从IPAD商标确权案看知识产权案件的识别  

Identification of IPR Disputes from the Perspective of IPAD Trademark Case

作　　者：肖永平[1] 谢湘辉[2] 

机构地区：[1]武汉大学法学院 [2]武汉大学国际法研究所

出　　处：《武汉大学学报（哲学社会科学版）》2013年第6期9-14,共6页Wuhan University Journal：Philosophy & Social Science

基　　金：国家社科基金项目(11WFX001)

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。The IPAD trademark disputes between Apple Inc. and Proview Co. are not only the procedural issues on the deci- sion of jurisdiction, but also the substantial issues on the verification of agency by Estoppel. Those two issues are interac- tive. The identification of cause of civil action of IPR disputes is subjected to the nature of civil action under dispute. In ac- cordance with the rule of classification of cause and result of real right alteration, the dispute related to the cause of real right alteration is categorized as the contract issue and subsequently identified as the contractual case, as well the dispute re- lated to the result of real right alteration is categorized as the ownership issue and subsequently identified as the ownership case. The cause of IPR disputes, which is viewed the quasi--property right, is also applied with the same rule. The estab- lishment of agency by Estoppel in the disputes on trademark transfer agreement is determined on two factors, apparent right of agency by Estoppel and bona fide, however Apple Inc. could not demonstrate those two factors in IPAD case.

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 

分 类 号：D923.4[政治法律—民商法学]