【作者】 徐静；

【导师】 魏纪林；

【作者基本信息】 武汉理工大学 ， 经济法， 2005， 硕士

【摘要】 平行进口又称灰色市场,具体到商标平行进口是指一国进口商在某商标权已受本国法律保护的情况下,未经本国商标所有人或商标使用权人许可,将从国外购得的相同商标商品输入本国的行为。它是涉及到知识产权和国际贸易领域的一个复杂课题。 国际贸易中商品差价的存在和经济利润的驱动必然导致了商标产品平行进口。随着经济全球化的发展,因平行进口而引起的争议和诉讼大量出现,美国、欧盟等都纷纷采取对策应对平行进口商品。随着中国市场经济体制的完善,尤其是加入WTO后,平行进口纠纷也必将增多。这使得我们不得不对商标平行进口这一问题日益关注。 对于这一问题,理论界的争论主要是围绕商标权人的权利穷竭原则和商标权的地域性原则来展开的。平行进口与知识产权保护之间的冲突在理论上主要体现为知识产权的权利穷竭原则和地域性原则的冲突。 权利穷竭原则是支持平行进口的理论基础。权利穷竭原则是指经知识产权人或其授权的人许可而生产的知识产权产品,在第一次投放市场后,权利人即丧失了对它的控制权,其权利被认为用尽,不管该商品以后再怎样分销、转卖均不构成侵权。权利穷竭原则是为了平衡知识权人专有权所产生的负面效应而设置的,其主旨是对知识产权人的权利加以必要的限制,以免产生过度垄断,阻碍产品的自由流通。地域性原则是反对平行进口的理论支柱。地域性原则是指不同国家对一项知识产权提供保护时,在该国知识产权受保护的程度以及为保护权利人所提供的司法救济方式完全取决于提供保护的国家的法律。地域性原则和权利穷竭原则至今仍是知识产权法的两个并行的重要原则,也是平行进口问题上相互对立的两大基础理论。 关于商标平行进口方面的立法及司法实践,各国也不尽相同。而且各国对待商标平行进口的态度也都随着各自历史的发展而不断变化。在世界公约层面上,也尚无对商标商品平行进口问题的统一规制。 对于商标平行进口这个国际贸易和知识产权国际保护中的重要问题,我国现行法律并无明确规定。我们必须掌握世界各国及国际公约有关商标平行进口的规定及其发展动态,以便及时调整自己的策略,以切实保护自己的利益。 本文在对商标平行进口进行界定的基础上,从各个角度论述该现象的形成动因及相关基础理论,并通过对当代各国司法实践的比较分析,提出我国的法律对策。更多还原

【Abstract】 Parallel import called gray market means genuine products brought into a country without the authorization of the trademark owner. It is a complicated topic relating to the intellectual property rights and international trade.In the international trade, the existence of commodity price difference and the economical profit actuation have inevitably caused the trademark product parallel import. Along with the economical globalization development, increasing number of involved disputes and the lawsuits have appeared, so many countries such as US, European Union, Japan all have managed to resolve the problem. Along with the consummation of our market economy system and entering WTO, such disputes will also certainly increase. This causes us to pay more attention to the question.Regarding this question, the theory mainly focuses in the argumentation between the principle of exhaustion of rights and principle of regional rights. The conflict between the parallel import and the protection of intellectual property rights in theoretically mainly manifests for the conflict of the two principles.Exhaustion of rights is the support rationale of parallel import. Under the principle of exhaustion of rights, intellectual property rights holders lose control over their own brands after the goods have been put on the market somewhere else by the trademark owner or with its consent. Its primary intention is to reduce the negative effects produced by the exclusive rights of the intellectual property rights holders, so as to ultimately avoid excessive monopolization and to boost free commodity circulation. The principle of territoriality is to object to the parallel import. The principle means when providing the protection to intellectual property rights, the protection degree of the intellectual property rights and the judicial relief way provided for the intellectual property rights holders completely lie on the certain country’s law. So far the two principles are the important parallel theories in the law of intellectual property right as well as the opposite basic theories about the question of parallel import.Practice about the parallel legislation and administration of justice varies in various countries. And their attitudes and treatments to parallel imports changeconstantly with the development of each history. Even in the conventions there are not unified standards about this question yet.There are not specific regulations about the parallel import in the actual codes of our country. We must grasp the trends about the regulation of this question in the countries all over the world and international conventions, in order to adjust our own tactics in time, ultimately to protect our own interests.This paper describes the forming reason of this phenomenon and relevant basic theories after defines the question, and through the comparative analysis about other countries’ contemporary administration, finally proposes the legal countermeasure of our country.更多还原