论文部分内容阅读
关于商标平行进口问题,在1998年的Sihouette诉Harlauer眼镜案中,欧盟已经确立了商标共同体权利用尽,而非国际权利用尽原则。然而此案并不能够平息欧盟各国对于平行进口问题的纷争。在接下来的争议最大的Davidoff SA V.A&G Imports案中,欧盟一些国家坚持存在着商标权利人默许同意平行进口的可能性,而欧洲法院则只承认明示同意平行进口,默许不能构成对平行进口的同意;同时美国理论界对于平行进口的默许同意问题也作出了强烈的反应。不管欧盟是站在维护欧洲统一大市场的最高利益考虑,还是美国从实践中存在的平行进口的默许同意的事实来着眼,欧盟和美国在此问题及其举证负担的态度对世界各国皆具有指导性乃至主导性的意义。由此,欧盟和美国在确立这个问题的标准时所遇到的纷争和其内在体现的价值取舍对于我国建立类似立法无疑具有重要的参考价值。
Regarding the parallel importation of trademarks, in the case of the Sihouette v. Harlauer glasses of 1998, the EU has established the exhaustion of the trademark community and not the principle of international exhaustion. However, the case can not quell the EU disputes over parallel imports. In the next most controversial Davidoff SA V.A & G Imports case, some European Union countries persisted in the imposition of the possibility of parallel importation by trademark right-holders by tacit consent, while the European Court of Justice only admitted explicitly agreeing to parallel imports and that acquiescence should not constitute a parallel import At the same time, American theoretical circles also reacted strongly to the question of the tacit consent of parallel imports. Regardless of whether the EU is concerned with the utmost interest in safeguarding a unified European market or the fact that the United States acquiesces in parallel imports in practice, the attitude of the EU and the United States over this issue and its burden of proof is of guidance to all countries in the world Sexual and even dominant. Therefore, the disputes the EU and the United States encounter in establishing the standard of this issue and the value choices inherent in their implementation will undoubtedly have important reference value for establishing similar legislation in our country.