论我国商标侵权认定“双轨制”的不足及制度完善

发布时间：2018-03-26 21:25

本文选题：商标权　切入点：工商行政管理　出处：《复旦大学》2013年硕士论文

【摘要】：作为我国知识产权保护“双轨制”的重要一环,我国知识产权行政管理机关一直以来都承担了对侵权行为予以行政查处的职能。而商标行政管理体系中商标局、商标评审委员会由于其内设于商标侵权行政管理机关——国家工商行政管理总局这一特殊关系,使得我国工商行政管理部门在对商标侵权行为的查处方面相较著作权与专利权而言更具特殊性。而随着商标权私权的属性越发获得理论界和实务界的认可,工商行政管理部门对于商标侵权认定职能由于其与司法认定的可能冲突而成为了争议的焦点。笔者从行政法视角对“双轨制”在商标侵权认定方面的不足加以论证,探讨现行商标法中“公共利益”要件的模糊导致的行政权力随意介入民事纠纷,商标权行政保护本身具体行政行为属性上的复合性,行政保护之后的诉讼属于民事诉讼抑或行政诉讼以及因此所形成的程序误读和认定冲突等问题。同时,笔者结合其他国家和地区的实践,讨论商标权保护“双轨制”本身的优劣,并就建立统一的商标行政管理机构、设立商标专门法院、“三审合一”等举措以及其对解决工商行政管理局剥离商标侵权认定职能的可行性进行介绍和分析,但这些举措由于并未将商标侵权认定的权力统一至工商行政管理部门或司法机关,并不能根本性地解决行政保护与司法保护在商标侵权认定上的冲突问题。最后,笔者借此《商标法》修法之契机,提出引入类刑事诉讼的新诉讼模式,并结合新《商标法》提出对于该设想可能的立法建议,即明确商标侵权所可能涉及的“公共利益”并规定行政权力介入商标侵权纠纷的条件,同时赋予工商行政管理部门作为涉及公共利益的商标侵权行为中提起诉讼的原告资格,收回其直接对于此类商标侵权行为进行认定的权力。
[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.
【学位授予单位】：复旦大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2013
【分类号】：D923.43

【参考文献】