首页 > 专题2016 > 2016中欧人权研讨会 > 观点精粹 >
回族传统医药“汤瓶八诊”商标系列诉讼案的法文化反思

2016-09-28 18:07:21   来源:中国人权网   作者:胡世恩

\
宁夏大学副教授  胡世恩  (赵一帆 摄)


回族传统医药“汤瓶八诊”商标系列诉讼案的法文化反思

  知识产权法律制度是知识商品化的产物。知识产权法禁止他人未经许可使用其创新成果,使得具有消费外部性特征的创新成果变得具有独占性,外部收益内部化,确保创新者获得利回报。这种独占利益的法律设计具有促进技术成果创造与循环的功能。少数民族非物质文化遗产灿烂多姿,要对其进行全面地保护,就必须通过相应的、有效的法律制度加以解决。目前对少数民族非物质文化遗产最恰当、最有效的的法律保护方式之一,就是通过知识产权法律体系进行权利确认和利益分配。“汤瓶八诊”疗法是回族传统医药的代表,是回族非物质文化遗产的瑰宝。“汤瓶八诊”文字商标在商标权侵权诉讼和商标权异议行政诉讼中遭遇现实困难。“汤瓶八诊”商标权侵权诉讼主要是围绕着非物质文化遗产的认定与商标通用名称的博弈展开的。历时三年,从中级人民法院到最高人民法院,中院的判决未曾涉及通用名称问题;高院的判决则通过非物质文化遗产项目的认定而认定涉案商标属于通用名称;最高院最终裁定,非物质文化遗产与公有领域的内容虽有重叠,但不等于一经认定为非物质文化遗产,就当然地进入公有领域。成为通用名称。然而,国家工商管理总局商标评审委员会却裁定对争议商标“汤瓶八诊”予以无效宣告,“汤瓶八诊”商标权异议行政诉讼则主要围绕商标是否具有显著性展开,法院认定“汤瓶八诊”系非物质文化遗产的一般性传承,而非商标法意义上的使用,判决争议商标不具有显著性。解决非物质文化遗产项目商标权保护中的这种悖论,应从开拓知识产权保护视野、提升知识产权法律技术手段、创新知识产权法律制度体系等方面体现对少数民族非物质文化的尊重与认同。
 

Judicial-Cultural Reflections on the Series of Lawsuits over Trademarks Relating to Tangping Bazhen (Eight Ways of Diagnosis of Traditional Chinese Muslim Medicine), Traditional Medicine of China’s Ethnic Hui People

Hu Shien*

Abstract: As the product of knowledge commercialization, intellectual property lawprohibits the unauthorized use of innovations, making the external consumption characters of innovations exclusive and internalizing the external revenues to ensure the proceeds are owned bythe innovators. This legal design for the monopolization of gains is instrumental in promoting the creation and circulation of technological innovations. Accordingly, an appropriate and effective legal regimeis required to fully protect the splendid intangible cultural heritages of minority ethnic groups. The most appropriate and effective protection of intangible cultural heritage of ethnic minorities at present is to confirm rights and distribute benefits through the legal system for intellectual property rights. “Tangping Bazhen (literally, Eight Ways of Diagnosis of Traditoinal Chinese Muslim Medicine)” therapy is the representative of the traditional medicine of the Muslim Hui ethnic group of China and a treasure of Hui’s intangible cultural heritage. However, the word mark of “Tangping Bazhen” has encountered difficulties in the trademark tort lawsuits and the administrative proceedingsinvolving trademark disputes. The trademark tort lawsuitsover “Tangping Bazhen” mainly involve affirmation of intangible cultural heritage and the adoption of trademark generic name. One of such lawsuits has lasted three years and gone through the competent intermediate people’s court to the Supreme People’s Court, the highest judicial body of China. The issue of generic name was not mentioned in the verdict of the intermediate people’s court; while the verdict of the Supreme People’s Court confirmed the trademark involved as a generic name because it is approved as  intangible heritage. The overlap between intangible heritage and the public domain does not mean that an intangible heritage, once being affirmed as intangible heritage, will necessarily go into the public domain and become a generic name. Regretfully, the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board under the State Administration for Industry and Commerce of China ruled and declared that the disputed trademark of “Tangping Bazhen” was invalid. The administrative proceedingsinvolving disputes over the trademark mainly centered on the distinctiveness of such a trademark, and the courtconcerned ruled that the disputed trademark didn’t have any distinctiveness because  “Tangping Bazhen” had the generic inheritance as an intangible heritage rather than the application in the trademark law. To solve the paradox in the trademark protection of intangible cultural heritages, we should respect and recognize intangible heritages of ethnic minorities through broadening the intellectual property protection, enhancing the intellectual property legal and technical means, and innovating on the intellectual property legal system of the country.

分享:
收藏 复制 打印

上一篇:我国少数民族环境权利保护刍议
下一篇:云南少数民族文化教育和文化权利保障的理论与实践