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:张鹏[1,2]
机构地区:[1]中国社会科学院法学研究所 [2]中国社会科学院知识产权中心
出 处:《知识产权》2016年第5期104-115,共12页Intellectual Property
摘 要:日本的商品化权概念,通过几十年的发展,在实践中逐渐定型为从人格权理论出发,为自然人人格要素的财产价值提供保护的制度。但是学说上对该权利性质与构成的认识并未局限于人格权理论,而是以顾客吸引力学说或商业标识法体系为中心尝试建立更为综合性的商品化权理论。面对相同的利益关系,到底是通过立法或是司法创设一个更加广义的商品化权,还是以人格权理论着手定义商品化权概念,成为摆在日本学界与实务界面前的未竟课题。与之相对应,对商品化权的主体、客体、存续期间、权利的转移与继承、侵权的判定与抗辩、权利救济等问题也需要放在日本商品化权的理论背景下予以理解,只有这样,才能对相关争议具有全面的认识,进而在比较法上具有共通的借鉴意义。After decades of development, the right to commercialization has gradually been accepted by the Japanese courts as a jurisprudential derivative of personal rights, tailored to protect the proprietorial interests of a natural person as a legal entity. However, the theoretical analysis of the right to commercialization is not confi ned to the theory of personality rights; rather, by means of the so-called "customer attraction" theory or incorporating the right to commercialization into the trade description system, an attempt to establish a more inclusive concept of the right to commercialization finds more advocates among the scholarships. Which approach is more appropriate? This is still a pending issue in Japan. Accordingly, a thorough understanding of the right to commercialization(as to the subject, object, duration, assignment and succession, infringement decision and defense, relieves and etc.) should be made against the backdrop of Japanese theoretical studies of the right to commercialization. In this way, the Japanese experiences may fi nd its signifi cance in the Chinese jurisprudential development.
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:216.73.216.52