过境货物相关知识产权执法研究

【作者】 孙益武；

【导师】 张乃根；

【作者基本信息】 复旦大学 ， 国际法， 2013， 博士

【摘要】 随着国际贸易的发展和知识产权边境执法的强化,过境货物相关知识产权执法作为一个新问题逐渐突显；但是,就过境贸易而言,有着较长的条约协调历史和丰富的执法实践。本文旨在对过境货物相关知识产权执法问题进行理论探讨、条约梳理和实践归纳,并为建立和完善中国的过境货物相关知识产权执法规则提供建议。全文除导论和结论,包括四章。第一章探讨过境货物相关知识产权执法的若干理论问题。过境货物相关知识产权执法问题有两条发展主线,一是过境自由原则的国际协调和发展；二是知识产权国际协调的发展。过境自由原则的发展逻辑是为促进自由贸易而给予有限的过境自由,避免因过境障碍而影响正常合法的国际贸易,但过境国出于贸易安全的考虑不会轻易取消过境知识产权执法。知识产权的边境执法作为—国或地区知识产权执法体系中重要的一环,在知识产权国际条约体系中得到重视并不断加强；边境执法保护的对象和客体不断扩张,以至于扩展到过境货物的知识产权执法。这两条发展主线原本是平行的,即,过境自由需要国际贸易的全球性统一规则,知识产权执法则尊重国家主权；在不断加强知识产权执法的要求下,国际贸易的全球性和知识产权的地域性必然导致知识产权边境执法和贸易便利化原则有所冲突。如何协调这一冲突涉及多层次多方面的利益平衡。在宏观上,过境货物相关知识产权执法涉及货物进口国、出口国和过境国的国家利益,在微观上则涉及进出口厂商、知识产权权利人与消费者的不同利益。出口国和进口国原则上支持对过境货物进行知识产权执法,但对过境执法所造成的干扰不无担忧。过境国在确保本国安全的前提下,关注于提高通关效率和中转服务能力以吸引更多货物过境。过境货物相关私有主体希望减少和简化过境环节中的各种执法检查,充分享受过境自由和贸易便利。知识产权边境执法拓展到过境环节的重要推动力来自于政府间国际组织、非政府组织和行业协会等,而始作俑者是拥有较强知识产权创造和保护能力、经济动机的公司,尤其是跨国公司。反假冒贸易是知识产权保护与国际贸易协调相连接的重要原因,并促成知识产权议题从世界知识产权组织体系向世界贸易组织体系的转化,而《反假冒贸易协定》等最新协调成果也表明反假冒贸易在未来依然是知识产权过境执法的强化重点。知识产品的传播不应该局限于某一国家或地区,而是增进全球不同国家和地区的福利,这需要保证国际贸易的自由和便利。在遵守贸易便利原则的前提下,合理的过境货物知识产权执法规则有利于保证合法贸易不因知识产权边境执法而受影响。第二章梳理过境货物相关知识产权执法的条约义务。过境自由源于欧洲各国的转关运输自由。《自由过境公约和规约》、《关税与贸易总协定》、《内陆国家过境贸易公约》和《协调统一货物边境管制国际公约》等均规定过境货物的自由通过制度,但是,过境自由的行使并不是一种绝对的权利,还需要得到过境国的许可和协助；上述条约都没有否定过境国有权基于知识产权执法的理由而限制或禁止货物过境。虽然世界知识产权组织管辖的公约体系侧重于知识产权的保护,《保护工业产权巴黎公约》、《保护文学艺术作品伯尔尼公约》和《制止商品产地虚假或欺骗性标记马德里协定》都有知识产权执法的相关规定,但世界知识产权组织没有支持对过境货物进行知识产权执法的明确规则。《与贸易相关知识产权协定》将出口货物的知识产权执法作为选择性条约义务,鼓励成员方在国内法实施；对于过境货物则在脚注中声明成员方无实施义务。《反假冒贸易协定》作为全面提升知识产权执法标准的新条约,在边境执法规则方面扩张了保护客体、增加了执法环节,强化了海关的依职权执法。在知识产权边境执法的区域协调成果中,欧盟知识产权边境执法条例统一了欧盟对待非共同体货物进出口及过境的知识产权执法程序。《北美自由贸易区协定》中边境措施并没有对出口货物和过境货物的强制执法作出规定。亚太区域经济一体化程度较低,知识产权协调倾向于采取“指南”和“倡议”等软法性文件来引导相关国家的国内实践,但效果有限。而《美韩自由贸易协定》已将知识产权边境执法对象扩展至进口、出口、过境和自由贸易区中的货物,超出《与贸易相关知识产权协定》和《反假冒贸易协定》中执法规则的水平。第三章分析过境货物相关知识产权执法实践问题。由于国际条约对过境货物知识产权执法规则并没有明确的规定,日本、韩国、新加坡、巴布亚新几内亚、美国等国以及香港和欧盟等单独关税区采取不同的立法规则来确立海关有权对过境货物进行知识产权执法,但执法实践的效果迥异。欧盟地区的荷兰、德国、法国、英国、比利时等国发生了许多过境货物知识产权执法的相关案例,这些案例对于澄清欧盟知识产权边境执法条例中过境货物的认定、侵权的判断标准等都有重要意义。欧盟的积极实践是《反假冒贸易协定》缔约方所希望的发展方向,它将为该协定边境措施的实践提供丰富的法理支持；同时,新修订的条例提案在执法保护客体等方面与《反假冒贸易协定》遥相呼应,甚至超越了该协定的边境执法规则。欧盟最新通过的《过境货物知识产权执法指南》肯定了适用现行条例第一条规定的所有海关业务,并明确了货物侵犯知识产权的判定依据是欧盟法和成员国法,过境货物是否侵权由主管机关根据相关知识产权实体法和个案情况决定。如果非共同体货物在进入欧盟流通之前(例如,处于中止程序之中),甚至在到达欧盟之前,就有销售、许诺销售和广告宣传等针对欧盟市场的商业行为,或从文档或书信上能够明显看出货物意欲进入欧盟市场,则该货物因可能进入欧盟市场而被认定为侵犯知识产权。这彻底否定了荷兰法院认定的过境国可以根据欧盟条例使用“生产假设理论”来判定过境侵权。然而,欧洲法院在过境英国假冒诺基亚手机案和过境比利时假冒飞利浦剃须刀案的并案审理中认定,欧盟条例是执法规则的程序性规定,它不包含界定过境货物侵犯知识产权的实体性规则。除欧盟及其成员国的相关实践,《反假冒贸易协定》签署国正在考虑该协定在本国履行的立法和执法问题。相对其他过境货物,对过境仿制药的边境执法涉及敏感的公共健康及人权问题,本章亦设专节加以分析。第四章研究中国应对《反假冒贸易协定》和过境货物知识产权执法规则的建议。中国《知识产权海关保护条例》已经完全符合《与贸易相关知识产权协定》关于边境措施的义务要求,在知识产权边境执法的保护模式、保护客体和保护环节方面都超越了该协定的最低标准,执法的成绩也非常显著。实践中,中国没有要为加入《反假冒贸易协定》而修改《知识产权海关保护条例》的外在压力和紧迫性。实际上,知识产权边境执法的全面覆盖是大势所趋,世界贸易组织成员方应当将过境货物和海关特殊监管区货物都纳入边境执法的范围。虽然,《反假冒贸易协定》的发展并不顺利,但该协定缔约方不会放弃推动《反假冒贸易协定》生效的努力。同时,其它知识产权国际协调成果也积极将高于《与贸易相关知识产权协定》和《反假冒贸易协定》中最低标准的执法规则上升为条约义务,例如谈判中的《跨太平洋伙伴协定》等。中国要做好制定和实施知识产权过境执法规则的准备,在知识产权侵权认定标准保持不变的前提下,明确海关对过境货物和海关特殊监管区货物的执法权。更多还原

【Abstract】 With the development of international trade and the strengthening of IPR border enforcement, the new issue of goods-in-transit related to IPR enforcement highlights gradually. However, with respect to transit trade, it has a long history on treaty harmonization and rich practice of law enforcement. This dissertation focuses on the theoretical discussion, obligations of treaties and cases in this regard as well as suggestions on Chinese IPR enforcement on goods-in-transit. In addition to an introduction and a conclusion, this dissertation includes four chapters.Chapter One examines several theoretical issues of the IPR enforcement on goods-in-transit. There are two main lines used to trace the evolution of issues concerning IPR enforcement on goods-in-transit, which comprises the international harmonization and development