对知识产权行政授权行为性质的再探讨

Reconsideration on the Nature of Administrative Act of Granting of Intellectual Property

关于知识产权行政授权的性质,学界目前主要有三种学说:行政许可、行政确认、准司法行政行为。这一论题涉及行政法学与知识产权法学两方面的知识。考察行政法学知识,准司法行政行为以存在纠纷为前提,与知识产权授权行为明显不相符合;行政许可与行政确认的主要区分在于前者赋予申请人新的权利,而后者仅为对既有权利的确认,因而论题之核心在于知识产权授权本身是否产生新的权利。实证考察专利与商标制度,专利权之授予和商标注册,事实上都使申请人获得了新的权利:禁止权,即专利权人禁止(或许可)他人实施其专利的权利,商标权人禁止(或许可)他人在相同或类似商品上使用与其注册商标相同或近似商标的权利。因而,知识产权授权行为在性质上更接近于行政许可。

As to the nature of the administrative act of granting intellectual property, there are three theories in our current academia： administrative license, administrative confirmation, quasi-judicial administrative act. This problem concerns knowledge from both administrative science of law and intellectual property science of law. From knowledge of administrative science of law perspective, Quasi-judicial administrative act is based on disputes, so it is evident that the act of granting intellectual property does not belong to this category. The main difference between administrative license and administrative confirmation lies in： the former grants a new fight to the applicant, and the latter confirms a fight that exists. So the key issue is whether granting intellectual property generates a new right. Through empirical survey of patent and trademark system, the act of patent granting and trademark registration both enable the applicant to gain a new fight. The patentee then have a fight to prohibit others from exploiting （or license others to exploit） his patent and the trademark owner then have a right to prohibit others from using （or license others to use） his trademark. So, the nature of granting intellectual property more approaches to administrative license.