發(fā)布時(shí)間：2018-01-23 06:39

  本文關(guān)鍵詞： 其他不正當(dāng)手段 法律適用 公共利益 法學(xué)解釋方法　出處：《華東政法大學(xué)》2015年碩士論文　論文類型：學(xué)位論文

【摘要】：“其他不正當(dāng)手段”條款來源于《商標(biāo)法》44條1款,具體是指“虛構(gòu)、隱瞞事實(shí)真相或者偽造申請(qǐng)書件及有關(guān)文件進(jìn)行注冊(cè),比如偽造營業(yè)執(zhí)照、涂改經(jīng)營范圍、編造有關(guān)虛假申請(qǐng)事項(xiàng)等”。作為商標(biāo)禁止注冊(cè)的事由之一,在商標(biāo)的審查實(shí)務(wù)之中被頻繁適用。然而,從大量商標(biāo)行政確權(quán)案件中可以明確發(fā)現(xiàn),很長時(shí)期內(nèi)商標(biāo)評(píng)審委員會(huì)和人民法院之間甚至人民法院內(nèi)部對(duì)這一條款的適用標(biāo)準(zhǔn)亦未能達(dá)成共識(shí)。該條款的適用分歧表現(xiàn)在實(shí)體和程序的兩個(gè)方面,分別是:實(shí)體方面,集中于它是指絕對(duì)事由還是相對(duì)事由;程序方面,該條款是否只能適用于“注冊(cè)商標(biāo)的無效宣告”,而不能適用于商標(biāo)的異議程序(具體是指“不予注冊(cè)”程序)?圍繞該條款的這兩個(gè)問題的爭(zhēng)論和分歧不僅給商標(biāo)審查和審判實(shí)務(wù)造成了重大影響,亦使得人們?cè)谏虡?biāo)注冊(cè)或使用時(shí)對(duì)應(yīng)當(dāng)如何正確適用“其他不正當(dāng)手段”條款產(chǎn)生困惑。本文旨在從實(shí)體和程序上對(duì)“其他不正當(dāng)手段”條款的適用制度進(jìn)行深入分析、解讀和探討。筆者通過對(duì)國內(nèi)司法實(shí)踐中相關(guān)典型案例進(jìn)行分析和歸納,對(duì)商標(biāo)評(píng)審委員會(huì)和人民法院在適用“其他不正當(dāng)手段”條款時(shí)采用的不同標(biāo)準(zhǔn)加以總結(jié)。指出我國在司法實(shí)踐、理論研究以及立法中對(duì)“其他不正當(dāng)手段”條款的認(rèn)識(shí)存在不足,并對(duì)其原因加以分析,總結(jié)得到相應(yīng)適用規(guī)則。圍繞“其他不正當(dāng)手段”條款目前存在的相關(guān)問題,本文分為三章進(jìn)行具體研究分析:第一章是“其他不正當(dāng)手段”條款有關(guān)爭(zhēng)議和分歧的現(xiàn)狀介紹。第一,將該條款目前在行政和司法實(shí)踐中的適用現(xiàn)狀進(jìn)行梳理,總結(jié)出雙方在該問題上所持的觀點(diǎn)變化:在實(shí)體問題上,行政機(jī)關(guān)之前堅(jiān)持的觀點(diǎn)是該條款可囊括私權(quán)和公權(quán)兩方面,而司法機(jī)關(guān)的觀點(diǎn)傾向于認(rèn)定該條款只可用于公權(quán)的規(guī)制,最高法院于2010年發(fā)布了司法解釋指導(dǎo)意見,認(rèn)定該條款規(guī)制的行為“屬于欺騙手段以外的擾亂商標(biāo)注冊(cè)秩序、損害公共利益、不正當(dāng)占用公共資源或者以其他方式謀取不正當(dāng)利益的手段”,為該問題定性,并相繼在2011年“蠟筆小新”系列案和2013年的“海棠灣”案件中明確認(rèn)定“具有大批量、規(guī)模性搶注他人商標(biāo)并轉(zhuǎn)賣牟利”、“沒有合理理由大量注冊(cè)囤積其他商標(biāo)、并無真實(shí)使用意圖的行為”的行為,屬于“不正當(dāng)占用公共資源、擾亂商標(biāo)注冊(cè)管理秩序及公共秩序,極大地浪費(fèi)行政審查資源及司法資源,損害公共利益”的行為,構(gòu)成41條1款所指“其他不正當(dāng)手段”所包含之情形,并且該司法解釋得到行政機(jī)關(guān)認(rèn)可;在程序問題上,圍繞該條款的適用現(xiàn)狀爭(zhēng)議是行政機(jī)關(guān)認(rèn)為不僅可適用于已注冊(cè)商標(biāo)的無效宣告程序,也可適用于未注冊(cè)商標(biāo)的異議程序,具體是指商標(biāo)不予注冊(cè)復(fù)審程序,而司法機(jī)關(guān)在此問題上的做法顯得不太穩(wěn)定,各級(jí)法院做法并不一致,有的案件適用,有的則不適用。第二,就實(shí)體問題,將目前理論研究中學(xué)者主張的三種觀點(diǎn)詳細(xì)列舉出,對(duì)理論界存在的各種觀點(diǎn)予以歸納和總結(jié),并分析了所持觀點(diǎn)背后的法律依據(jù),為后文深入分析該問題做好背景介紹。第三,就程序問題的觀點(diǎn)分歧進(jìn)行梳理,指出目前就程序問題存在爭(zhēng)議的關(guān)鍵因素是對(duì)法律的效率和公平價(jià)值的取舍。第二章是從實(shí)體問題角度對(duì)“其他不正當(dāng)手段”條款中存在爭(zhēng)議的問題進(jìn)行辨析,并給出自己的觀點(diǎn)。在本章中,筆者從商標(biāo)法的制度本源出發(fā),結(jié)合民法的基本解釋方法,對(duì)其他不正當(dāng)手段條款的性質(zhì)及內(nèi)涵加以辨析。第一,基于現(xiàn)有的法理基礎(chǔ),具體說是法律解釋規(guī)則中的體系解釋方法,筆者認(rèn)為“不正當(dāng)手段”條款的適用范圍應(yīng)僅限于禁止商標(biāo)注冊(cè)的絕對(duì)事由,即對(duì)公共利益予以保護(hù);第二,通過商標(biāo)法法理,得出該條款所保護(hù)的“公共利益”實(shí)質(zhì)上是市場(chǎng)主體在市場(chǎng)中能夠自由競(jìng)爭(zhēng)的市場(chǎng)秩序;第三,通過該條款作為兜底條款,其特殊性在于在賦予司法機(jī)關(guān)一定程度的自由裁量權(quán)的基礎(chǔ)上,但并不是所有的有關(guān)于自由競(jìng)爭(zhēng)的公共利益都能用該款保護(hù),只有那些尚未成熟到被法條明文規(guī)定類型化的公共利益才屬于該條款所保護(hù)的利益范疇。第三章是圍繞該條款有關(guān)的程序問題的界定�；诂F(xiàn)有司法實(shí)務(wù)現(xiàn)狀,我國商標(biāo)確權(quán)案件時(shí)間冗長,這造成商標(biāo)權(quán)人的相關(guān)利益長期處在不能確定狀態(tài),筆者認(rèn)為對(duì)該條款適用程序的解釋不應(yīng)當(dāng)持?jǐn)U大觀點(diǎn),即不能用于異議程序(不予注冊(cè)案件),而應(yīng)當(dāng)限定于已經(jīng)注冊(cè)完成的案件中。第一,通過對(duì)商標(biāo)法中的異議程序現(xiàn)狀介紹,得出關(guān)于該條款能否適用于不予注冊(cè)案件的爭(zhēng)議產(chǎn)生是由于商標(biāo)法未給出確定的不予注冊(cè)事由;第二,從商標(biāo)法的立法宗旨應(yīng)當(dāng)首先著眼于商標(biāo)權(quán)作為私權(quán)所應(yīng)得到的保護(hù),而不是商標(biāo)行政部門作為管理者的管理職能的發(fā)揮出發(fā),以及商標(biāo)法的效率和公平的利益平衡理論,得出不應(yīng)擴(kuò)大解釋法律的觀點(diǎn),并就商標(biāo)法的完善提出立法建議,法律明確規(guī)定不予注冊(cè)的事由將會(huì)有利于法律的統(tǒng)一性和權(quán)威性。第四章在分析和評(píng)價(jià)我國立法現(xiàn)狀的基礎(chǔ)上,從商標(biāo)審查和審判實(shí)務(wù)的不同角色特點(diǎn)入手,分別進(jìn)行思考和辨析,進(jìn)而提出明確不正當(dāng)手段條款的實(shí)體和程序的具體適用標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。
