商号权效力地域限制质疑

按照目前学界主流观点,商号权的效力受到地域限制。这种将商号取得中的问题扩展至商号权效力全部的做法缺乏理论依据。商号权的效力取决于对其性质的认定,而不取决于其登记管理制度。作为知识产权的商号权,是一种不同于传统名称权的商业标识权的商号权,反不正当竞争法关于禁止混淆的规定即是商号禁止权的内容。无论从商号使用权还是从商号禁止权的角度,均应得出商号权的效力不受地域限制的结论。     

试论中国区域贸易安排战略

Regional Trade Arrangements (RTAs) have proliferated after the birth of the World Trade Organization (WTO). In these years, as the members of RTAs increased considerably, the instruments and formalities of RTAs have been varied, and the scope of RTAs has been expanded. With regards to China, it has changed its traditional view and has been engaged positively in the building its own RTAs. Facing the competition from neighboring countries, China should construct an appropriate strategy on RTAs as soon as possible. Without the derogation of multilateral trade agreement, the RTA strategy should be led by national strategic interest, contain the involvement of various levels of trade agreements, enlarge the scope of regional trade agreements, and expand the potential realm of partners for cooperation, etc. Chen Bin was a joint doctoral student of Wuhan University (China) and l’Université Paul Cézanne Aix-Marseille III (France). Now, he is an editor of International Law Review of Wuhan University, a visiting scholar under the scholarship programme of UK foundation for Uniform Law of l’Institut International pour l’Unification du Droit Privé (Unidroit), a researcher under the doctoral scholarship programme of the Hague Academy of International Law, a research fellow of Heidelberg Max Plank Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law, a research fellow under the Asser Research Fellowships Programme of T.M.C. Asser Instituut, a visiting fellow under the scholarship program for visiting fellows of Hamburg Max Plank Institute for Comparative and International Private Law. Mr. Chen is a member of the Society of International Economic Law (SIEL), the Association for International Arbitration (AIA) and the Asian Competition Forum (ACF), and a researcher of the Arbitration Institute of Guangzhou Arbitration Court. Currently, his research interests focus on international trade law and public international law.     

企业名称权的性质及法律保护

企业对其名称是享有名称权还是名称专用权,我国现行法律规定有所不一,《民法通则》规定企业享有名称权,《企业名称登记管理规定》规定企业享有名称专用权,理论界对这一问题也有不同的认识。从理论上和实际操作的可能性上分析,企业应享有名称权,而不是名称专用权。因为市场经济条件下,企业的经营活动已经打破了地域的限制,同时,经营范围问题也在被逐渐淡化,这样,现行企业名称制度中决定其专用权范围的因素所剩无几,甚至荡然无存。对于企业名称权的保护也应采取国际通行的做法,通过防止混淆原则、保护在先权利原则等保护企业名称权。     

文化产品、版权保护与贸易规则

Cultural products are commodities with cultural contents, which are neither equivalent to cultural relics nor ordinary articles. Such dual natures bring forth divergences in trade policy, mandating the generality and particularity of trade rules. The WTO rules lay more emphases on free trade while the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization put more stress on the free exchange and diversity of cultures. Nations enjoy cultural sovereignty over their cultural policies and administrative measures. The rules of intellectual property rights also influence trade in cultural products. To develop trade in cultural products, science and technologies shall be employed to create diversified and competitive products of distinct cultural values. Han Liyu, Ph.D, is an associate professor of law, and director of International Law Teaching and Research at Renmin University of China, Vice Secretary-General of WTO Section in China Law Society, and member of China’s International Economic Law Society. Mr. Han teaches and does research on international economic law and WTO law, publishing several monographs and articles on the US trade law and the WTO law. For many times, Mr. Han did research as visiting scholar in American universities and UNIDROIT. Mr. Han got a post-graduate diploma in Common Law from Hong Kong University.     

