从控烟措施看商标权与公共健康的冲突——以PM与乌拉圭仲裁案为例  

Conflicts between Trademark Rights and Public Health from the Perspective of Tobacco Control Measures:a case study of Philip Morris vs.Uruguay

作　　者：王馨竹 Wang Xinzhu(Wuhan University,Wuhan,430072,China)

机构地区：[1]武汉大学,湖北武汉430072

出　　处：《滁州职业技术学院学报》2020年第4期66-69,共4页Journal of Chuzhou Polytechnic

摘　　要：2010年3月,菲利普·莫里斯烟草公司向国际投资争端解决中心(ICSID)提起仲裁请求,称乌拉圭政府实施的两项烟草措施违反了《瑞士-乌拉圭促进与保护投资协议》,侵犯其商标权。2016年7月,ICSID仲裁庭驳回了申请人的仲裁请求,并且裁决其赔偿乌拉圭七百万美元。该仲裁案的争议焦点主要为间接征收构成标准的判定,以及乌拉圭烟草控制措施是否构成对投资的间接征收,是商标权和公共健康冲突的典型案例。从该案可以总结出,想寻求商标权和公共健康冲突的解决途径,一是要协调好二者的价值冲突;二是要站在东道国角度上提出争端防范措施。In March 2010,Philip Morris International(PMI)filed an arbitration request to the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes(ICSID),claiming that the two tobacco measures implemented by the Uruguayan government breached the Switzerland-Uruguay BIT and violated its trademark rights.In July 2016,the ICSID rejected the claimant’s arbitration request and awarded PMI compensate Uruguay US$7 million.The focus of the dispute in the arbitration is mainly the determination of the criteria for indirect expropriation and whether Uruguay's tobacco control measures constitute indirect expropriation of investment.This is a typical case of conflicts between trademark rights and public health.It can be concluded from this case that to solve the conflict between trademark rights and public health,the value conflict between the two needs to be coordinated,and the host countries must propose prevention measures for dispute.

关 键 词：商标权 公共健康 间接征收 警察权 

分 类 号：D920.5[政治法律—法学]