论国际司法合作中的知识产权地域性

The Territoriality of Intellectual Property in International Judicial Cooperation

在《海牙判决公约》的谈判中,我国国内关于知识产权问题存在合作与不合作两种立场,前者要求加强国际司法合作,后者则以知识产权地域性为理由主张不合作。二者的分歧源于国际私法追求国际合作的理念和知识产权法本质上是国内法的观点,但是晚近以来,知识产权的地域性在立法与实践中不断被突破。以管辖权和法律适用为核心的知识产权地域性保护可分为二元的基本方案:绝对地域性方案和相对地域性方案。未来,我国进行知识产权领域的国际司法合作,应该区分合作的国家、知识产权类型、知识产权事项以及合作的内容,进行类型化选择。知识产权地域性保护方法可以在二元方案基础上进行多元组合,但总体上应坚持以相对地域性方案为原则,绝对地域性方案为例外。

In the negotiation of the HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention, two opposing positions on intellectual property(hereinafter referred to as “IP”) exist in China: cooperation and non-cooperation.The former calls for strengthening international judicial cooperation, while the latter sticks to noncooperation on the grounds of the IP territoriality. The difference between the two positions originates from the idea that private international law pursues international cooperation and that the IP law is essentially domestic law. Recently, the IP territoriality has been broken through in legislation and practice.Considering that jurisdiction and choice of laws are the two fundamental elements in evaluating the IP territoriality, their protection approaches can thereby be divided into absolute territorial scheme and relative territorial scheme. In the future, when China engages in international judicial cooperation, typed schemes should be preferred in distinguishing the countries that cooperate with,types of IP rights, IP matters and cooperation matters. As for the protection methods of the IP territoriality, multiple combinations can be used on the basis of the above binary schemes, and generally adhere to the principle of relative territorial scheme, with the exception of absolute territorial scheme.