[Abstract]:"Other unfair means" provisions from the "trademark law >44 paragraph 1, specifically refers to" fiction, conceal the truth or falsification of application documents and other relevant documents such as business license registration, forged, altered business scope, fabricated the false application matters. "One of the reasons as the trademark registration is prohibited. In the frequent application of trademark review practices. However, from a large number of trademark administrative jurisdiction in the case can be found between a very long period of time the Trademark Appraisal Committee and the people's court or the people's court within on the terms of the applicable standard also failed to reach a consensus. The terms of the applicable differences in two aspects of entity and procedure. Are concentrated in the entity aspect, it refers to the absolute or relative subject matter; the procedure, the clause is only applicable to the" invalidation "registered trademark, and is not suitable for Trademark objection procedure (specifically refers to "not registered" program)? On the two issues of the terms of the debate and differences not only caused a significant impact to the Trademark Review and adjudication practice, but also makes people in the trademark registration or use of how to correctly apply the terms of other unfair means "confused in this paper. In order to analyze application system in terms of" other improper means "from entity and procedure, interpretation and discussion. The author analyzed and summarized the relevant domestic typical case in the judicial practice of different standards by the Trademark Review and Adjudication Committee and the people's court for" other unfair means "provisions of the summary. It is pointed out that China's judicial practice, theoretical research and legislation on the" other unfair means "provisions of the shortcomings, and the reasons are analyzed, summed up The application of the rules. Related problems around the "other unfair means" clause, this article is divided into three chapters: the first chapter is the analysis of "the situation related disputes and differences in terms of other unfair means. First, the present situation of application in terms of administrative and judicial practice in the current review summed up the change of the view, held on the issue: in the substantive issues, the administrative organ before insisted the provisions include two aspects of private rights and public rights, and judicial organs tend to the view that the clause can only be used for public regulation, in 2010 the Supreme Court issued a judicial interpretation guidance that the provisions of regulation behavior" means to cheat the outside disturb the trademark registration order, damage the public interests, illegal occupation of public resources or otherwise seek improper interests The means, for the problem of qualitative, and have been in 2011 "crayon" series of case and the 2013 "Haitang bay" case "has clearly identified in large quantities, the scale of the registered trademarks of others and selling for profit", "no reasonable grounds for a large number of registered hoarding other trademarks, there is no real intention to use the behavior of" behavior that belongs to the "unfair occupation of public resources, disrupting the order of the trademark registration and management of public order, a great waste of resources and the administrative review of judicial resources, damage to the public interest", 41 paragraph 1 refers to "other improper means" contained, and the judicial interpretation in the administrative department for approval; the program on the issue of disputes around the status of this clause is not only applicable to the administrative organs that have been declared invalid trademark registration procedures, can also apply to the unregistered trademark objection procedure, specific Refers to