涉外定牌加工在商标法中的法律性质——兼论商标侵权构成的判定

【作者】张伟君 魏立舟 赵勇 【出处】《知识产权》2014年第2期 【中文摘要】涉外定牌加工中使用他人注册商标的行为原则上属于构成侵犯商标专用权的行为。涉外定牌加工的产品不在我国境内销售,不会导致相关公众混淆,但是,“混淆可能”并不是构成商标侵权的必要条件;且在相同商品上使用相同商标的情况下,所谓的“推定混淆”是绝对推定,不能通过相关证据来推翻。涉外定牌加工产品虽然用于出口而不在本国销售,但并不属于过境货物,因此定牌加工仍属于具有营利性质的商业活动的范畴。 【中文关键字】侵犯商标专用权;涉外定牌加工;混淆可能;商业活动中的使用;来源识别功能 【全文链接】http://article.chinalawinfo.com/ArticleFullText.aspx?ArticleId=88665

ICP License Renewed and ISP Liability Released

The game of “Spoting the Difference" starts again!

Google’s ICP license renewed. See the captured today’s Google.cn web page below (left), and compare it with the page in last week (right).

Google.cn on 9 July 2010:
Google.cn on 4 July 2010:

 

Exactly as what I predicted, Google is trying to make Google.cn being a non-search engine website. It now places "Music", "Translation" and "Shopping" at the web page. These are what Google wishes to keep on running in China. While the search engine service of Google.cn is replaced by a link to google.com.hk. Legally speaking, Google.cn is not providing search engine service currently. It is merely a link to another website. Just like the links added in any of our own web posts.

Berkman Center Announces 2010-2011 Fellows

https://cyber.law.harvard.edu/newsroom/2010_2011_fellows

Cambridge, MA – The Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University today announced its new class of fellows for the 2010-2011 academic year, continuing a tradition of providing a home to many of the brightest and most creative minds in law, technology, and social science, as well as leading entrepreneurs and activists. Joining the Berkman Center is an opportunity for fellows to further pursue their current work, to incubate new ideas, and to apply their expertise more directly to the Center’s interdisciplinary research agenda.

“We are thrilled to have such a gifted and engaged group of fellows from so many different disciplinary, professional, and personal backgrounds on board this year,” said Berkman Center Executive Director Urs Gasser. “Fellows play an essential part in our pursuit of rigorous research and scholarship with impact. Looking at the class of 2010-11, there is no doubt that the diverse and outstanding group of fellows will continue to fuel the Berkman Center’s activities and broaden its perspectives in the months and years to come.”

New 2010-2011 Berkman fellows:

中国1990著作权法中英文版

NOTE: Please DO NOT quote this text for current legal cases because it has been amended tremendously twice by the 2001 Amendment of Copyright Law and the 2010 Amendment of  Copyright Law. I republish it hereby merely for the purpose of historical ressearch.

注意:本法已在2001年 和2010年被两次修订,许多条文已经改变,不能再适用。我贴在这里只是为了方便历史研究的回顾。

刘家瑞:论版权间接责任与直接侵权的关系

论版权间接责任与直接侵权的关系

刘家瑞

摘要:在版权司法及理论界,帮助侵权和转承责任等间接责任形式作为网络服务商归责原则的重要性日益显现,但对其中某些基本问题的认识并不一致。通过对间接责任和直接侵权之间的关系进行探讨,可以明确间接责任人和直接侵权人的连带责任、诉讼当事人的选择、直接侵权抗辩对间接责任人的效力、当事人之间的追偿关系,以及部分和解协议对其他当事人的影响等问题,并为我国的版权司法实践提供一些理论参考。

关键词:间接责任、帮助侵权、转承责任

本文引用方式:

刘家瑞,“论版权间接责任与直接侵权的关系”,《电子知识产权》2010年第1期,页39-49。

点此下载全文(PDF,850K)

 

昆明方言说唱:昆明现状死亡版 梨儿鸣

还是雅歌联盟的说唱,这里有两首歌,一是个remix的《昆明现状死亡版》,另一首是《梨儿鸣》。

《昆明现状死亡版》

歌词根据《昆明现状》、《昆明公交风云》、《昆明姑娘》、《在昆明长大》四首昆明方言说唱歌曲融合而成。点这里听歌

一不该呀二不该,你不该偷偷摸摸把我来爱,
偷偷摸摸爱我也没有关系,你不该跑到我的家中来,
三不该呀四不该,我不该异想天开要去发财,
想要发财走正路也没有关系,我不该跟着别人去学坏。

……

 

Is GoogleBooks Infringing Copyright in China?

