浏阳一董事长在英遭诱捕
2007-11-26 7:35:02 湖南在线——三湘都市报
  11月16日,湖南神力实业有限公司(下简称神力公司)董事长袁宏伟英国被拘一案在伦敦的法庭进行了一次听证。

  由于此次拘捕是由神力公司与美国爱宝工业有限公司(下简称爱宝公司)之间的商标权之争引发而来,期间又夹杂着美国爱宝公司以“诱骗”手段将袁宏伟引至与美国有引渡条约的英国实
施抓捕的情节,从而引起了国内法学界的高度关注。
祸起ABRO商标权之争

  神力公司与爱宝公司关于ABRO的商标权之争由来已久。

  神力公司称其自1993年就开始使用ABRO商标,设计立意来自与“神力”意蕴相同的大力士“阿波罗”(ABRO)。2002年6月4日,神力公司向中国国家商标局申请在国际分类第16类商品上注册ABRO商标。2003年1月11日,美国爱宝公司也向中国国家商标局在同类商品上申请注册该商标,但因申请在后而被国家商标局驳回。随后,爱宝公司对神力公司的申请提出异议,经国家商标局、国家商标复审委员会和北京市一中院分别裁定和判决,决定不予核准神力公司注册申请,神力公司于2007年8月向北京市高院提出上诉,目前案件正在审理当中。

  神力公司与爱宝公司双方多次联系,希望能对此事进行协商谈判。谈判9月14日在英国伦敦进行。袁宏伟对这次谈判做了充分准备,随行带着三套谈判方案。

  然而,9月14日,伦敦时间早晨6点左右,袁宏伟乘坐的中国航空公司CX251航班客机刚刚降落伦敦希思罗机场,就被三名英国警察在飞机上扣留。

异国诱捕中国公民引争议

  由于,逮捕袁宏伟的过程充斥着“诱骗”情节,因此这起拘捕事件从一开始就引起了中国政府相关部门的高度关注,国内法律界纷纷指责美国这种规避引渡法律制度的“诱捕”行为,侵犯了中国司法主权和国际引渡法律准则。

  针对此间的法律问题,记者采访了北京师范大学刑事法律科学研究院黄风教授。

  据黄风教授介绍,中国和美国之间目前没有缔结双边引渡条约,而且中国引渡法律不允许向外国引渡本国国民。在存在上述法律困难的情况下,美国方面不是通过沟通与协商的方式寻求解决问题的方法,而是单方面地采用“诱骗”的手段,有意规避中国法律中的强制性禁止规范,这是对中国国家主权的蔑视和侵犯。

  此外,美国方面的“诱捕”行为无疑侵犯了袁宏伟的基本人权,同时,也是对中国司法机关审判活动的干扰和不尊重。

阻击“危险先例”能否顺利

  在采访当中,黄风教授向记者介绍说,根据英国2003年引渡法的有关规定,如果对某人实行引渡有可能造成对其人权的侵犯,或者从人道的角度看实行引渡是“不公正的或不正当的”,则应当拒绝有关的引渡请求。因此,从法律上讲,英国主管机关是有足够理由让袁宏伟恢复自由返回中国的。

  黄风教授还指出,如果美国用诱骗的手段将袁宏伟从英国成功引渡,那么今后所有与美国有着贸易或知识产权等法律方面纠纷的中国商人都会人人自危。美国现在与109个国家签订了引渡条约,它可以很容易地使中国当事人落入它的引渡陷阱。由此受到损害的将是中国的国家主权、中国公民的基本自由权和中美两国司法合作的发展前景
分享到 :
0 人收藏

20 个回复

倒序浏览
刘立国律师  注册会员 | 2007-11-27 08:08:54

Re:国人因涉外知识产权纠纷在第三国遭逮捕,请大家发表看法.

请问拘捕的罪名是什么?
广告位说明
yqip  注册会员 | 2007-11-27 16:26:42

Re:国人因涉外知识产权纠纷在第三国遭逮捕,请大家发表看法.

这是一份美国ABRO在2007年初国会听证上的发言:

House Committee on Ways and Means

Statement of Peter Baranay, Chief Executive Officer, ABRO Industries, Inc., South Bend, Indiana

Testimony Before the Subcommittee on Trade
of the House Committee on Ways and Means

February 15, 2007

Good morning Chairman Levin and members of the House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Trade.

Thank you for giving me an opportunity to testify today regarding China’s enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights.

My name is Peter F. Baranay and I am President of ABRO Industries, Inc. in South Bend, Indiana.  I am here representing the Motor Equipment Manufacturer’s Association known as MEMA and the Brand Protection Council of MEMA whose purpose is to “provide a forum for manufacturers to discuss counterfeiting, intellectual property rights, gray market or diversion, share best practices, recommend solutions, formulate future seminars and promote networking.”  

This group was started nearly three years ago and has over 50 members.  Most of the names you will recognize:  Ford, General Motors,  Dana, Delphi, and Tenneco to name a few.

You may be wondering why I am here instead of one big name company.   The answer is simple.  Many companies do not want to talk publicly about their counterfeiting problem and specifically with respect to China and its booming automotive industry.  These companies are concerned the publicity will have a negative impact on their customers.  As a member of the President’s Advisory Committee on Trade Policy and Negotiation (ACTPN), I know this failure to disclose counterfeit issues facing American companies was a problem when the U.S. Trade Representative’s Office tried to build an out-of cycle WTO complaint against China.  

I am pleased to be here today to share with you some details of the types of counterfeit problems and issues ABRO and other members of MEMA are facing.

ABRO Industries traces its corporate roots back to 1939 when our founder started a translation service.  In 1944 he had incorporated and was working with manufacturers in the United States selling their products in the international market place.  In the mid 1970’s, the “ABRO” brand was developed as part of a long term strategy to continue to sell U.S. manufactured products into the International market place.  

ABRO is perhaps unique in that 100% of our business activity is conducted overseas. Although we  do business in over 165 countries, not one dollar of ABRO products are sold in the United States.  We began to trademark the ABRO name beginning in the U.S. followed by Singapore in 1980.  27 years later the ABRO trademark is registered in 167 countries and we own 1,085 registrations in numerous international classifications.  ABRO considers Intellectual Property Protection of paramount importance.  Although we can point to many examples of counterfeiters,  the one specific company who is the most egregious and a dangerous economic terrorist with respect to Intellectual Property is Hunan Magic of China.  Beginning as early as 2001, Hunan Magic Power Inc. Company Ltd. not only began to counterfeit ABRO products, but began to represent themselves as ABRO itself.  A brazen example of Corporate identify theft.

This story was the subject of a Page One article in the Wall Street Journal in November 2004.

Intellectual Property Piracy in China

The last five years have been enormously frustrating in spite of ABRO holding numerous valid Chinese registrations and Hunan Magic holding none.  They have operated with relative impunity in their local community and have shipped tens of millions of dollars of counterfeit ABRO goods around the world.  

Fortunately, with aggressive legal action and the support of the U.S. Trade Representative’s office and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, ABRO has legal action on a number of succeeded fronts against Hunan Magic.  We have succeeded in stopping Hunan Magic from registering the ABRO mark, although Hunan Magic continues to claim their application as legal basis for continuing to counterfeit.  Hunan Magic has gone so far as to claim that they independently created the ABRO mark and our packaging.  A claim that is rather far fetched as the photograph on one of our often counterfeited products is the wife of our corporate Vice President.

ABRO has received fair hearings by the Chinese Trademark Office, and on the Federal level we are prevailing in China.  We have conducted a series of raids against Hunan Magic’s manufacturing operations during which counterfeit ABRO products were seized.  We aggressively pursued Hunan Magic within the China legal system, and the case was ultimately decided in our favor in December 2006 with damages of $64,000 awarded to ABRO Industries, Inc.  Again at the Federal level, ABRO registered the ABRO mark with Chinese customs and a significant number of export containers from Hunan Magic and others have been seized with the goods ultimately destroyed and fines levied against the exporter, and Hunan Magic.

We have been extremely satisfied with the cooperation we received from China customs.  

Regrettably, business is ultimately local in nature and Hunan Magic operates openly within Hunan Province as they employ individuals and pay taxes.

Many American companies have found themselves victimized in China and other countries because they failed to adequately protect their intellectual property.  Other companies such as ABRO Industries, Inc. have been pro-active, but still find themselves the victims of counterfeit some of whom are just as audacious and tenacious as Hunan Magic.

I believe that senior members of the Chinese Government fully recognize the need to be compliant with respect to Intellectual Property, but in many respects actions have not followed their words.

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to testify today and I look forward to any questions you may have.
yqip  注册会员 | 2007-11-27 16:38:13

Re:国人因涉外知识产权纠纷在第三国遭逮捕,请大家发表看法.

2004年的一篇评论:

Stuck on You:
A Tiny Glue Seller
Claims Identity Theft

Indiana\'s Abro Has Big Beef
With a Chinese Outfit;
Familiar Face on the Box

By NEIL KING JR.
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
November 22, 2004; Page A1

(See Corrections & Amplifications item below0.)

SOUTH BEND, Ind. -- Peter Baranay, president of Abro Industries Inc., a small seller of glues, tapes and epoxies, stands before the company\'s \"Wall of Shame.\" It features dozens of faked Abro products intercepted overseas.

Displayed in the basement of the company\'s headquarters here, most are straightforward copies with minor differences. Some swap the Abro trademark for Ambro, Arbo or Abra. Others use the Abro brand but for products Abro doesn\'t make. \"This is all run-of-the-mill piracy,\" says Mr. Baranay. \"But Hunan Magic has taken this to a different level.\"

Abro\'s two-year fight with Hunan Magic Power Industrial Co. marks a new twist in the annals of international trademark piracy. Hunan Magic isn\'t just knocking off a few of Abro\'s products. It\'s acting as though it is Abro Industries. \"This is attempted identity theft at a corporate level,\" Mr. Baranay fumes.

The Chinese company, based in the city of Liuyang in Hunan province, now advertises and ships around the world more than 40 \"Abro\" products, from super glue to silicon sealant, in exact replicas of Abro\'s packaging. Hunan Magic\'s owner, Yuan Hongwei, has Abro\'s logo on his business card. He touts his firm as the real Abro, and warns customers away from impostors.

Abro Industries, with just 24 employees and no U.S. sales, has shown more mettle than many other U.S. companies that have railed about piracy in China. It has hired dozens of lawyers and investigators, sued Hunan Magic, and gotten raids conducted in the United Arab Emirates and other countries, at a cost to Abro so far this year of more than $600,000, Mr. Baranay says. The U.S. Trade Representative\'s office has been championing Abro\'s cause in Beijing. Yet its Chinese nemesis keeps on selling Abro products.

From its South Bend headquarters, Abro sells the sorts of products -- \"stop leak\" for car radiators, plastic filler for dents, special tape for cracked windshields -- that poor countries use to hold themselves together. Its biggest seller is a tube of silicon that forms gaskets of all shapes and sizes. Mr. Baranay, a 52-year-old with thick gray hair, took over as head of Abro in 1980 and today owns all of the company\'s shares.

The company\'s annual sales, now spread across more than 130 countries, will hit nearly $100 million this year, up from just $6 million when Mr. Baranay took over. But fakes, he says, are costing Abro at least $10 million a year in lost sales -- which, considering that the company doesn\'t sell DVDs or some other highly-visible consumer item, astonishes Mr. Baranay. \"We hawk tapes and glues and spray paints to the Third World,\" he says. \"Go figure.\"

Hunan Magic sees no need to apologize about its run-in with Abro. It believes it has every right to do what it\'s doing. Company attorney Peng Jianju says in an interview that it\'s a \"coincidence\" that its Abro-branded products are identical to the U.S. versions. He says Hunan Magic developed its own Abro brand in 1996, only to run into opposition from Abro Industries a year ago. The Chinese company is still trying to win legal rights to the brand in China, he says. Mr. Yuan, the company president, declined to talk about the fight.

Abro, all but unknown in its own hometown, designs and distributes products but contracts the manufacturing to other U.S. companies. The company\'s corporate roots go back to the 1930s, and the Abro brand goes back to the 1970s. Abro is profitable because of its high volumes and strong market shares in many countries. In Pakistan, the generic name for masking tape is \"Abro.\"

\"We live and die by the strength of our brand,\" Mr. Baranay says.

Abro\'s first pirates popped up around 2000 in India, Turkey and parts of the former Soviet Union. Cracking down on them proved relatively easy. Abro\'s investigators tracked down rogue factories, and local authorities prosecuted counterfeiters.

Part of the problem with Hunan Magic is that the quirky Chinese legal system makes it difficult to prosecute counterfeiters. Also, local authorities are reluctant to hassle Chinese companies exporting an estimated $20 billion a year in counterfeit products.

Mr. Baranay and his top salesman, Timothy Maranais, first heard about Hunan Magic from Abro\'s Bosnian distributor, who stumbled upon the company\'s booth, loaded with Abro products, at the huge, twice-yearly Canton Trade Fair in Guangzhou, China, in 2002.

Abro sent investigators posing as buyers to Hunan Magic\'s offices in the provincial city of Liuyang. They finagled a tour of Hunan Magic\'s main supplier, a factory owned by Mr. Yuan\'s wife, where they saw stacks of fake Abro products labeled \"Made in USA.\" Abro\'s lawyers persuaded local trademark authorities to raid the factory that December, Mr. Baranay says.

For months, Abro fought for a copy of the raid report, only to learn that authorities had fined the factory $600 for \"unfair competition,\" without mentioning trademark violations or Hunan Magic.

In October 2003, Mr. Maranais flew to China to poke around the Canton Trade Fair. \"So I walk up to Hunan Magic\'s booth and my eyes bug out,\" he recalls. There was a huge sign overhead that said \"Abro,\" and stacks of catalogs filled with Abro products. Dozens of buyers crowded around, \"including many of my own customers,\" he says.

Mr. Maranais complained to the fair\'s trademark police. A group of local officials, several in uniform, charged up to Hunan Magic\'s booth, led by Mr. Maranais. \"I went right up and said, \'The party\'s over -- meet Mr. Abro,\' \" he says.

Undaunted, a Hunan Magic salesman produced a catalog displaying Abro products he said the company had a right to sell. One was an epoxy whose packaging for years had featured a photo of Mr. Maranais\'s wife fixing a bicycle. Hunan Magic\'s version was identical. \"There I was staring at my wife\'s face,\" Mr. Maranais says. \"And this guy claimed to own her.\"

Only after he showed authorities a photo of his wife pulled from his wallet did they seize the Abro products on display and detain the booth\'s salesmen. Again, victory was brief. The company received no fine and later sued the authorities, according to documents provided by Abro.

Hunan Magic grew more brazen at the next Canton trade fair in April. The Abro name graced the front of the company\'s catalog, which included 18 pages of Abro products and a warning from Mr. Yuan. \"During last years some manufacturers ... overlook Chinese law and invade our brands,\" it read in broken English. \"If further intruders appear after this date, our company make sure to claim against the companies, even to sue them.\"

Weeks later, the Bush administration\'s top official on China trade, Josette Shiner, got wind of Abro\'s struggles and decided to invite Mr. Baranay on a trade mission to Beijing. \"Here was a small company that had done all its homework and taken all the right steps, and yet its problems illustrated all that is wrong in the Chinese system,\" says Ms. Shiner.

While traveling with Ms. Shiner in July, Mr. Baranay won an audience with senior officials at the Chinese Commerce Ministry and the national trademark office. Within weeks, Abro got an expedited hearing at China\'s trademark office, which ruled against Hunan Magic\'s attempt to win a trademark for certain Abro glues. Hunan Magic is appealing.

Abro last month sued Hunan Magic in China for trademark violations, seeking $600,000 in damages. Even if Abro prevails, though, Mr. Baranay has new battles to fight, with Abro fakes and fakers popping up in Latin America and other places. The company now has more attorneys on hire than it has employees. \"A guy in Argentina has just registered a trademark for \'Zabro,\' \" Mr. Baranay says. \"So do I now have to go after him?\"

--Cui Rong in Beijing contributed to this article.
yqip  注册会员 | 2007-11-27 16:42:23

Re:国人因涉外知识产权纠纷在第三国遭逮捕,请大家发表看法.

美国商会负责知识产权事务的布拉德·许特就直言不讳,\"美国引渡袁宏伟意义重大。我认为,这一事实本身尽管不会让人感到恐惧,但至少在短期内,肯定会对造假者的行为有所遏制。\"
redstar  中级会员 | 2007-11-27 17:36:35

Re:国人因涉外知识产权纠纷在第三国遭逮捕,请大家发表看法.

这本身就是一种卑鄙的手段
再次显示了美国充当世界警察的可恶的用心,关键是这个警察只是按照自己的意愿行事。
这种行为本身是不尊重他国法律,无视与践踏他国尊严的一种行为,英国就是明显的帮凶。
不管如何这种事情不再简单的是两个公司的权利之争,已经上升到两个国家的冲突了,最起码是司法领域。明显的是以强凌弱的卑鄙行为。或许从国际法的做法上是正确的(我不是法律出身,没有研究过国际法或者是引渡法),但是这种行为不是发生在中国,不是中美两国之间的引渡。这明显的是美国积极主动制造摩擦的行为,故意挑戏中国。英国这个帮凶!!!
杀人一千,自损八百。如果美国这样愿意做,那或许会成为下一个世界不稳定的因素。美国经济低迷,自己发展不起来,然后就想办法打击那些发展快的国家。无耻!!!美国可以引渡,中国也可以,要引渡咱就引渡他一大堆技术专家。仁义者,善待仁义之人,杀尽不仁不义者。
静观后续变化,希望国家有些举动,不然又有人依此作为借口上街***了,这次应该不是学生了吧。
美国就是那么喜欢干扰别国的发展,不能容的下兄弟,怎么做老大?
笨天才  注册会员 | 2007-11-27 18:10:37

Re:国人因涉外知识产权纠纷在第三国遭逮捕,请大家发表看法.

密切关注
honglu  专利工程师/助理 | 2007-11-28 04:24:45

Re:国人因涉外知识产权纠纷在第三国遭逮捕,请大家发表看法.

感谢楼上各位的评论或信息, 本人也提供双方公司网址:

http://www.abro.com/

http://www.magicglue.net/

希望进一步得到更多评论.
honglu  专利工程师/助理 | 2007-11-28 04:33:09

Re:国人因涉外知识产权纠纷在第三国遭逮捕,请大家发表看法.

另一媒体的报道,与先前引用的报道多了一些细节.

湖南神力实业公司董事长在英被拘 引发法律质疑

作者:万静  发布时间:2007-11-26 08:57:05

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    如果美国用诱骗的手段将袁宏伟从英国成功引渡,那么今后所有与美国有着贸易或知识产权等法律方面纠纷的中国商人都会人人自危

  11月16日,湖南神力实业有限公司(下简称神力公司)董事长袁宏伟英国被拘一案在伦敦的法庭进行了一次听证。由于此次拘捕是由神力公司与美国爱宝工业有限公司(ABROIndustries,Inc,下简称爱宝公司)之间的商标权之争引发而来,期间又夹杂着美国爱宝公司以“诱骗”手段将袁宏伟引至与美国有引渡条约的英国实施抓捕的情节,从而引起了国内法学界的高度关注。

  祸起“ABRO”商标

  神力公司与爱宝公司关于ABRO的商标权之争由来已久。

  神力公司称其自1993年就开始使用ABRO商标,设计立意来自与“神力”意蕴相同的大力士“阿波罗”(ABRO)。2002年6月4日,神力公司向中国国家商标局申请在国际分类第16类商品上注册ABRO商标。2003年1月11日,美国爱宝公司也向中国国家商标局在同类商品上申请注册该商标,但因申请在后而被国家商标局驳回。随后,爱宝公司对神力公司的申请提出异议,经国家商标局、国家商标复审委员会和北京市一中院分别裁定和判决,决定不予核准神力公司注册申请,神力公司于2007年8月向北京市高院提出上诉,目前案件正在审理当中。

  爱宝公司在中国只在国际分类第1、3、4、7、9、17类商品上申请注册了ABRO商标,但在第16类商品上,两家公司的注册申请目前均未获准。

  神力公司认为,既然如此,就说明“任何人无权禁止他人使用”。神力公司曾将此商标在第16类商品上使用过,并曾在广交会上展出。而爱宝公司认为这对其构成侵权。双方为此多次发生摩擦。神力公司还称,为防止冲突,2005年以后,他们没有使用过ABRO商标,而是使用MAGPOW商标从事出口。

  2004年,爱宝公司向广州市中院起诉神力公司侵权。广州中院认定第16类商品与爱宝公司已经注册的第1类、第17类商品类似,认定神力公司侵权,判决其赔偿人民币50万元,并驳回爱宝公司其他诉讼请求。双方均对判决不服,目前该案已上诉至广东省高院,也在审理当中。

  在二审审理过程中,神力公司与爱宝公司双方多次联系希望能对此事进行协商谈判。至于谈判是谁主动提出的,据神力公司总经理袁素珍介绍说,是爱宝公司主动提出谈判的,要求袁宏伟到第三国进行。

  最初的计划是谈判安排在8月份在德国举行。但由于赴德国的签证时间较长,后改为9月14日在英国伦敦进行。袁宏伟对这次谈判做了充分准备,随行带着三套谈判方案,以及双方合作方案等资料。

  然而,9月14日,伦敦时间早晨6点左右,袁宏伟乘坐的中国航空公司CX251航班客机刚刚降落伦敦希思罗机场,就被三名英国警察在飞机上扣留。

  异国“诱捕”中国公民是不正当的

  由于,逮捕袁宏伟的过程充斥着“诱骗”情节,因此这起拘捕事件从一开始就引起了中国政府相关部门的高度关注,国内法律界纷纷指责美国这种规避引渡法律制度的“诱捕”行为,侵犯了中国司法主权和国际引渡法律准则。针对此间的法律问题,记者采访了北京师范大学刑事法律科学研究院黄风教授。

  黄风教授认为,袁宏伟是被美方设圈套骗到英国的,这种诱骗中国公民脱离中国法律保护的做法严重侵犯了袁宏伟的基本人权。

  根据相关资料,美国当局早在2005年10月就已经秘密签发了对袁宏伟的逮捕令。美国爱宝公司一方面在中国法院进行有关ABRO商标权民事诉讼;另一方面,在中国司法机关尚未对此民事诉讼案件作出最终裁决的情况下,以在英国商谈和解与合作事宜为名,将袁宏伟约到英国,执行早已拟订的秘密抓捕计划。英国为引渡目的地而签发的临时逮捕令也早在袁宏伟从中国起程之前就已准备好,英国警察未等袁宏伟办理入境手续就将其从中国飞机上带走。这些情节都说明“诱捕”是有预谋的。

  英国警方拘捕袁宏伟的过程存在法律瑕疵。本案中,袁宏伟乘坐的飞机刚一落地,英国警察就登机抓人。根据各国普遍遵循的法律规则,航空器是其注册国的领域延伸,外国执法机关应当尊重航空器注册国的司法管辖权。据神力公司的公司律师介绍,英国警方在逮捕袁宏伟过程中没有出示任何法律文件,拘捕的原因是在中国驻英国使馆出面交涉后才被告知的。

  据黄风教授介绍,中国和美国之间目前没有缔结双边引渡条约,而且中国引渡法律不允许向外国引渡本国国民。在存在上述法律困难的情况下,美国方面不是通过沟通与协商的方式寻求解决问题的方法,而是单方面地采用“诱骗”的手段,有意规避中国法律中的强制性禁止规范,这是对中国国家主权的蔑视和侵犯。

  此外,11月22日是神力公司和爱宝公司在广东省高院的商标权诉讼开庭审理的日子,而作为当事人的袁宏伟却身陷英国囹圄,不能到庭来行使自己的诉讼权利和申辩自己的理由,美国方面的“诱捕”行为无疑侵犯了袁宏伟的基本人权,同时,也是对中国司法机关审判活动的干扰和不尊重。

  阻击“危险先例”能否顺利

  在采访当中,黄风教授向记者介绍说,根据英国2003年引渡法的有关规定,如果对某人实行引渡有可能造成对其人权的侵犯,或者从人道的角度看实行引渡是“不公正的或不正当的”,则应当拒绝有关的引渡请求。因此,从法律上讲,英国主管机关是有足够理由让袁宏伟恢复自由返回中国的。以前,对于中国方面提出的引渡和遣返逃犯的请求,西方国家特别重视对“人权”保护问题的审查,希望在袁宏伟案件的处理中,英国主管机关也能一视同仁地注重对袁宏伟的人权保护问题。

  同时,黄风教授表示,对于袁宏伟能否最终被释放并顺利回国不能太过乐观。首先,英美两国历来引渡合作密切,而且它们同属于英美法体系,两国在法律评判标准上有很多相通的地方。其次,根据英国的法律,对于引渡国提出的引渡请求一般只进行形式审查,而不做实质审查。这一点对袁宏伟是不利的。虽然袁宏伟可以对美国的引渡要求提出抗辩,指出美国方面向英国法庭提交的证据材料不能证明袁宏伟本人实施了具体的“欺诈”行为,但英国法庭可能不会在对证据材料的审查上多花气力。

