TRIPS协议与我国知识产权法律保护比较研究
|
摘要
TRIPS协议为世贸组织(WTO)成员确定了知识产权保护的基本原则和最低标准，我国在“入世”之后就应遵守TRIPS协议所规定的义务，将与该协议相抵触的规定进行修改，为此有必要研究我国现行知识产权法律制度是否适应TRIPS协议的要求。本文用比较的方法、以立法和司法为侧重点、按TRIPS协议的结构对两者进行对比。通过分析比较得出结论：从实体角度讲，我国许多领域都达到了TRIPS协议的要求(如专利法)，但在有些方面的法规还不完善(如商标法)，中国现在差距大的，主要还是在知识产权实施程序方面，表现为缺乏明确的规定或规定过于原则或操作性不强。对于上述的差距应按TRIPS协议的标准去完善，据此，提出对我国知识产权法律保护的立法建议，以期建立我国完善的知识产权法律体系，并使之与国际接轨。
TRIPS establishes the fundamental principal and the minimum standard of protecting the intellectual property for the numbers of the World Trade Organization (WTO). After entering the WTO, our country must comply with the duties stipulated on TRIPS and amend the provisions, which contravene this agreement. Therefore it's necessary to study whether our current intellectual property law is suited to the requirement of TRIPS. Focusing on legislation and judicature and basing on the structure of TRIPS, this thesis makes a good comparison between the intellectual property law and TRIPS . Through analysis and comparison, the following conclusion can be drawn: from the perspective of substance, our country has come up to the requirement of TRIPS in many fields, such as the Patent Law, however the law in some fields is not too perfect, such as the Trademark Law. Now in China the main disparity focuses on the procedure of enforcing the intellectual property law, which is manifested on the lack of the explicit provisions or on the provision that is too principled to practice. With regard to the disparity mentioned above, we should perfect the intellectual property legal system according to the standard of TRIPS. Based on this point, this thesis puts forward the legislative protection, expecting to establish our country's perfect intellectual property legal system and to make it enter the international system.
TRIPS establishes the fundamental principal and the minimum standard of protecting the intellectual property for the numbers of the World Trade Organization (WTO). After entering the WTO, our country must comply with the duties stipulated on TRIPS and amend the provisions, which contravene this agreement. Therefore it's necessary to study whether our current intellectual property law is suited to the requirement of TRIPS. Focusing on legislation and judicature and basing on the structure of TRIPS, this thesis makes a good comparison between the intellectual property law and TRIPS . Through analysis and comparison, the following conclusion can be drawn: from the perspective of substance, our country has come up to the requirement of TRIPS in many fields, such as the Patent Law, however the law in some fields is not too perfect, such as the Trademark Law. Now in China the main disparity focuses on the procedure of enforcing the intellectual property law, which is manifested on the lack of the explicit provisions or on the provision that is too principled to practice. With regard to the disparity mentioned above, we should perfect the intellectual property legal system according to the standard of TRIPS. Based on this point, this thesis puts forward the legislative protection, expecting to establish our country's perfect intellectual property legal system and to make it enter the international system.
引文
[1]刘家兴主编，《民事法学》，1997年版，法律出版社，第174页。
[2]USTR Announces the Results of special 301 Annual Review,April 30,1999．
[3]同1。
[4]龙永图名誉主编，《世界贸易组织知识读本》，1999版，中国对外经济贸易出版社，第120页。
[5]Seen Kim Newby,The Effectiveness of Special 301 in Creating Long Term Copyright Protection for U.S.Companies Overseas,Syracuse Journal of International Law and commerce spring 1995.
[6]江林编译，《知识产权与乌拉圭回合》，载《国际商务译丛》，1989年版第2期，第63页。
[7]赵维田，《世界组织(WTO)的法律制度》，2000年版，吉林人民出版社，第402页。
[8]胡开忠，《判解研究》，2000年第1期，人民法院出版社，第154页。
[9]郑成思，《关贸总协定与世界贸易组织中的知识产权》，1995年版，北京出版社，第45—49页。
[10]郑成思，《世界贸易组织与贸易有关的知识产权》，1996年版，中国人民大学出版社，第212页。
[11]王玉洁等编著，《WTO法律规则与中国知识产权保护》，2000年版，上海财经大学出版社，第48页。
[12]陈锦川，《TRIPS的执法与我国知识产权司法审判》，《电子知识产权杂志》，2000年，第6期，第63页。
[13]《最高人民法院关于全国部分法院知识产权审判工作座谈会纪要》，1998年7月20日，第8页。
[14]棚濑孝雄，《纠纷的解决与审判制度》，王亚新译，1994年版，中国政法大学出版社，第111页。
[2]USTR Announces the Results of special 301 Annual Review,April 30,1999．
[3]同1。
[4]龙永图名誉主编，《世界贸易组织知识读本》，1999版，中国对外经济贸易出版社，第120页。
[5]Seen Kim Newby,The Effectiveness of Special 301 in Creating Long Term Copyright Protection for U.S.Companies Overseas,Syracuse Journal of International Law and commerce spring 1995.
[6]江林编译，《知识产权与乌拉圭回合》，载《国际商务译丛》，1989年版第2期，第63页。
[7]赵维田，《世界组织(WTO)的法律制度》，2000年版，吉林人民出版社，第402页。
[8]胡开忠，《判解研究》，2000年第1期，人民法院出版社，第154页。
[9]郑成思，《关贸总协定与世界贸易组织中的知识产权》，1995年版，北京出版社，第45—49页。
[10]郑成思，《世界贸易组织与贸易有关的知识产权》，1996年版，中国人民大学出版社，第212页。
[11]王玉洁等编著，《WTO法律规则与中国知识产权保护》，2000年版，上海财经大学出版社，第48页。
[12]陈锦川，《TRIPS的执法与我国知识产权司法审判》，《电子知识产权杂志》，2000年，第6期，第63页。
[13]《最高人民法院关于全国部分法院知识产权审判工作座谈会纪要》，1998年7月20日，第8页。
[14]棚濑孝雄，《纠纷的解决与审判制度》，王亚新译，1994年版，中国政法大学出版社，第111页。