a trademark shall not be registered and review procedures, judicial organs on this issue is not very stable, at all levels of court practices are not the same, some cases apply, but some are not applicable. Second, on the substantive issues, the three views at present scholars in the theoretical study of the claims of the detailed list, to sum up to the various theory of existence, and analyzes the legal basis of the views behind, for the further analysis of the problem of good background. Third, sort out views of procedural issues, pointed out that the key factor is the procedure problems in dispute is the efficiency and the fair value of the law. The second chapter is the choice of analysis from the perspective of controversial substantive issues "other unfair means" in terms of the problem, and give your own opinion. In this chapter, the author from the trademark law system is a combination of the source. The basic interpretation method, the nature and connotation of other unfair means in terms of the analysis. First, based on the existing legal basis, in particular legal interpretation rules in the system of interpretation methods, the author thinks that "scope clause unfair means" should be limited to the absolute prohibition for trademark registration, which is to be protected on the public interest; second, the trademark law jurisprudence, the provisions of protection of the "public interest" in essence is the main market in the market to free competition in the market order; third, through the terms as a fallback provision, its particularity lies in the basis at the discretion given to the judiciary to some extent on the however, not all of the free competition of public interest can use the protection, only those who have not yet mature enough to be the law expressly provides the type of public interest is the terms of insurance The category of interest protection. The third chapter is about the definition of terms relating to the procedure problems. The existing judicial practice based on the situation of long time trademark rights cases in China, which caused the interests of trademark owners in uncertain state, the author thinks that the application program of the interpretation of terms should not be to expand, which can not be used objection procedure (not registered cases), and shall limit the completed registered cases. First, through the introduction of current situation of objection procedure in the trademark law, draw on the terms can be applied to the case of the dispute is not registered as trademark law did not give the reason will not be registered; second, from the legislative purpose of trademark law should first focus protection on trademark rights as private rights should be, rather than the trademark administrative departments play as the management function of the trademark law, and The efficiency and fairness of the theory of balance of interests, it should not be extended to explain the point of view of the law, and put forward legislative suggestions on perfecting the trademark law, the law clearly stipulates the unity and authority of the registration shall not be subject will be conducive to law. In the fourth chapter, analysis and evaluation of China's legislative status on, starting from different roles the characteristics of trademark examination and trial practice, were thinking and analysis, and puts forward the specific applicable standards clearly unfair means in terms of entity and procedure.

【學(xué)位授予單位】：華東政法大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2015
【分類號(hào)】：D923.43

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前1條

1 孔祥俊;;我國現(xiàn)行商標(biāo)法律制度若干問題的探討[J];知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán);2010年01期

，

本文編號(hào)：1456972