of the transit freedom, as well as the international legislations on IPR protection.In order to promote free trade, the logical evolution of the principle of transit freedom is to confer limited freedom of transit, ensuring that measures and procedures to enforce IPR on goods-in-transit will not become barriers to legitimate trade. For trade security reasons, transit country does not easily cancel the IPR enforcement on goods-in-transit. IPR border enforcement system is an indispensable part of the domestic IPR enforcement system which has been strengthened on the international treaties, the subject matter and the objects of the enforcement have been broadened, and extended to cover the goods-in-transit. In the past, the transit freedom and international trade were regarded as parallel terms, namely, transit freedom emphasizes the universality of international trade and uniform rules, while IPR protection should respect the sovereignty of the country. With the background of the stricter IPR border enforcement, the universality of the international trade and the territoriality of the IPR lead to conflicts between IPR border enforcement and trade facilitation principles inevitably. The harmonization of the conflicts relate to the balance of interests in a wide range and at multiple levels. IPR enforcement on goods-in-transit involves the trade interests of the importing, exporting and transit country at the macroscopic level, and involves the economic interest of the trade dealers, IPR right holders and consumers at the microscopic level. In general, importing and exporting countries are in favor of the transit country’s measures to cope with infringing goods-in-transit, and also have concern about the disturbances caused by the transit country’s enforcement action. Under the premise of ensuring national security, transit countries focus on improving the efficiency of customs clearance and transit service capabilities to attract more transit cargo. For the private partners related to the goods-in-transit, their most appeal is to reduce and simplify the various inspections during the transit, and enjoy the transit freedom and trade facilitation at utmost. The extension of IPR border enforcement to protect the goods-in-transit is driven by international organizations, non-governmental organization and industrial associations, corporations especially multi-national corporations with more capability and economic motivation to create and maintain the IPR. As a link between the international trade and IPR protection, anti-counterfeit promotes the shift of IPR topic from the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) to the World Trade Organization (WTO), and the latest accomplishments of international harmonization proves that anti-counterfeit will be the main object of the international trade and IPR border enforcement in the future. The spread of intellectual commodities should not be limited in a particular country or region, but should enhance the welfare in different regions and countries, which requires the freedom and facilitation of international trade. Under the premise of abidance of principle of facilitation of international trade, reasonable regimes of IPR enforcement rules on goods-in-transit is conducive to ensure the legitimate international trade unaffected by IPR border enforcement.Chapter Two discusses the treaty obligations of IPR enforcement on goods-in-transit. Transit freedom derived from the freedom of the Customs transit in European countries. All the following treaties stipulate that there exists the freedom of the passage of the goods-in-transit, e.g. Convention and Statute on Freedom of Transit (1921), The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT,1947), United Nations Convention on Transit Trade of Land-Locked States (1965), International Convention on the Harmonization of Frontier Control of Goods (1982). However, the right of transit is not an absolute right, whose fulfillment requires the approval and assistance of transit countries. Those above-mentioned treaties do not deny the power of transit countries to restrict the goods-in-transit based on IPR protection. Although the treaties administered by the WIPO mainly focus on the IPR protection, some of which contain IPR enforcement provisions, such as Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property, the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works and the Madrid Agreement for the Repression of False or Deceptive Indications of Source on Goods, there are no explicit agreement or provisions on IPR enforcement of goods-in-transit in WIPO regime. Border measure on exportation is provided as an optional obligation under TRIPS agreement that member states are only encouraged to adopt such measures in its domestic legislation.As for goods-in-transit, TRIPS agreement declares that member states do not bear any treaty obligation in its footnote. According to the ACTA, as a new and comprehensive treaty to enhance the IPR enforcement, the subject matter of the IPR border enforcement has been broadened, the coverage and scope have been expanded, and the ex officio action has been strengthened by the customs authority. Among all the regional harmonization results, European Union Border Measures Regulations (BMR) unifies IPR enforcement procedures on importation, exportation and transit of the non-community goods in European countries. The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) does not provide mandatory measures of border enforcement with regard to exporting and in-transit goods.Due to the lower degree of the economic integration in the Asia-Pacific region, IPR harmonization tends to adopt soft law (guidelines and initiatives) to guide the domestic practice of the relevant countries, but the effect is limited.United States-Korea Free Trade Agreement (KORUS FTA) stipulates that, each party shall provide that its competent authorities may initiate border measures ex officio with respect to imported, exported, or in-transit merchandise, or merchandise in free trade zones. However, those obligations in the bilateral FTA have beyond the level established by the TRIPS and ACTA enforcement rules.Chapter Three analyzes the practical issues of IPR enforcement on goods-in-transit. Since the IPR border enforcement rules on in-transit goods has not been defined clearly in the international treaties, those independent customs territory has adopted different legislation rules which empower the customs authority to enforce IPR protection on in-transit goods, such as Japan, Korea, Singapore, Papua New Guinea, Hong Kong and European Union, the effects of the enforcement are variant as well.Nevertheless, there are many cases about IPR enforcement on in-transit goods in the Netherlands, Germany, France, United Kingdom and Belgium in European Union, those which are significant to clarify the identification of the in-transit goods and the criteria of the infringement determination in the European Union BMR. The active enforcement practices in the European Union are the development direction satisfied by the ACTA members, and it will provide a wealth of jurisprudential support to the implementation of the ACTA border measures. Meantime, the European Union new revised regulation proposal echoed the ACTA in terms of the coverage and scope of the border measures, and went beyond the level established in the ACTA. The latest Guidelines (Guidelines of the European Commission concerning the enforcement by European Union customs authorities of intellectual property rights with