论我国商标确权机制的完善
发布时间：2018-08-13 19:06
【摘要】：商标确权机制对于我国而言是一个制度“舶来品”，在我国发展历史较短，我国对其适用是一个“被动移植”到“为我所用”的过程。起初并不是基于自身国情的制度选择，在此过程中打上了深深的时代烙印，在我国实践中也出现了不少的问题。商标确权程序包括商标确权行政程序和商标确权司法程序。商标确权行政程序内部设置存在的问题有：恶意异议现象大量存在；确权周期过长，易造成权利虚幻现象；撤销程序不合理（注册商标撤销程序启动不合理；“撤销”与“无效”概念界定不清）。商标司法程序设置存在的问题有：商标确权诉讼案件原被告身份设置不合理；商标确权司法审查分工不合理，易引起循环诉讼；商标确权之诉与侵权之诉存在冲突。 针对我国实践中商标确权出现的问题，分析英、美、德、日四个国家的商标注册制度、商标异议制度、商标权终止制度及司法程序。认为我国的商标确权行政程序应借鉴英国商标禁止假冒的救济程序，加大对未注册商标的保护力度；借鉴美国关于时限的规定，给商标权人预留合理的期限，解决商标侵权和商标确权关于时限规定的冲突；借鉴国外的异议后置程序，并对异议主体进行限制，取消商标异议复审制度；也可效仿英国的异议“冷静期”制度，给予当事人足够的和解期限；要区分“撤销”与“无效”的概念，改革现行的商标撤销制度。商标确权司法程序可借鉴美国的司法审判制度，只列双方当事人为诉讼双方，将商评委列为第三人，，二审只进行法律问题的审理；效仿德国的设立专门的知识产权法院来集中处理知识产权案件；可以引入日本的“当事人诉讼”制度，当事人可直接向法院提起行政诉讼，赋予法院对此类案件的司法变更权。但最理想的状态是设置行政附带民事诉讼程序。 我国商标确权机制的完善需从以下几个方面入手：深化对商标权性质的认识，肯定商标权是一种私权；把握好商标确权的基本原则“意思自治原则、利益平衡原则、诚实信用原则”之间的关系；完善商标确权行政程序和司法程序的衔接，主要包括完善商标确权机制相关法律法规、改革商标异议制度，提高确权效率、设立“商标无效”宣告制度和完善商标确权的司法审查程序。
[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.
【学位授予单位】：湘潭大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2013
【分类号】：D923.43
本文编号：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.
【学位授予单位】：湘潭大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2013
【分类号】：D923.43
【参考文献】
相关期刊论文 前10条
1 徐晓建;我国商标确权行政程序与司法程序之重构(上)[J];中华商标;2005年10期
2 崔文俊;;商标确权司法审查的几个问题[J];中华商标;2007年01期
3 郑书前;;论知识产权保护双轨制的冲突及协调[J];河南大学学报(社会科学版);2007年05期
4 王炳;;论知识生产难度与知识产权保护成比例原则[J];经济问题探索;2009年09期
5 包海波;美国知识产权保护制度的特点及发展趋势[J];科技与经济;2003年06期
6 关永红;石宾;;论我国商标法中商标确权机制的合理重构[J];宁夏大学学报(人文社会科学版);2009年02期
7 姚建春;雷兴长;;美国知识产权保护制度的特点分析[J];社科纵横;2007年10期
8 莫于川;雷振;;我国《行政诉讼法》的修改路向、修改要点和修改方案——关于修改《行政诉讼法》的中国人民大学专家建议稿[J];河南财经政法大学学报;2012年03期
9 杨光明;;后WTO时代国际贸易中的知识产权保护法律制度[J];现代法学;2007年03期
10 崔冬;;再论扩大我国行政诉讼的司法变更权[J];西南政法大学学报;2009年04期
本文编号：2181903
本文链接：https://www.wllwen.com/falvlunwen/zhishichanquanfa/2181903.html
教材专著
