也谈即发侵权问题  

Imminent Infringement Reexamined

作　　者：李朝应 

机构地区：[1]北京市天驰律师事务所

出　　处：《中国专利与商标》2003年第4期20-27,共8页China Patents & Trademarks

摘　　要：针对董跃先生《即发侵公论探析与存疑》一文,本文提出了一些商榷意见。首先,在语言翻译上,如按董文提出的"infringement"应译成"侵害"而不能译成"侵权",将会导致一个有趣的现象,即在知识产权领域讨论侵权问题时,对应的中文表述就只有"侵害"而没有"侵权"了:因为在英文中,知识产权领域只有"infringement"而没有"tort"。其次,国外广泛采用的源于英美法系的"临时禁令"与我国现有的源自大陆法系的"停止侵害"等有类似的地方,但更有区别。最后,本文逐一分析董文的论述后指出,有关"即发侵权"的论述并非董文分析的问题多多。有鉴于此,并无充分理由要扬"知识产权请求权"而抑"即发侵权"。英美、大陆两种法系的兼容并蓄是世界潮流,厚此薄彼的做法未必妥当。In this article,different views have been presented directed to Dong Yue's article entitled Probing into and Doubts about Imminent Infringement Doctrine.First, according to Dong's article,the word'infringement'should be translated into 'tort',not'infringement',which would result in an interesting phenomenon,namely in any discussion of the issue of infringement in the IP community,the equivalent Chinese term would be'tort'not'infringement'since in English,only 'infringement',not'tort'is used in the IP community.Second,'preliminary injunction'originating from the common law countries and extensively used elsewhere is somewhat similar to,but even more different than'cessation of infringement'originating from the civil law countries and used in China.Finally,it has been pointed out herein after a full analysis of Dong's article that the statement of'imminent infringement'is not so problematic as it is analysed in Dong's article. For this matter,there is no sufficient reason to extensively use the term the'right of claim based on the IP rights',and to depress the use of the term'imminent infringement'.It is a worldwide trend to integrate the common law system with the civil law system,and it is not proper to prefer one to the other.

关 键 词：英美法系 禁令 大隆 精求 一侗 判例法系 董文 停止侵害 

分 类 号：D92[政治法律—法学]