知识产权的禁令救济

【作者】 周园；

【导师】 谭启平；

【作者基本信息】 西南政法大学 ， 民商法， 2004， 硕士

【摘要】 禁令，意指法院作出的要求当事人为或者不为特定行为的命令。作为衡平法上的一种救济方式，禁令是英美法所特有的制度。大陆法系没有禁令的概念，与之相似的是假处分制度。禁令制度在英美法历史悠久、应用广泛，但在我国还是一个新生物。禁令制度的引入是以中国即将加入世界贸易组织为时代背景的。世贸组织是以法律规则为基础的国际经济组织，具有一整套系统的法律规则体系。为满足这些规则的要求，作好国内外立法的衔接工作以及促进国内经济的健康发展，我国对许多相关法律法规进行了相应的调整和修改，禁令救济引入知识产权法就是其中的重要举措之一。这一措施不仅为知识产权人的利益提供了强有力的保护，而且首开将程序规则纳入实体规范的先河，是我国立法上将程序法和实体法相结合的有益尝试。 本文第一部分论述的是知识产权法中引入禁令制度的理论基础。其中分三个大的方面进行阐述，一是禁令在英美法中的起源、地位及分类。对禁令在其发源地产生和发展情况的了解有助于加深我们对该问题之成因的理解。禁令是为了克服普通法的缺陷和不足，而通过大法官或衡平法院的司法活动逐渐发展起来的衡平法上的救济手段。英美法中的禁令制度内容复杂，种类繁多，在知识产权领域，具有理论研究价值和实践意义的主要是中间禁令和永久性禁令这种分类。二是禁令在大陆法中的地位。大陆法上与之相当的是“假处分”制度。假处分有三种类型，其中起着禁令的作用主要是调节处分。假处分是简化了的加速判决程序。三是禁令救济引入我国知识产权诉讼的历史背景和理论基础。对此，笔者着墨较多，详细分析了禁令在我国确立的四个主要原因：积极为加入世贸组织作准备，努力改变投资环境，促进国际贸易健康发展是时代背景；从事后救济为主到重视事前防范的法律观念的转变是其根本原因；知识产权本身的特殊性迫切要求禁令的保护；它也是法院提高执法力度、树立司法权威的有效途径和重要保障。 第二部分详细阐述了禁令在知识产权法中的具体运用。笔者按照禁令发布时间的不同，将禁令分为三种类型：诉前禁令、诉中禁令和诉终禁令。诉前禁令和诉终禁令是本部分的重头戏，由于诉中禁令在许多方面与诉前禁令差别不大，故笔者以简短的篇幅带过。 诉前禁令在我国法上被称为“诉前停止侵权行为”，它在我国知识产权法律最主要的三部法中都有规定。禁令与财产保全和先予执行由于存在较大差别，故不可以后者代替前者。在诉前禁令中分适用条件和实施过程两方面进行论述。1、适用条件分为实质要件和形式要件:实质要件中需要考虑的问题是申请人的资格、管辖法院以及法院在决定是否发布禁令时所依据的标准。而后者是适用条件中的核心问题，法院应主要考虑以下四方面的内容:申请人实体胜诉的可能性;不采取诉前禁令，是否会给申请人的合法权益造成难以弥补的损害;双方当事人利益的平衡;颁发诉前禁令是否损害社会公共利益。这四个标准是笔者在借鉴国外的理论研究和判例实践，并与我国的规定进行对比分析得出的结论。为此，笔者展开了系统地论述，从中我们也可以发现我国法律对该问题的规定存在着很大的不足。形式要件则主要要求申请人应递交申请书和提供担保。2、对于诉前禁令的实施过程，笔者按照从法院接受申请并予以审查到作出有关禁令的裁定、再到当事人若不服而适用的补救程序、以至于最后裁定的执行这一连贯性的时间进程，对其中需要注意和明确的诸多问题进行了阐释。 对于诉中禁令，由于其可以参照诉前禁令的许多规定执行，故笔者仅就它与诉前禁令的相同和不同之处加以了比较。 本部分第三个方面的问题是诉终禁令。它即是英美法上的永久性禁令，我国法上停止侵害责任的形式与之类似。与诉前和诉中禁令不同，诉终禁令不是临时性措施，而是解决当事人争议法律关系的最后裁决。适用条件、不适用诉终禁令的具体情形以及适用中的两种特殊情形是本文关于诉终禁令的三大议题。具体来说，适用诉终禁令的一般条件是侵害正在进行或有再次发生之虞;即便在此条件下，若出现知识产权人利益与社会公共利益平衡之结果倾向于社会公共利益或权利人默示许可的情形，法院也不会颁发诉终禁令。此外，在侵犯商业秘密案件中，诉终禁令如何适用以及在侵犯著作权案件中，法院发布禁令所保护的权利范围这两个问题值得特别关注。 第三部分是笔者对完善我国知识产权禁令救济制度的思考。通过前两部分的系统论述，我们不难发现我国对这一制度的规定仅有一个雏形，许多地方还有待改进和完善。为此，笔者对认为需要改进之处提出了自己的看法和主张，以期为我国立法的完善提供合理化建议。更多还原