regard to goods, in particular medicines, in transit through the European Union) confirm that, European Union customs authorities have the power to control the goods in all customs procedures according to the first article of the existing regulation (EC Regualtion1383/2003). The Guidelines also follow that only infringements of intellectual property rights as conferred by the European Union law and the national law of the Member States are covered by those Regulations. The competent authorities have the power to determine that whether goods-in-transit constitute infringing goods or not, with a decision based on the circumstances of the case and in accordance with the relevant substantive intellectual property laws. Therefore, the IPR infringement may be established when, during their presence within the customs territory of the European Union without being released to free circulation (for instance, placed under a suspensive procedure), or even before their arrival in that territory, the non-community goods are the subject of a commercial act directed at the European Union market, such as a sale, offer for sale or advertising, or where it is apparent from documents (e.g. instruction manuals) or correspondence concerning the goods that their diversion to the European Union market is envisaged. These guidelines completely negate the "manufacture fiction" theory, which is derived from the interpretation of the European Union BMR by the Netherlands courts. However, in the Nokia and Philips cases (Joined Cases C-446/09and C-495/09), European Court of Justice found that, BMR are procedural rules, without any substantive rules to define the infringement of the goods-in-transit. In addition to the practices in the European Union and its member states, the signatories of the ACTA are considering implementing the ACTA with proper domestic legislation and enforcement strategy. Compared to other goods-in-transit, the border enforcement on generic medicine involves sensitive public health and human rights will be analyzed in a special section.Chapter Four explores suggestions for China to cope with the implementation of the ACTA and IPR enforcement rules on goods-in-transit. The Regulations of the People’s Republic of China for Customs Protection of Intellectual Property Rights has been in full compliance with the obligation established in the TRIPS border measures, the level of the enforcement go beyond than the TRIPS minimum standards in terms of the coverage and scope of the border enforcement, and China Customs won the recognitions and prizes for its outstanding achievement in IPR border enforcement. In practice, there is no pressure and urgency to push China to join the ACTA and to rectify the Regulations of the People’s Republic of China for Customs Protection of Intellectual Property Rights. Actually, the comprehensive coverage of the IPR is the trend on IPR border enforcement, and the scope of the WTO members’IPR border enforcement should include the goods-in-transit and goods in the Customs Supervision Zones. Although there are some obstacles in the way of the implementation of the ACTA, the ACTA members will endeavor to put the ACTA come into effect. At the same time, other international harmonization achievements, including new treaty obligation about the enforcement rules, will go beyond the minimum standards established in the TRIPS agreement and the ACTA, such as negotiating Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement. China should prepare to enact and enforce the IPR enforcement rules on goods-in-transit. Under the premise of maintaining the existing judging standards of the IPR infringement, China should empower the customs to enforce IPR protection on goods-in-transit and goods in the Customs Special Supervision Zones.更多还原