{"title":"对抗性原则框架下对假冒商品价值和数量资料的司法请求","authors":"Svetlana V. Butenko","doi":"10.18572/1812-383x-2021-6-26-30","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The article analyzes the current practice of state arbitration courts to issue disclosure orders for evidence confirming the volume of production and the cost of counterfeit goods. In some cases, rightholders interpret their right to demand evidence from an opponent extremely broadly and, by demanding information as such, but not evidence, actually transferring the burden of proof to the defendant, which conflicts with the adversarial principle of civil proceedings.","PeriodicalId":254727,"journal":{"name":"Arbitrazh-Civil Procedure","volume":"6 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-06-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Judicial Request for Data on the Value and Quantity of Counterfeit within the Framework of the Adversariality Principle\",\"authors\":\"Svetlana V. Butenko\",\"doi\":\"10.18572/1812-383x-2021-6-26-30\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The article analyzes the current practice of state arbitration courts to issue disclosure orders for evidence confirming the volume of production and the cost of counterfeit goods. In some cases, rightholders interpret their right to demand evidence from an opponent extremely broadly and, by demanding information as such, but not evidence, actually transferring the burden of proof to the defendant, which conflicts with the adversarial principle of civil proceedings.\",\"PeriodicalId\":254727,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Arbitrazh-Civil Procedure\",\"volume\":\"6 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-06-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Arbitrazh-Civil Procedure\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.18572/1812-383x-2021-6-26-30\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Arbitrazh-Civil Procedure","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.18572/1812-383x-2021-6-26-30","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
A Judicial Request for Data on the Value and Quantity of Counterfeit within the Framework of the Adversariality Principle
The article analyzes the current practice of state arbitration courts to issue disclosure orders for evidence confirming the volume of production and the cost of counterfeit goods. In some cases, rightholders interpret their right to demand evidence from an opponent extremely broadly and, by demanding information as such, but not evidence, actually transferring the burden of proof to the defendant, which conflicts with the adversarial principle of civil proceedings.