检索规则说明:AND代表“并且”;OR代表“或者”;NOT代表“不包含”;(注意必须大写,运算符两边需空一格)
检 索 范 例 :范例一: (K=图书馆学 OR K=情报学) AND A=范并思 范例二:J=计算机应用与软件 AND (U=C++ OR U=Basic) NOT M=Visual
作 者:曾亦栋
机构地区:[1]汕头海关
出 处:《海关与经贸研究》2015年第3期81-88,共8页Journal of Customs and Trade
摘 要:涉外定牌加工产业一直是我国外贸经济发展的重要组成部分,但对于涉外定牌加工产品是否构成侵犯商标权的问题在学界、司法界及执法实践中一直未有定论。在海关实施知识产权保护历程中,曾出现一些引起社会广泛争议的典型案例,甚至一度影响定牌加工企业接受国外订单。2013年《商标法》进行第三次修正并于2014年5月正式施行,距今已有一年时间,借此之机再次评析相关案例并探讨海关应如何处理涉外定牌加工产品侵权问题具有重要现实意义。Original Equipment Manufacture( OEM) is a dominant part of foreign trade and economic growth in our country. However,the answer to the question whether OEM constitutes the infringement of the trademark still remains up in the air in academic and judicial circle as well as in law enforcement. In the course of the Customs protection for IPR,there are some typical cases which have caused widespread controversy and even affected the business of OEM enterprises to accept foreign orders. Trademark Law was amended for the third time in 2013 and was officially implemented in May2014. One year has gone by so far. It is of great practical significance to review and re- analyze related cases and to probe into how Customs should deal with infringement issues in OEM.
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在链接到云南高校图书馆文献保障联盟下载...
云南高校图书馆联盟文献共享服务平台 版权所有©
您的IP:216.73.216.145