【Abstract】 Injunction is an order made by the court to demand the parties to do or not to do specific act As an adequate remedy at law, injunction is peculiar system in Anglo-American law system. There isn’t a word of injunction in continental law system, but conservatory measures in litigation are similar to it. Injunction has long history and wide-ranging application in Anglo-American law. Drawing into injunction is in the historical period of China being about to join WTO. Injunction not only provides stronger protection for the interest in owner of intellectual property right, but also first brings rules of procedure into substantive rules. This is a profitable try on combining procedural law with substantive law.This article’s first part expounds the theoretical foundation on channeling injunction into intellectual property law. In the first place, injunction’s origination, position and classify. In order to remedy the common law’s defect, injunction is an adequate remedy at law that was developed gradually through Lord High Chancellor or court of equity’s judicial practice. In Anglo-American law, injunction’s contents are complex, and then its sorts are various. In the field of intellectual property right, what we talk about more is temporary injunction and permanent injunction. In the second place, injunction’s position in continental law. Conservatory measures in litigation have three types. It is a simplified and quickening procedure of sentencing. In the third place, the historic background and theoretical foundation on bringing injunction to Chinese action of intellectual property right. The author analyses in detail the problem.The second part discusses injunction’s specific application in intellectual property law. According to different time in issuing injunction, the author classifies it into three types: injunction before the institution of an action, interlocutory injunction and final injunction. The first and the third are the part’s importance points. Interlocutory injunction has not too much difference with injunction before the institution of an action, so the author discusses briefly.Injunction before the institution of an action is also called "desist form an infringement before the institution of an action ", which is provided in our intellectual property law. It is divided into applicable condition and process ofimplementation to discuss. Firstly, applicable condition is divided into substantial essentials and formal essentials: in substantial essentials, these problems considered are qualifications of applicant, court of jurisdiction and standards which the court employs in deciding whether to issue injunction or not. The last is a key problem of applicable condition. The court need to think over four aspects as follows: the possibility of wining a court case, not to issue injunction is whether to cause irreparable harm for applicant or not, balance of interests between both parties, public interest. The author discusses systematically on the four standards, from among which we can see that our legal provision for the problem exists in many defects. The formal essentials ask for mainly the applicant to hand over applicant form and offer warranty. Secondly, with regard to process of implementation, the author expounds many problems that need to be paid attention and make clear.As concerns the interlocutory injunction, it can refer to the injunction before the institution of an action to execute, so the author only compares it with the injunction before the institution of an action in identity and difference.Final injunction, namely permanent injunction in Anglo-American law, is resemble to ceasing the infringing act in our law. The applicable condition, specific situations not to apply final injunction and two kinds of particular situations in application are the article’s three main topics on final injunction.The third part is the author’s consideration to perfect our system of injunction. Through the systematic discussion in the former two parts, we can see our legal provision for injunc更多还原