议限制商标使用是否为间接征收——以菲利普诉乌拉圭案为例

Whether the Limitation of Use of Trademark Constitutes the Indirect Expropriation——Taking Philip v Uruguay for an exsample

关于间接征收范围的认定,国际上一直存在争议。商标权虽作为新兴知识时代产物,但大多数条约中都规定,其属于征收财产。2016年的"菲利普诉乌拉圭案"折射了另一个视野——对商标使用的限制是否构成间接征收。菲利普公司认为平装烟草降低盈利能力,构成间接征收。然而该案裁决却认为政府出于公共利益的目的,实行烟草平装措施,对烟草商标使用进行一定限制,这不构成侵害商标权以及剥夺商标权人对商标的所有,不构成间接征收。社会利益与投资者个人利益一直都在博弈,其中政府行为起着举足轻重的作用。

It ＇s controversial to define the range of indirect expropriation. Although the trademark right is a knowledge production of the modern era, it belongs to the expropriation property which was regulated in many treaties. The Philip v Uruguay provided a new view that whether the restrictions on the use of trademarks constitutes indirectly expropriation .Philip claimed that the plain packing had re-duced his profitability and it was indirect expropriation. However, the arbitrators judged that it could not be indirect expropriation, due to the purpose of the government action was for public interests. Moreover, the plain packing did not infringement trademark rights and de-prived of the trademark. There is always a conflict between social benefits and interests of the individual investors, so the government be-havior plays an important role to balance.