商标侵权惩罚性赔偿的制度构建

我国《商标法》2013年第三次修改时首次在知识产权领域引入惩罚性赔偿责任。实证分析表明,惩罚性赔偿在商标侵权诉讼中适用甚少且适用不规范的问题突出,未能充分发挥其遏制侵权行为的预期作用。究其原因,主要存在适用条件不明确、赔偿基数难确定、程序保障不充分等问题。为规范适用,充分发挥惩罚性赔偿的作用,需要从以下四个方面完善其制度构建:一是强化程序保障;二是明确适用条件;三是完善赔偿数额的计算;四是厘清惩罚性赔偿与法定赔偿的关系。     

论我国征收立法中公共利益的规范模式

“公共利益”是启动征收程序的前提性要件。在公共利益的规范模式上,我国物权法应采折衷主义立法例,不应明文禁止商业征收,但应明文规定公共利益的决策和形成机制,并建立相应的行政和司法救济途经。     

工人阶级仍然是当代我国最先进的阶级

要回答中国工人阶级是否先进的问题,必须首先掌握先进性的衡量标准,并用其对中国工人阶级进行具体分析。     

Fundamental principles of the international protection system of intellectual property rights and the applications

Legal principle, which underlies the value of the legal system, is supposed to be the origin and basis of concrete legal rules. It has also resulted from abstracting and summarizing the value and spirit of these legal rules. In light of the universality and hierarchy of legal principle, the principles of the international protection system of intellectual property rights (IPR) can be divided into the following two types: one is the fundamental principles applied to the what, why and how a legal system shall be constructed, such as principles of sovereignty, equality and mutual benefit, joint development, and international cooperation, which also can be expressed as the principles of sovereignty, international coordination and cooperation, fairness and justice. The other type includes those existing in the legal system and capable of being applied directly, such as the principle of national treatment, principle of minimum standard, principle of independence (for industrial property right), principle of independent protection (for copyright), principle of compulsory implementing patent (for patent right) and doctrine of priority (for industrial property right), etc. In my opinion, the principles of the international protection system of IPR shall follow the latter model, indicating that they shall be provided and written in the international conventions on the grounds that they can be applied directly, and that they can be universally applied to the whole international protection system of IPR instead of exclusive application to one certain system. Hereupon, the author believes that principles concerning the international protection system of IPR should include the principles of national treatment, minimum protection standard and public interest.     

THE EVOLUTION—OR END—OF MARRIAGE?: REFLECTIONS ON THE IMPASSE OVER SAME‐SEX MARRIAGE

The debate over legalizing same‐sex marriage implicates the question of whether doing so would signal the end—or destruction—of the institution of marriage. The appeal to preserving a millennia‐old tradition of marriage against change fails to reckon with the evolution that has already occurred. Invocations of gender complementarity between parents as essential to child well‐being also conflict with growing recognition in family law that children's best interests can be served by gay and lesbian parents. Canada's path toward same‐sex marriage suggests that impasse need not be inevitable. In the United States, this impasse stems in part from the problem that same‐sex marriage serves as an emblem of everything that threatens marriage.     

广东省群体性事件多发的态势与防范对策

广东省群体性事件的高发是广东省处于社会转型时期的必然产物。社会发展的断裂、利益表达机制的缺乏、群体利益冲突的增加是群体性事件多发的根本原因。建立健全社会保障机制、利益表达机制、社会危机应对机制、全面的社会治安防控机制是解决群体性事件的有效措施。     

关于社会转型时期集体主义原则的思考

集体主义原则是我党一贯坚持的一项基本原则 ,它在革命和建设时期曾发挥了巨大的积极作用。但在当前社会结构的转型时期 ,它却失去了应有的号召力 ,许多人对理解和践行集体主义原则产生了严重偏差。本文通过分析 ,找出了导致这种偏差的原因及其严重危害 ,并试图重新解释和界定个人、集体、个人利益和集体利益及其相互关系 ,进而从整体上把握集体主义原则的实质内容。本文还结合当前的国情 ,并汲取以往宣传和践行集体主义原则的经验教训 ,提出了今后努力的方向和集体主义原则的发展去向。     

民事责任的两种规范模式

民事权利义务规范的设定有行为本位和资源本位两种模式,民事责任规范作为民事规范的一种也不例外。传统的学说将民事责任界定为义务的违反显然是行为本位视角的产物,实际上民事责任的产生与当事人的义务违反没有必然联系。民事责任是为保护民事权利或者法益,基于特定的法律事实而对一定的民事主体产生的不利后果。根据民事规范的设定模式,可以把民事责任规范设定模式分为“义务(行为)——责任”模式和“权利(资源)——责任”模式两种,其中前者是行为本位视角的产物,后者是资源本位视角的产物。     

试论行政法利益平衡功能

利益可以分为国家利益、社会利益和个人利益。国家利益与社会利益可以统称为公共利益。个人利益与公共利益之间存在冲突的现实性。行政法律制度的一个重要功能就在于协调国家、社会、个人三者之间的利益于一个良性的法律和社会秩序之中。     

PUNCHING THE PARENTING TIME CLOCK: THE APPROXIMATION RULE,SOCIAL SCIENCE,AND THE BASEBALL BAT KIDS*

The American Law Institute proposes that in contested physical custody cases the court should allocate to each parent a proportion of the child's time that approximates the proportion of time each has spent performing caretaking functions in the past. Examined through the lens of child development research, the approximation rule is unlikely to improve on the best interests standard. It is difficult to apply; is perceived as gender‐biased; creates a new focus for disputing parents; renders a poor estimate of parents’ contributions to their child's best interests; overlooks parents’ intangible, yet significant, contributions to their child's well‐being; and miscalculates the essence of how a child experiences the family. A preferable alternative is a better defined, contemporary best interests standard that accommodates new knowledge and reforms that encourage nonadversarial, individualized resolutions of custody disputes.