从IPAD商标确权案看知识产权案件的识别

发布时间：2018-02-24 12:07

本文关键词： 案由商标确权纠纷商标转让合同纠纷表见代理权利外观　出处：《武汉大学学报(哲学社会科学版)》2013年06期 　论文类型：期刊论文

【摘要】：苹果公司与深圳唯冠之间关于中国IPAD商标权属之争,不仅涉及到程序法律问题,即本案的案由如何确定和法院管辖权的有无,还涉及实体法律问题,即苹果公司主张的法律依据表见代理是否成立。知识产权案件的案由识别应该由诉争民事法律关系的性质决定。按照物权变动原因和结果相区别的原则,物权变动原因关系,通常为合同关系,产生的纠纷,其案由应识别为合同纠纷;而由物权变动结果导致的权利归属纠纷,其案由应识别为权属纠纷,知识产权作为准物权,其案由的识别同样应适用这一原则。商标转让协议中的表见代理要成立,必须具备表见代理的权利外观和第三人的主观善意,而本案中苹果公司一方不具备上述要件。
[Abstract]:The dispute between Apple and Proview Shenzhen about the ownership of IPAD trademark rights in China involves not only procedural law issues, that is, how to determine the cause of the case and whether the court has jurisdiction, but also substantive legal issues. That is to say, the legal basis advocated by Apple is whether the agency is established or not. The identification of the case of intellectual property should be determined by the nature of the civil legal relationship of litigation and dispute. According to the principle that the reason and result of the alteration of real right are different, the causative relationship of the alteration of real right should be determined. A dispute usually arising from a contractual relationship should be identified as a contractual dispute, while a dispute over the ownership of a right resulting from a change in real right shall be identified as a property right dispute, and intellectual property as a quasi-real right. This principle should also be applied to the identification of the subject of the case. In order to be established, the apparent agency in the trademark assignment agreement must have the right appearance of the agency and the subjective goodwill of the third party, and in this case the Apple side does not have the above elements.
【作者单位】：武汉大学法学院;武汉大学国际法研究所;
【基金】：国家社科基金项目(11WFX001)
【分类号】：D923.4;D920.5

【参考文献】