“必須要讓知識產(chǎn)權(quán)侵權(quán)者付出代價！”日前，德國聯(lián)邦專利法院院長貝亞特·施密特在接受中國知識產(chǎn)權(quán)報記者采訪時一語道出知識產(chǎn)權(quán)保護的重要性。

　　“自上世紀80年代建立知識產(chǎn)權(quán)制度以來，中國在知識產(chǎn)權(quán)領(lǐng)域取得了飛速的發(fā)展?！笔┟芴乇硎?，40年來，中國與德國在知識產(chǎn)權(quán)領(lǐng)域建立了緊密的合作關(guān)系。如今，中國國家知識產(chǎn)權(quán)局已經(jīng)發(fā)展成為世界最大的知識產(chǎn)權(quán)局。目前，中國的知識產(chǎn)權(quán)申請量位居世界前列，未來幾年這一數(shù)字還將繼續(xù)增長。

　　“近年來，中國一直努力完善知識產(chǎn)權(quán)法律體系，強化知識產(chǎn)權(quán)保護。中國現(xiàn)有的知識產(chǎn)權(quán)法律制度遵循國際標準，并在一定程度上覆蓋了所有知識產(chǎn)權(quán)門類?！笔┟芴乇硎?。在她看來，僅僅通過立法并不能有效保護知識產(chǎn)權(quán)，還需要一套行之有效的制度來保護權(quán)利人的合法權(quán)益。因此，當知識產(chǎn)權(quán)侵權(quán)行為給權(quán)利人帶來經(jīng)濟損失以及不利影響時，需要有適當?shù)难a償，并遏制侵權(quán)者持續(xù)獲得非法所得。

　　“為了加強知識產(chǎn)權(quán)保護力度，中國政府重新組建了國家知識產(chǎn)權(quán)局。在司法層面，中國設(shè)立了多家專門的知識產(chǎn)權(quán)法庭。2019年，最高人民法院知識產(chǎn)權(quán)法庭揭牌成立。這些都是中國加大知識產(chǎn)權(quán)保護力度的有力舉措。據(jù)我了解，中國的各級知識產(chǎn)權(quán)法庭審理了大量的知識產(chǎn)權(quán)案件?！笔┟芴卣f。

　　在施密特看來，沒有一個國家能夠像中國這樣迅速認識到知識產(chǎn)權(quán)保護的重要性，并且接受知識產(chǎn)權(quán)對經(jīng)濟發(fā)展至關(guān)重要的觀點。當然，中國依然需要付出時間和精力將強化知識產(chǎn)權(quán)保護的理念付諸實踐，并提升社會公眾的知識產(chǎn)權(quán)保護意識。

　　“近年來，中國加大了對盜版及侵權(quán)假冒行為的打擊力度。未來，中國在繼續(xù)遏制知識產(chǎn)權(quán)侵權(quán)行為方面仍將面臨較大挑戰(zhàn)。”施密特認為，保護知識產(chǎn)權(quán)和打擊侵權(quán)假冒行為的關(guān)鍵在于知識產(chǎn)權(quán)管理和執(zhí)法。確定合理的賠償金額是打擊知識產(chǎn)權(quán)侵權(quán)行為的可行辦法，尤其是在短期內(nèi)處理大量知識產(chǎn)權(quán)侵權(quán)案件時。（柳鵬|中國知識產(chǎn)權(quán)報）

　　（本文內(nèi)容僅代表受訪者個人觀點，與德國聯(lián)邦專利法院無關(guān)）

　　"IP violations must have tangible consequences for the infringer," Beate Schmidt, President of the German Federal Patent Court, stressed the importance of IP protection in an interview with China Intellectual Property News recently.

　　"Since the People's Republic of China started to establish its own system of industrial property protection in the  1980s, there has been a very rapid development indeed," said Schmidt. In her eyes, today, the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) has become the largest IP Office in the world, ranking among the top destinations for IP applications. With such pace, the growth will be expected over the next few years.

