知识产权侵权行政裁决制度检视及完善——以《TRIPS协议》义务的澄清为视角  

On the Review and Improvement of Administrative Adjudication of Intellectual Property Infringement: A TRIPs Obligation Perspective

作　　者：贺志军 

机构地区：[1]湖南工商大学廉政法治研究所 [2]湖南工商大学法学与公共管理学院

出　　处：《知识产权》2019年第12期61-70,共10页Intellectual Property

基　　金：湖南省教育厅科学研究重点项目“从政策到法治：打造我国知识产权执法保护机制升级版研究”（15A101）

摘　　要：“入世”时我国为“接轨”而修改有关知识产权侵权行政裁决的规则,其中对《TRIPS协议》义务的解读在今天看来,体现出一定的历史局限性,有必要进行澄清和重新进行制度检视。在实体救济上,《TRIPS协议》并非禁止行政裁决作出“责令赔偿损失”的决定,人为地撕裂“责令停止侵权”与“赔偿损失”两类实体救济为不同程序,势必使行政裁决的“分流阀”功能先天不足,故对行政裁决武装“赋能”势在必行。在行权程序上,知识产权侵权行政裁决程序“遵守实质相当原则”之《TRIPS协议》义务履行长期被忽略,急需推动其司法化改造进程。在司法审查上,《TRIPS协议》的义务设定具有履约“弹性”,我国需引入“当事人选择权”这一新变量,建立对知识产权侵权行政裁决的差异化司法审查制度。China revised the legal rules of administrative adjudication of intellectual property infringement when acceding to the WTO,however,some revisions were based on certain misunderstanding of TRIPs obligations.The paper suggests clarifying and reviewing these revisions.In terms of substantive remedies,the TRIPs does not prohibit the administrative agencies to award damages;rather,deliberately split the two kinds of substantive remedies,namely ordering to stop the infringing behavior and awarding damages,into two separate procedures will inevitably weaken the due function of administrative adjudication.Therefore,it is imperative to further empower the administrative agencies.Besides,as a TRIPs obligation,the substantial equivalence principle in intellectual property infringement administrative adjudication has long been neglected,and it is urgent to push forward the judicial reform in this regard.As for judicial review,since the fulfillment of TRIPs obligation can be flexible,China can use the“option of parties”to establish a system to review the differentiated administrative judicial decisions in relation to intellectual property infringement.

关 键 词：行政裁决 知识产权侵权 《TRIPS协议》义务 司法审查 

分 类 号：D923.4[政治法律—民商法学]