Navigating the rocky waters of trade mark law

Kerly's Law of Trade Marks and Trade Names, 14th Edition ByDavid Kitchin QC, David Llewelyn, James Mellor, Richard Meade,Tom Moody-Stuart, David Keeling; with Consultant Editor: TheRt. Hon Sir Robin Jacob; Sweet & Maxwell, 2005 Price: £255,Hardback, ISBN: 0421860804, pp. 1,350   Until recently, trade mark practitioners in the United Kingdomhad to make do with the 13th edition of Kerly, the 1st editionof The Modern Law of Trade Marks, or the CIPA/ITMA Handbookwhen navigating the rocky waters of trade mark law and practice.The first two of these texts     

试论跨国公司的社会责任

As for international direct investment, the transnational corporations are playing a leading role in the fields of international trade, international investment and international intellectual property. In theory and reality, this authors analyze the rationale of the social responsibilities taken by transnational corporations, the main problems in the social responsibilities of transnational corporations and the legislative status, and put forward the functions of the social responsibilities of transnational corporations in promotion of the legal construction of socialist market economy, the reform of the corporate governance and the development of transnational corporations in China. Wang Chuanli, Professor and Doctoral Supervisor of China University of Political Science and Law, Vice-chairman of China Society of International Economic Law, and Vice-chairman of Research Institute of WTO Law (China Law Society), also Arbitrator of China International Economic & Trade Arbitration Commission and Beijing Arbitration Commission. Her main publications are “The Legal Effectiveness of Foreign Economic Contracts”, “International Trade Law of Sales of Goods”, “International Protection of Intellectual Property Rights” and “International Trade Law Government Control on Business”. Moreover, she has published over ten influential discourses on international economic law. In addition, her ongoing research projects include WTO Agriculture Agreement and the Rules of International Agri-products Trade, WTO and International Core labor Standards, and the Role of Judicial Independence of European Court of Justice to Promote the Integration of Europe.     

WTO协定下美国贸易权利论——以美国对中国实施“双轨制反补贴措施”为视角

美国一方面对中国适用反补贴税法，另一方面通过WTO争端解决机制控告中国的禁止性补贴措施之做法，说明美国正在积极行使WTO协定下的贸易权利。应当从美国联邦宪法与国际法之双重视角把握贸易权利之性质并将其分成实体性市场准入权利与程序性贸易救济权利两大类，唯此才能理解美国对中国实施“双轨制反补贴措施”之实质。对美国正在推行的以贸易权利为导向的对华贸易政策，中国必须用自己的贸易救济权利加以对抗。     

Auction fakes: how to avoid criminal responsibility for selling counterfeit goods in Poland

This judgment clearly confirms that the resolution of PolishSupreme Court (I KZP 13/05) of 24 May 2005 interpreting theterm ‘introduction to market’, as provided in Article305(1) of the Act of 30 June 2000 on Industrial Property Law(Dziennik Ustaw z 2003 r. No 119, pos. 1117, as amended), isa major obstacle to the proper protection of trade mark holdersin Poland.     

商号出资法律问题探讨

商号因其承载着商业价值,出资是实现其价值利用的一种方式,在司法实践中商号出资现象逐渐增多.从理论上理清商号出资和企业名称转让之间的关系,界定商号权的性质以及商号出资的方式;在具体实务操作上解决商号变更、主体责任、商号估价等障碍,为商号出资建立健全相应的法律保障措施,是顺利实现商号出资的保障.     

Geico and Google settle trade mark/keyword advertising lawsuit

Google's sale of GEICO's trade marks for use in keyword-triggered‘sponsored link’ advertising did not create a likelihoodof confusion where the keyword-triggered advertisements didnot include GEICO's marks in the headings or text, but a settlementbetween the parties prevented the court from deciding Google'sliability for trade mark infringement for keyword-triggeredadvertisements that use GEICO's marks.     

