The clarification and application of the Numerus Clausus Principle of IP Rights in China-Reference-Cited by-同舟云学术

The clarification and application of the Numerus Clausus Principle of IP Rights in China

Published:2022-04-01 Issue:1 Volume:7 Page:113-142
ISSN:2364-8821
Container-title:International Journal of Legal Discourse
language:en
Short-container-title:

Author:

Cho Yongsun¹^ORCID,Sun Shan²^ORCID,Chen Fangxin³^ORCID

Affiliation:

1. Department of Industrial Security, Hansei University , Gunpo-si , Korea

2. Southwest University of Political Science & Law, Civil and Commercial Law School , Chongqing , China

3. Legal Institute on Cyberspace Governance and Digital Econom, NingboTech University , Ningbo , China

Abstract

Abstract Whether the Numerus Clausus Principle is adhered to in IP Rights (IPRs) Law determines whether judges have the discretion to explain the rights that have not been legislated in a case. Legal interest is the superordinate concept of right, and “other rights and interests prescribed by law” in Article(Art) 126 of the Civil Code of the PRC refer to different types of legal interests. The legal interests that judges give relief by exerting their discretion in a case are the “interest” in Art 126 of the Civil Code, which has not risen to legal rights. Those flexible expressions conflicting with the Numerus Clausus Principle in the separate IPRs laws should be revised in the future. The Numerus Clausus Principle also requires judges to apply open concepts carefully when judging and reasoning, and protecting legal interests discriminatively.

Funder

National Social Science Foundation

Zhejiang Provincial Philosophy and Social Science Planning Project

Publisher

Walter de Gruyter GmbH

Subject

Law,Linguistics and Language

Link

https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/ijld-2022-2066/pdf

Reference79 articles.

1. Afonso, Oscar. 2012. Scale-independent north-south trade effects on the technological-knowledge bias and on wage inequality. Review of World Economics 148(1). 181–207. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10290-011-0109-7.

2. Almawla, Hanan. 2018. Parody in copyright laws of GCC states: Where does it fit? Arab Law Quarterly 32(3). 298–312. https://doi.org/10.1163/15730255-12322021.

3. Alva-Arevalo, Amelia. 2020. The relevance of the inter-American court of human rights’ standards on the right to prior consultation in the domestic sphere. A review of the Peruvian jurisprudence. International Journal on Minority and Group Rights 27(3). 603–624. https://doi.org/10.1163/15718115-02703004.

4. Antons, Christoph. 2017. What is Asian law? Asia in law, the humanities and social sciences. In Christoph Antons (ed.), Routledge handbook of Asian law, 3–27. London: Routledge.

5. Azar, Moshe. 2007. Transforming ambiguity into vagueness in legal interpretation. In Anne Wagner, Wouter Werner & Deborah Cao (eds.), Interpretation, law and the construction of meaning: Collected papers on legal interpretation in theory, adjudication and political practice, 121–137. Dordrecht: Springer.