反向假冒商标行为之刑法思考

反向假冒商标问题近年来成为知识产权刑法保护中的热点问题,对其是否应当入罪争议较大。可从反向假冒商标行为的典型案例出发,对这一问题进行思考。考察反向假冒商标行为的概念、特征和国外的立法例,可将反向假冒行为进行分类。对反向假冒商标的社会危害性的厘定问题,应从企业、消费者和市场秩序三个角度出发进行分析。部分学者将反向假冒商标入罪的观点既不符合犯罪行为本身应当具有社会危害性的要求,也不符合刑法的谦抑性价值目标。     

试论我国禁止仿冒原则

禁止仿冒原则源于英美普通法上的欺诈侵权之诉,在英美商标法和反不正当竞争法的发展史上占有重要地位。保护商业标识中的财产利益和消费者不受混淆的公共利益是禁止仿冒原则的正当性基础。禁止仿冒原则的保护范围在司法上不断扩大,已涵盖商业外观保护,但应止于人格特征的盗用。禁止仿冒原则不要求行为人的主观故意,财产利益的商业标识和混淆可能性是仿冒行为成立两大要件。     

对假冒专利罪的澄清

《专利法》对假冒他人专利行为与侵犯专利实施权的行为作了严格区分 ,然而有关假冒专利罪的刑法学通说割裂了《刑法》与《专利法》之间的联系 ,混淆了假冒他人专利行为与侵犯专利实施权的行为的界线 ,从而得出了错误的结论。对假冒专利罪应当采用系统解释方法 ,根据假冒他人专利行为在《专利法》中的固有含义予以解释。     

普通法与中国法关于仿冒制度的比较初探

在普通法国家,仿冒是一种可诉的侵权行为,其理论核心和目的是保护诚信经营者的商誉。在中国法中,规制仿冒行为主要体现于《反不正当竞争法》,通过制定市场活动准则保护公共利益。通过对这两种法律体系在立法各方面的异同及其各自发展历程的比较,得出二者均共同致力于在经济市场中有效地实现公平和正义,揭示不同的法律体系在世界经济一体化进程中的统一趋势。     

再论假冒专利罪

引 言我国《专利法》对专利侵权行为——未经专利权人许可实施其专利的侵权行为、假冒他人专利行为以及冒充专利行为作了严格区分。由于不少专利涉及复杂的技术背景,并且专利的权利范围具有一定程度的不确定性,为了保证办案质量,最高人民法院对专利侵权案件的管辖作了严格限制。根据最高人民法院的司法解释,专利侵权的一审案件由省会城市所     

论商标功能的实现途径与反向假冒的危害

商标是商品的标记,集来源识别、质量保证、市场开拓、形象塑造、商誉积累诸功能于一体。商标赖商品而存在,商品假商标以流通,商标功能的价值化凸显使商标超越了纯粹的标记性符号而成为具有独立价值的财产形态。具有战略眼光的经营者不仅重视现实的经营利益,更关注潜在的竞争优势,因此驰名商标的培育便理所当然地成为其经营战略的重要内容。反向假冒行为蛮横地割断了商品与商标的联系,盗用了他人商品的信誉,阻碍了他人驰名商标战略的实施,损害了消费者的权益,背离了诚实信用的商业道德准则,理应被商标法禁止。     

Social rights,child rights,discrimination and devolution: untangling the web

Abstract

This article examines judicial reviews of two areas of social security policy and practice in the UK – the household benefit cap and the restriction of bereavement benefits to bereaved spouses and civil partners. While each case ostensibly concerned discrimination against claimants, in practice much of the legal argument centred on the impact on claimants’ children. The judiciary is revealed to be deeply divided on the lawfulness of the acknowledged discrimination. The article considers what lessons can be drawn about the relative weight that ought to be afforded to claimants’ property rights, the best interests of affected children, anti-discrimination provisions and the state’s stated policy imperatives of cost control and administrative convenience. Insights are also sought into whether devolutionary differences can be identified between the approaches of courts in London and Belfast.     

HIV,AIDS and human rights

Solicitor, Lecturer in Law. This research has been undertaken with the support of the University of Sussex, Arts Area Research Fund. Special thanks to Neil Duxbury, Zdenek Kavan, Professor Arthur S. Leonard, William B. Rubenstein, Tom Stoddard and the staff of the Aids Discrimination Unit of the New York City Human Rights Commission especially Catherine Franke.     

HIV,prisons and prisoners' rights

Senior Project Officer, HIV/AIDS and Drug Misusing Offenders Project, at the Standing Conference on Drug Abuse.     

Deregulation,property rights,and legal system

During regulation the regulator carries out an intermediary role between shareholders and managers, consequently affecting property rights and the agency relation between the two. Deregulation implies that this intermediary role ceases to exist. This article analyses how government deregulation changes property rights, differentiating between firms of network and non-network structures. Changes in property rights affect the agency relation between shareholders and managers, increasing information asymmetry and agency costs. I argue that the way to reduce agency costs depend to a great extent on the country’s legal system classified as of common or civil law tradition.

Of form and format

At a conference of Russian media lawyers and programme producersin Moscow this June, considerable attention was devoted to thelegal status of television and radio programme formats. Partof the cause of this attention was the apparent ambivalenceof the law: if you want to adapt a format that has been developedby someone else, the developer will assert its ownership ofthe format right and threaten     

Human rights and trade mark rights

Legal context. For some time the UK Trade Marks Registry hasrefused to register trade marks which consists of the name ofa well-known individual. This article examines whether the practiceis permissible, not in the terms of intellectual property lawbut whether it is in contravention of the applicant's humanrights. Key points. Looking at the application of the Human Rights Actin the United Kingdom, the article asks how it could apply toan intellectual property case, concluding that the Trade MarkRegistry is clearly a ‘public authority’ and thatthere are a number of ways in which current practice in respectof well-known individuals could be said to infringe their humanrights. Practical significance. It remains to be seen what the Registry'sresponse will be to such arguments and whether it might in thefuture be possible to obtain protection for the name of a celebrity.