　　"In recent years, China has made great and successful efforts to improve IP protection by revising and updating its legislation. The existing legal provisions follow international standards and they cover all relevant areas of Intellectual Property to the extent necessary," said Schmidt. In her view, legislation alone cannot guarantee effective protection of IPRs. Without a functioning system to enforce those rights successfully against infringers, there is no real protection. There has to be an adequate compensation for the losses and disadvantages caused by an infringement. At the same time, the infringer has to be prevented from keeping his illegally obtained profits.

　　"In recent years, China has made great and successful efforts to improve IP protection. These efforts were flanked by the reorganization of the National Intellectual Property Administration and by the establishment of specialised IP courts – with the establishment of the IP Court within the Supreme People's Court in 2019 as a climax. I know from many conversations with judges, that these courts deal with an overwhelming number of cases," said Schmidt.

　　"No other country embraced the idea of IP protection and its importance for economic development so quickly and consequently as China did. Of course, it takes time and effort to implement such a new concept and raise awareness for it across the country," added Schmidt.

　　"Although China in recent years has intensified its fight against product piracy and counterfeit goods, the challenge to stop IP infringements remains a constant challenge in future," said Schmidt. She thought that IP management and enforcement are keys to protect IP and crack down upon on infringements. In parallel, reasonably calculated punitive damages might be a feasible solution as well, especially when it is necessary to deal with a great number of cases with a short notice.  (Liu Peng｜China Intellectual Property News)

　　(The interview only reflects the personal views of the interviewee, not necessarily suggesting they are the views of the German Federal Patent Court)

　　貝亞特·施密特

　　2011年5月至今，擔任德國聯(lián)邦專利法院院長

　　2006年8月至2011年4月，歐盟內(nèi)部市場協(xié)調(diào)局（現(xiàn)更名為歐盟知識產(chǎn)權(quán)局）司長。先后在該局商標與撤銷部、撤銷與訴訟部就職，在撤銷與訴訟部主要負責(zé)為上訴委員會的判決作辯護

　　2000年2月至2006年7月，德國專利商標局第三司（商標、實用新型與外觀設(shè)計）司長；1997年5月至2000年1月，德國專利商標局第4.1處處長，負責(zé)人員、預(yù)算管理；1994年12月至1997年4月，德國聯(lián)邦專利法院第32屆商標上訴委員會法官；1991年1月至1994年12月，德國聯(lián)邦司法部副部長個人秘書；1986年8月至1990年12月，德國聯(lián)邦司法部IIIB3處（版權(quán)法）法務(wù)人員，從1989年開始在該部門人事處擔任法務(wù)人員；1982年11月至1986年8月，德國阿沙芬堡地方法院刑事與民事訴訟法官，阿沙芬堡地方法院檢察官，1982年通過第二次德國國家司法考試；1974年10月至1979年12月，德國維爾茨堡大學(xué)學(xué)習(xí)法律，通過第一次德國國家司法考試

　　Beate Schmidt

　　Since 5/2011 President of the Federal Patent Court

　　8/2006 - 4/2011 Director at the Office of Harmonization in the Internal Market (OHIM, now EUIPO), initially in the Trade Mark and Cancellation Department, then in the Cancellation and Litigation Department, responsible for the defense of rulings by the Boards of Appeal before the European Court of Justice and the General Court in Luxembourg

　　2/2000 - 7/2006 German Patent and Trade Mark Office, Head of Directorate General 3 (Trade Marks, Utility Models and Designs); 5/1997 - 1/2000 German Patent and Trade Mark Office, Head of Division 4.1 (personnel, budget); 12/1994 - 4/1997 Judge on the 32nd Board of Appeal for Trade Marks at the Federal Patent Court; 1/1991 - 12/1994 Private secretary to the state secretary of the Federal Ministry of Justice; 8/1986 - 12/1990 Legal officer in division IIIB3 (copyright law), from 1989 legal officer in the personnel division of the Federal Ministry of Justice; 11/1982 – 8/1986 Judge in criminal and civil matters at Aschaffenburg Regional and Local Courts, public prosecutor at Aschaffenburg Regional Court,1982 Second State Examination in Law; 10/1974 - 12/1979 Law studies at Maximilians University Würzburg, First State Examination in Law