《民法典》背景下跨国姓名权法律选择的完善

自然人姓名问题涉及不同的法律领域。2020年我国《民法典》第四编第三章为自然人姓名问题提供了最新的实体法保护规则。早在11年前,我国《涉外民事关系法律适用法》(以下简称《法律适用法》)就已对自然人姓名问题作出了规定。在国际私法中,个人姓名面临的基本问题是法院地国应适用何种连结点以确定涉外个人姓名的准据法。我国《法律适用法》第15条和第46条分别对涉外姓名确定和变更问题、涉外姓名侵权问题规定了法律选择规则,同时第5条对涉外姓名法律选择设立了不得违反我国公共秩序的最低界限。然而,我国对姓名国际私法规则采取“归并”的立法模式,没有对跨国姓名权法律选择和其他涉外人格权法律选择进行区别处理,未回应我国《民法典》姓名权在人格权领域的特殊性,而且忽略了《民法典》第1056条婚后夫妻姓名的平等价值和第1112条允许灵活选择被收养儿童姓名的立法意旨。虽然我国《法律适用法》姓名国际私法规则与《民法典》姓名实体法规则存在明显的差异,但二者互为补充。我国《法律适用法》有必要随着《民法典》的实施而对涉外姓名国际私法规则予以相应的变革。     

论隐名代理的构成与效力

隐名代理为大陆法与英美法普遍承认。借鉴比较法上的经验,我国隐名代理应当包括代理人以自己名义行为以及代理人既未以自己名义也未以被代理人名义行为两种情形。在前一情形下,相对人知道代理关系方可成立代理;在后一情形下,相对人知道或者应当知道代理关系都可以成立代理。代理人以自己名义行为构成隐名代理的情形应当严格限制在几种特定环境之下。在当事人明示排除或者法律特别规定的情况下,不能适用隐名代理的规定。隐名代理的后果应当是代理行为的效果归属于被代理人。     

The battle of the registers

A company can use its own name for purposes other than indicatingthe origin of goods or services without infringing any thirdparty trade mark rights. But even where a company uses its nameto indicate the origin of goods or services, it can do so providedits use is in accordance with honest practices in industrialor commercial matters.     

Credit card fraud under Chinese criminal law

Credit card fraud is a new type of fraud amended into the Criminal Law of China in 1997. The “credit card” under credit card fraud is interpreted as a very board concept, which includes debit card and virtually all electronic payment cards used in ordinary payment, credit loan, transfer and settlement of account, cash deposit and withdrawal. Therefore, it is necessary for the legislature to revise “credit card” under this special fraud into “electronic payment card,” and “credit card fraud” into “electronic payment card fraud,” which will be understood easily and precisely. “Use” and “fraudulent use” of credit card under this fraud is defined as ordinary use of credit card, including withdrawal cash with authentic or forged credit card from ATMs. It is unreasonable to define “malicious overdraft” as a form of credit card fraud under the Chinese Criminal Law. In the future amendment, this kind of criminal conduct shall be separated as independent named as “malicious overdraft” or “abuse of credit card” under the Criminal Law with less stiff statutory punishment than that of credit card fraud. Besides, under the Chinese Criminal Law, stealing credit card and using it is held as “theft,” which is neither reasonable nor logical. Therefore, it should be revised in the future criminal law.     

VORSPRUNG DURCH TECHNIK ineligible for CTM registration

OHIM refused registration as a Community trade mark of the wordsVORSPRUNG DURCH TECHNIK in the name of Audi AG for goods andservices in Classes 9, 14, 25, 28, 37–40, and 42 on thegrounds that the mark was devoid of any distinctive character.Audi's action for annulment of this decision was dismissed bythe CFI.     

论中国《反垄断法》实施中的相关市场界定

Defining relevant markets is the foundation of establishing main antimonopoly regimes and the key issue in enforcing antimonopoly law, which often reflects the leniency or strictness of enforcement. In the process of defining relevant product market, the main factors to be considered include physical function and use purpose of product, product price, consumers’ preference and substitutable possibility of product supply. In defining relevant geographic market, the main consideration involves transportation cost and product characteristics, product price, consumers’ preference and barriers to market access. On the occasion of forthcoming enforcement of the Antimonopoly Law of China, the enforcement authorities should draw up a specific rule of the definition of relevant markets. Wang Xianlin got his Ph.D from Law School of Renmin University of China (2001) and is a Fulbright visiting scholar at Law School of George Washington University (2007–2008). Prof. Wang is a director of Economic Law Institute and a doctoral tutor in Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Law. He was once a member of the advisory committee of antimonopoly legislation of the Legal Affairs Office of the State Council of P.R.C. and is a standing director of the Economic Law Academy affiliated with China Law Society. His research focuses on competition law and intellectual property law. He has ten books published individually or cooperatively, including the monograph, such as the Intellectual Property and Antimonopoly Law—Studies on antimonopoly issues of abuse of intellectual property rights and WTO competition policy and Chinese antimonopoly legislation and abuse of intellectual property rights and its regulation. Moreover, he has released over 100 papers in academic journals. In recent years, his research is focused on China’s antimonopoly legislation and the abuse of IPRs of multinational companies in China.     

US 11th Circuit rules that a mark must be likely to be seen to cause confusion

The 11th Circuit upheld the District Court's ruling that therewas no likelihood of confusion when a company's trade name wasimproperly used on component parts in a water-meter readingsystem, manufactured and sold by other companies. The 11th Circuitfound that the plaintiff had not shown that it was likely thatrelevant consumers would ever see its trade name used on componentparts within the larger meter system. Where relevant consumerswere not likely to encounter the use of the plaintiff's tradename, there could be no likelihood of confusion.     

Competitive Liberalization,Competitive Imperialism,and Intellectual Property

Aggressive pursuit of free trade agreements (FTAs) and customs unions (CUs) by major and minor trading powers alike challenges the conventional wisdom in favor of such pursuit – competitive liberalization. An equally plausible explanation for an active bilateral and regional trade agreement policy, one which effectively de-emphasizes multilateralism, may be competitive imperialism. The protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights is one area in which new provisions, going beyond multilateral rules, are being negotiated and written into FTAs and CUs. Such provisions may yield insights into which characterization of bilateralism and regionalism – competitive liberalization or competitive imperialism – is more apt. Rice Distinguished Professor, The University of Kansas, School of Law, Green Hall, 1535 West 15th Street, Lawrence, KS 66045-7577, USA. Tel. +1-785-8649224. Fax. +1-785-8645054. www.law.ku.edu. J.D., Harvard (1989); M.Sc., Oxford (1986); M.Sc., London School of Economics (1985); A.B., Duke (1984). Marshall Scholar (1984-86). Member, Council on Foreign Relations, Royal Society for Asian Affairs, and Fellowship of Catholic Scholars. Author, Modern GATT Law (Sweet & Maxwell 2005), International Trade Law: Theory and Practice (2nd ed. 2000, 3rd ed. forthcoming 2007-08), and Trade, Development, and Social Justice (Carolina Academic Press 2003). I am thankful to my Research Assistant, Mr. David R. Jackson (B.A., George Mason University, 1992; J.D. Class of 2007, University of Kansas), for his indispensable help on this work. I also am grateful to Dr. Mohammed El Said, University of Central Lancashire (UCLAN), for his consistent support and friendship, and for what he has taught and continues to teach me about international trade and intellectual property.     

Spanish court rules in 'Accessorize' trade marks case

The Barcelona Court of First Instance No. 1 found in favourof the claimants, owners of the famous registered trade mark‘Accessorize’ in their action for trade mark infringement,trade mark cancellation, unfair competition, and damages inrespect of the use by the defendants of the Accessori, Mr Accessoriand Accessori trade marks.     

商号权转让的法律困境及对策

商号又称企业名称.由于我国商号立法的滞后,商号在转让过程中遇到了一系列困境:如理论上的矛盾,转让方式不明确.没有规定营业终止时的商号权转让问题等,因此,我国应统一商号的使甩,建立知识产权属性的商号权保护法律制度,建立字号权制度,引入"营业"一词,明确规定营业终止时的字号权实现制度.