the contents of the annulment of the case.
【学位授予单位】：辽宁大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2011
【分类号】：D923.43;D997.1

【参考文献】