As an Interent application or online service, "Google Books"  may not necessarily be found infringement.

But, Google would be held infringement liability if it really scanned Chinese books without authors’ consents.

First of all, I am talking about Chinese copyright Law. As for whether the same act would be held infringement in the US courts, I don’t know. I don’t know because once the Google Book Settlement is approved by judge, the case will be dismissed without ruling. Even if the settlement were not approved, and even if the case were finally ruled favoring Google, it would merely be a US judgement binding in the US, not necessarily binding in China.  In other words, so long as the case is in Chinese courts’ jurisdiction, Chinese courts shall, according to Chinese copyrigh law, make their onw decisions no matter what the US court’s ruling is. This is a crutial common sence, but I doubt many people may forget it, because for a long time, I see too many comments to Chinese cases according to US laws.

Second, the only relationship between the US court’s ruling and China is: if China thinks a US binding judgment or the approval of settlement violate TRIPS, China may file the case to the WTO.

Third, back to the dispute between Chinese writers and Google, for the forgivable exploitation of the copyrighted works, Chinese copyright law is following the European mode of "limitations to coyright" but not the US concept of "fair use". Therefore, unless a non-liability provision has been provided explicitly, the conduct will be judged infringement once such conduct is regulated in Art. 10 of Chinese Copyright Law as the content of copyright. Until now, China only allows the search engines to store the content in other websites automatically. A conduct of scanning the books, from the first pege to the last, from the first line of each shelf to the last line, constitutes infringement definitely (unless the conductor is public library).

Fourth, Google’s self-limitation of accessing to the full-text of the scanned books is another story. The infringement has been established soon after scanning and storing books in its servers.

Last but not less importantly, this is a legal and positivist analysis. Not a value criticism. I am not saying that Google Books is a good/bad thing hereby. I am also not saying that one should not look at the case and the whole set of the current law critically. On the contrary, the real criticism should be based the fact on which some obvious good thing is hindered by the existing law, or some obvious bad thing is permitted by the existing law.

 

刘家瑞:论版权间接责任中的帮助侵权

论版权间接责任中的帮助侵权

刘家瑞

摘要:在我国版权司法和理论界,帮助侵权作为网络服务商归责原则的重要性日益体现,但对其中某些基本问题的认识并不一致。对帮助侵权制度进行一些系统研究,有助于明确具体案件中常有争议的"明知"、"有理由知道"和"应知"等构成要件。结合各国帮助侵权的经典判例,分析在理论界备受关注的"实质性非侵权用途"原 则的法律背景及具体内涵,可以进一步明确"实质性非侵权用途"原则适用的诸多例外。

关键词:帮助侵权、间接责任、实质性非侵权用途

本文引用方式:

刘家瑞,“论版权侵权责任中的帮助侵权”,《知识产权》第18卷第6期(2008年11月),页34-42.

点此下载全文(PDF)

大腕

纯粹娱乐,入座不对号。

原版:

一定得选最好的黄金地段,雇法国设计师,建就得建最高档次的公寓。电梯直接入户,户型最小也得四百平米。什么宽带啊,光缆啊,卫星啊,能接的都给他接上,楼顶花(儿),楼里有游泳池,门口再战一英国管家,戴假发,特绅士那种,业主一进门,甭管有事(儿)没事(儿)都得跟人家说:may i help you,sir?一口地道的英国伦敦腔,倍(儿)有面子!社区里再建一所贵族学校,教材用哈佛的,一年光学费就得几万美金。再建一所美国诊所,二十四小时候诊,就一个字(儿)贵,看感冒就得花个万八千的。周围的邻居不是开宝马就是开奔驰,你要是开一日本车,你都不好意思跟人家打招呼!你说这样的公寓,一平米得卖多少钱?(我觉得怎么着也得两千美金吧。)两千美金?那是成本,四千美金起,你还别嫌贵,还不打折!你得研究业主的购物心理,愿意掏两千美金买房的业主根本不在乎再多掏两千,什么叫成功人士,成功人士就是买什么东西都买贵的,不买最好的。所以,我们做房地产的口号就是:不求最好,但求最贵!

修改版一: