Principles for handling conflicts of intellectual property rights (1) Principle of good faith The principle of good faith is the basic principle of civil law and the legalization of moral standards. It requires parties in civil activities to abide by the principles when exercising their rights and obligations. The code of ethics of good faith. This principle has been generally recognized by laws around the world. Article 4 of my country’s General Principles of Civil Law stipulates that “civil activities shall follow the principles of voluntariness, fairness, compensation of equal value, and good faith.” Article 2 of my country’s Anti-Unfair Competition Law Paragraph 1 also stipulates that “operators shall abide by the principles of voluntariness, equality, fairness, good faith and recognized business ethics when operating in the market.” Honesty is also implicit in the specific provisions of my country’s Trademark Law and Patent Law. The principle of credit, for example, Article 31 of my country's Trademark Law stipulates that applicants shall not preemptively register a trademark that has been used by others and has a certain influence. It is obviously based on the principle of good faith. As a basic principle, good faith should be applied to the resolution of IP rights conflicts. In most cases, the subsequent intellectual property rights that conflict are often obtained through unfair means, or after being obtained through legitimate means, the rights are abused, the prior rights of others are intentionally infringed, and unfair competition is engaged in. These behaviors should be punished. Constrained by the principle of good faith. The Paris Convention stipulates a principle that any behavior contrary to good faith constitutes unfair competition. The principle of good faith has been widely used in judicial practice to deal with conflicts of rights. When resolving rights disputes between domain names and trademarks, the people's courts use the principle of good faith to deal with the rights arising from domain name registrants' preemptive registration of other people's famous trademarks. Conflicting. Article 7, paragraph 1, of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Civil Disputes Involving Computer Network Domain Names (Fashi [2001] No. 24) clearly stipulates: "When hearing cases of domain name disputes, the People's Court shall If the circumstances specified in Article 4 of this Interpretation constitute an infringement in accordance with relevant legal provisions, the corresponding legal provisions shall be applied; if it constitutes unfair competition, Article 4 of the General Principles of the Civil Law and Article 2, Paragraph 1 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law may be applied. "The so-called "situations specified in Article 4 of this Interpretation" in this article are exactly the situations where the domain name conflicts with other people's prior trademarks or domain names, and "Article 4 of the General Principles of the Civil Law and Article 2 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law" 1" is the legal clause of good faith. When dealing with cases of conflicts of intellectual property rights, my country's relevant administrative departments also follow the principle of good faith to protect intellectual property rights. For example, the State Administration for Industry and Commerce pointed out in its "Opinions on Handling the Conflict between Trademark Exclusive Rights and Design Patent Rights" that: Trademark exclusive rights and design patent rights are important intellectual property rights and are governed by the Trademark Law and Patent Law respectively. protection of the Law. The acquisition of these rights must comply with the principle of good faith in the General Principles of Civil Law and shall not infringe upon the prior rights of others. (2) The principle of protecting prior rights. The protection of prior rights means that when there are multiple intellectual property rights on the same intellectual achievement, the previously acquired rights shall be protected in the order in which the rights were acquired. The principle of protection of prior rights is a principle commonly adopted by countries with civil law systems and a unique principle for resolving conflicts of intellectual property rights. Different from traditional civil rights, in order to stimulate innovation and avoid the waste of resources caused by repeated research, the intellectual property system only grants rights to the earliest invention and creation and the earliest applicant. In addition, in the field of intellectual property rights, two rights arising on the same object are often incompatible. For example, the same work of art can be applied for a design patent, or can be used as packaging and decoration of products. When the two rights belong to different rights holders and are used on the same or similar products, it is easy to cause confusion. are incompatible and often can only protect one right. As a judicial principle for resolving conflicts of intellectual property rights, the principle of protection of prior rights has clear legal and judicial interpretation basis in my country. Article 9, paragraph 1, of my country’s Trademark Law stipulates: “The trademark applied for registration shall have distinctive features that are easy to identify and shall not conflict with the legal rights previously obtained by others.

In addition, introducing compensation laws is also a way to consider. In the conflict of intellectual property rights, there are two "legal" intellectual property rights one after another, and the rights are obtained through statutory forms. The conflict mostly occurs based on the infringement of the earlier right by the later right. But the problem is that the "infringing" subsequent rights have formed relatively independent interests, and such interests cannot be accommodated by the prior rights. At this time, applying the pure principle of protecting the prior rights actually constitutes an infringement of the prior rights. The unfairness of subsequent rights constitutes unjust enrichment; on the other hand, prior rights themselves are independent of subsequent rights, and it is also unfair and unfair for post-infringement rights to include prior rights (that is, not protecting or ignoring prior rights). constitutes unjust enrichment. This requires attention to both prior rights and subsequent rights, and neither party can be ignored. Otherwise, one party will unjustly benefit the other party, and simply granting an injunction to one party is contrary to justice. When considering fairness factors, introducing the compensation law, one party will provide certain compensation for the interests of the other party, and coordinating the interests of both parties. The introduction of the compensation law in the field of intellectual property is a specific application of utilitarianism in the resolution of rights conflicts. Through the application of the law of compensation, one party can obtain substantial rationality, thereby achieving the unity of formal reasonableness and substantive reasonableness, realizing the reconciliation of conflicting rights, and exerting the effect that liability for compensation cannot.