期刊文献+

知识产权行为保全中的担保和反担保——兼评最高人民法院《关于审查知识产权与竞争纠纷行为保全案件适用法律若干问题的解释(征求意见稿)》第9条、第11条 被引量:4

Guarantee and Counter-guarantee for Preliminary Injunction in IP Cases:Comments on the 9th Item and 11th Item of Draft Judicial Interpretation on Preliminary Injunction in IP Cases
下载PDF
导出
摘要 行为保全担保的目的在于保障被申请人的利益,以及避免申请人滥用申请权利,而并非替代申请人的释明责任。担保数额应当相当于采取行为保全措施有可能给被申请人造成的损失。担保数额可以适当灵活掌握,且不能作为当事人赔偿数额的上限,否则与《民事诉讼法》相冲突。被申请人提供的担保足以弥补解除保全措施给申请人造成的损失,或者申请人同意的,可以裁定解除保全,但是解除保全措施给申请人造成的损害属于金钱难以弥补的除外。被申请人提供的担保,可以高于申请人提供的担保。 The purpose of Guarantee for preliminary injunction is to protect the respondent's interests and prevent the applicant from abusing its rights,rather than replace the explication obligation of the applicant.The amount of guarantee shall be equivalent to the loss of the respondent which is caused by the preliminary injunction.The amount of guarantee could be determined flexibly,and shall not be considered as the maximum of the compensation.Otherwise,it conflicts with the civil procedure law.If the respondent provides enough counter-guarantee to make up for the loss caused by the relief measures,or the applicant agrees,the court could cancel the preliminary injunction.However,it is exceptional if the damage caused by the relief measures is difficult to make up through money.The counter-guarantee provided by the respondent may be higher than the guarantee provided by the applicant.
作者 蒋利玮
机构地区 华东政法大学
出处 《电子知识产权》 2016年第4期87-93,共7页 Electronics Intellectual Property
基金 清华大学-微软创新与知识产权联合研究中心"知识产权诉前保全的实践运作与制度完善"项目课题阶段性研究成果
关键词 知识产权行为保全 行为保全担保 行为保全反担保 Preliminary injunction Guarantee for preliminary injunction Counter-guarantee for preliminary injunction
  • 相关文献

参考文献16

  • 1中国法院网,http://www.chinacourt.org/article/detail/2015/02/id/1557854.shtml.
  • 2《征求意见稿》第9条.
  • 3《征求意见稿》第11条.
  • 4《征求意见稿》第7、10、11、12条.
  • 5Fed. R. Ciw P. 65(c): No restraining order or preliminary injunction shall issue except upon the giving of security by the applicant, in such sum as the court deems proper, tbr the payment of such costs and damages as may be incurred or suffered by any party who is found to have been wrongfully enjoined or restrained.
  • 6Temple Univ. v. White,941 F.2d 201-20(3d Cir. 1991 ).cert,denied,502 U.S. 1032(1992).
  • 7Peter-Tobias Stoll,Jan Busche, Katrin Arend: WTO----trade=retated aspects ofimellecmal property rights , MARTINUS NIJHOFF PUBLISHERS, 2009,pp.745-746.
  • 8《北京市高级人民法院关于财产保全若干问题的规定(试行)》(京高击发[2009]]63号)第七条.
  • 9姚建军:《担保金可以作为禁令错误请求赔偿的零考一句》,http://rmfyb.chinacourt.org/paper/html/2013~07/04/content_66236.htm?diV=-1.
  • 10W.R. Grace & Co. v. Local 759, Int'! Union of United Rubber, Cork, Linolemn & Plastic Workers, 461 U.S. 757 770 n. 14 (1983).

同被引文献167

引证文献4

二级引证文献4

相关作者

内容加载中请稍等...

相关机构

内容加载中请稍等...

相关主题

内容加载中请稍等...

浏览历史

内容加载中请稍等...
;
使用帮助 返回顶部