近日,浙江省高级人民法院在给省司法行政主管部门的一份内部文件中指出:我省某法院在其受理的7起商标侵权纠纷案件中,发现原告方提供的证实被告侵权的公证书均是由异地公证机构提供,这些公证书既不是原告所在地公证机构作出,也不是侵权行为地公证机构作出。而按照我国《公证法》及《公证机构执业管理办法》的规定,公证机构的执业区域是有限定的。因此在实践中对公证机构存在的超越 Recently, the Zhejiang Provincial Higher People’s Court pointed out in an internal document to the provincial judicial administrative department that a court in our province found in its seven cases of trademark infringement disputes that the plaintiff’s notarized certificate of defendant’s infringement was found It is provided by a notary public at a different place. Such notarial certificates are neither made by the notary office of the plaintiff or the notary office of the infringing act. In accordance with China’s “notary law” and “notary bodies practice management approach”, the notary office of the practice area is limited. Therefore, in practice, the existence of notary agencies beyond