  黄风教授指出,如果美国用诱骗的手段将袁宏伟从英国成功引渡,那么今后所有与美国有着贸易或知识产权等法律方面纠纷的中国商人都会人人自危。此例一开,将很不利于解决中美之间的贸易摩擦,也不利于发展中美两国之间的司法合作关系。美国现在与109个国家签订了引渡条约,它可以很容易地使中国当事人落入它的引渡陷阱。由此受到损害的将是中国的国家主权、中国公民的基本自由权和中美两国司法合作的发展前景。

  目前,此事件已经引起了中国相关政府部门的高度关注,袁宏伟英国被拘案件今后的走向如何,本网将继续予以追踪报道。

   

来源:法制网——法制日报
honglu  专利工程师/助理 | 2007-11-28 04:46:18

Re:国人因涉外知识产权纠纷在第三国遭逮捕,请大家发表看法.

2006年广州中院知识产权民事十大案件

  1、华佛尘诉广州市电视台侵犯《美在花城》作品名称及著作权纠纷案。涉案的《美在花城》综艺节目家喻户晓,有较大的社会影响;我国著作权法颁布前涉及知识产权的诸多问题今后都可能由当事人重提司法机关进行法律审视。该案的审理也探索了处理相关历史遗留问题的原则及如何体现法律效果与社会效果的有机统一。

  2、深圳市腾讯计算机系统有限公司诉广州市宜拓服饰有限公司等侵犯OICQ企鹅图形著作权纠纷一案。本案形式上是涉及原告在知名腾讯QQ上使用OICQ企鹅图形作品的著作权保护问题,但实质上关系到动漫产业的发展趋势问题,有较大的社会影响。

  3、北京慈文影视制作有限公司诉广州数联软件技术有限公司信息网络传播权纠纷案。该案涉及利用P2P(点对点)网络传输技术的侵权问题。该案法院采用的侵权责任判定原则与其涉及的技术一样,都是处在知识产权审判的前沿,是一次界定新技术发展引致的法律新问题、权利新边界的有益尝试。

  4、北京无限好技术有限公司诉世纪龙信息网络有限责任公司侵犯著作权纠纷案。该案涉及利用MIDI格式(占存量小,易于传播)音乐作品而产生知识产权侵权纠纷,是一种新的侵权方式之一。该案是全国首批受理的同类案之一。

  5、广州市恒信印刷有限公司诉广州市日用杂品公司恒信商场、中国电信集团黄页信息有限公司等侵犯企业名称权及不正当竞争纠纷案。该案例涉及的侵权行为是信息时代侵犯知识产权的新方式之一。

  6、华南农业大学诉云大科技股份有限公司等侵犯“印楝素混配农药制剂及其制备方法”发明专利权纠纷案。涉案专利及其发明人多次获奖,专利技术含量高。法院在酌定赔偿数额时,以法定最高限额判决被告赔偿50万元,充分保护权利人的合法权益。

  7、美国爱宝工业有限公司(ABRO INDUSTRIES,INC.)诉湖南神力实业有限公司侵犯“ABRO”注册商标专用权及仿冒“知名商品特有的包装、装潢”不正当竞争纠纷案。该案是法院积极参与我市展会知识产权保护、公平合理维护中外商人知识产权的典型案例之一。

  8、鲁道夫.达斯勒体育用品波马股份公司诉浙江淘宝网络有限公司等销售假冒“PUMA”、“豹图形”等注册商标商品纠纷案。该案的审理体现了中外当事人、各种利益主体平等保护的原则以及公平合理地确定信息网络经营者的法律责任,具有一定的示范意义。

  9、路易威登马利蒂(法国)公司(Louis Vuitton Malletier)诉谭慧开侵犯“LV”商标专用权纠纷案。该案例侵权人既受到行政处罚,又被判侵权及赔偿,是境外知名品牌权利人在我国维权的成功案例之一。

  10、三九企业集团公司等诉江西德成制药有限公司侵犯“999”商标专用权纠纷案。该案是权利人多方位成功保护知识产权典型案例之一。
您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 立即注册

本版积分规则

QQ|( 冀ICP备05010901号 )|博派知识产权

Powered by Discuz! X3.4 © 2001-2016 Comsenz Inc.

返回顶部