本文關(guān)鍵詞： 商標(biāo)權(quán) 侵權(quán) iPad 美國蘋果公司 深圳唯冠公司　出處：《湖南大學(xué)》2014年碩士論文　論文類型：學(xué)位論文

【摘要】：2011年12月7日深圳市中級人民法院一審判決駁回美國蘋果公司要求向唯冠科技（深圳）有限公司索要iPad商標(biāo)權(quán)的訴訟請求。二審以雙方已經(jīng)達(dá)成六千萬美元的和解結(jié)案。 商標(biāo)侵權(quán)是一種出現(xiàn)頻率非常高的侵權(quán)行為，以往多是我國企業(yè)模仿山寨外國馳名商標(biāo)與品牌，但此案卻是美國蘋果公司侵犯了深圳唯冠的iPad商標(biāo)所有權(quán)，在知識產(chǎn)權(quán)領(lǐng)域引起了不小的轟動。關(guān)于本案，存在著三個爭議焦點，一是在此次交易中臺灣唯冠能否構(gòu)成表見代理以處分深圳唯冠的商標(biāo)權(quán)；二是深圳唯冠申請iPad禁售令被駁回是否符合法律規(guī)定；三是iPad商標(biāo)與商譽(yù)的關(guān)系。通過具體分析可以發(fā)現(xiàn)，雖然一審判決深圳唯冠公司擁有iPad商標(biāo)在我國大陸的專用權(quán)，但iPad商標(biāo)價值主要由蘋果公司創(chuàng)造這是不爭的事實。在不同地域不同主體所有的在相同或相似商品上相同的商標(biāo)的情形下商標(biāo)權(quán)利人與商標(biāo)價值創(chuàng)造人不一致并可能產(chǎn)生利益沖突。這要求我們用利益平衡原則解決沖突。同時深圳唯冠申請禁售iPad商品被駁回雖然符合我國法律規(guī)定，但是在侵權(quán)行為發(fā)生存在很大可能性時，僅因為訴訟的長期性導(dǎo)致權(quán)利人必須承受更多的侵權(quán)后果。這是對權(quán)利人的不公平的體現(xiàn)，因此，權(quán)利人的維權(quán)時機(jī)選擇與事先調(diào)查非常重要，深圳唯冠選在蘋果公司新iPad上市之際，將蘋果公司推上被告席申請禁售，達(dá)到了其欲取得的經(jīng)濟(jì)賠償額度。
[Abstract]:In December 7th 2011, the Shenzhen Intermediate people's Court ruled against Apple's request for iPad trademark rights from Proview Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. The two sides have reached a $60 million settlement. Trademark infringement is a kind of infringing act with high frequency. In the past, most enterprises in our country imitated famous foreign trademarks and brands, but the case was a case in which Apple Company of the United States infringed the iPad trademark ownership of Proview Shenzhen. It has caused quite a stir in the field of intellectual property. There are three controversial points about this case. One is whether Proview of Taiwan can form an apparent agent to dispose of the trademark right of Proview Shenzhen in this transaction; Second, whether Shenzhen Proview's application for iPad prohibition was rejected in accordance with the law; third, the relationship between the iPad trademark and goodwill. Through specific analysis, it can be found that although Shenzhen Proview held the exclusive right to use the iPad trademark in the mainland of China in the first instance, But it is an indisputable fact that the value of the iPad trademark is mainly created by Apple. In the case of the same trademark in the same or similar goods owned by different subjects in different regions, the owner of the trademark is not in agreement with the creator of the trademark value. Conflict of interest may arise. This requires us to use the principle of balance of interests to resolve the conflict. Meanwhile, Proview Shenzhen's application for a ban on the sale of iPad goods has been rejected, although in accordance with the provisions of Chinese law, However, when there is a great possibility of infringement, only because of the long-term nature of the lawsuit, the obligee must bear more tort consequences. This is an unfair manifestation to the right holder, so, The timing and prior investigation of the rights holders are very important. Proview Shenzhen has pushed Apple into the dock to apply for a ban on its new iPad, reaching the amount of financial compensation it wants.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：湖南大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2014
【分類號】：D920.5;D923.43

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 鐘雅蘇;商標(biāo)價值研究[J];財貿(mào)研究;1996年06期

2 李琛;名教與商標(biāo)保護(hù)[J];電子知識產(chǎn)權(quán);2005年05期

3 張鵬輝;;論馳名商標(biāo)被國外惡意搶注的問題及對策[J];法制與社會;2010年27期

4 曹新明;;商標(biāo)搶注之正當(dāng)性研究——以“樊記”商標(biāo)搶注為例[J];法治研究;2011年09期

5 左傳衛(wèi);商譽(yù)出資探討[J];科技與法律;2004年03期

6 馮曉青;;知識產(chǎn)權(quán)法的利益平衡原則:法理學(xué)考察[J];南都學(xué)壇;2008年02期

7 章戈;;表見代理及其適用[J];法學(xué)研究;1987年06期

8 曹柯;;商標(biāo)搶注及其規(guī)制程序[J];人民司法;2011年05期

9 楊黎明;;“小肥羊”商標(biāo)搶注糾紛案的啟示[J];中國市場;2010年17期

10 張斗勝;韓東林;程敏;;自創(chuàng)商譽(yù)價值形成要素及其計量的分析[J];特區(qū)經(jīng)濟(jì);2006年07期

，

本文編號：1521133