本文選題：品質(zhì)保證功能　切入點(diǎn)：非獨(dú)立性　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】：關(guān)于商標(biāo)品質(zhì)保證功能,目前學(xué)界缺乏足夠的討論且司法實(shí)踐中的案例也引發(fā)了不同的爭(zhēng)論。研究這一話題,除了在理論層面上予以討論外,還應(yīng)當(dāng)將其置于商標(biāo)法具體實(shí)踐的制度之中,通過(guò)梳理司法裁判案例以及最新的商業(yè)實(shí)踐發(fā)展得出相關(guān)結(jié)論。本文對(duì)此進(jìn)行了初步探究,得出“品質(zhì)保證功能在商標(biāo)法中不具有獨(dú)立性;品質(zhì)保證義務(wù)(品質(zhì)保證功能所衍生)非商標(biāo)法的強(qiáng)制要求”的結(jié)論,并指出了這一結(jié)論可能的實(shí)踐和學(xué)理價(jià)值。本文主要采取了歷史研究法、文獻(xiàn)研究法和比較研究法。正文分為四章:第一章首先以歷史考察的視角,分析品質(zhì)保證功能的源起和確立,以及其背后的實(shí)踐意義。其次,從司法實(shí)踐、理論研究等角度介紹和分析了與品質(zhì)保證功能相關(guān)的法律問(wèn)題。第二章則具體分析品質(zhì)保證功能在商標(biāo)法中不具有獨(dú)立性,其僅僅是來(lái)源識(shí)別功能的附屬。具體而言,首先,在商品轉(zhuǎn)售行為中,當(dāng)商品的品質(zhì)發(fā)生改變產(chǎn)生商標(biāo)權(quán)權(quán)利用盡的例外時(shí),司法實(shí)踐判斷是否構(gòu)成商標(biāo)侵權(quán)的落腳點(diǎn)仍是來(lái)源識(shí)別功能是否受損。其次,針對(duì)平行進(jìn)口,無(wú)論是歐盟的“商譽(yù)或品質(zhì)損害”標(biāo)準(zhǔn),還是美國(guó)的“實(shí)質(zhì)性”差異標(biāo)準(zhǔn),亦或是我國(guó)法院判決的米其林輪胎商標(biāo)案,盡管法院都提及并論述到商標(biāo)品質(zhì)保證功能受損,從而否定平行進(jìn)口的合法性,但商標(biāo)侵權(quán)判斷的基點(diǎn)仍是回歸到是否造成消費(fèi)者混淆,即損害來(lái)源識(shí)別功能。最后,在非典型的商標(biāo)侵權(quán)情形下,比如,銷售的商品為真品,但是該真品所貼附的商標(biāo)為同一生產(chǎn)商用于其它不同檔次的商品所持有。則,盡管法院在其中考慮了商標(biāo)品質(zhì)保證功能受損,但也是依據(jù)來(lái)源識(shí)別功能受損認(rèn)定商標(biāo)侵權(quán)成立。第三章則論述品質(zhì)保證義務(wù)并非商標(biāo)法的強(qiáng)制要求。首先,商標(biāo)所有人不負(fù)有品質(zhì)保證義務(wù),因?yàn)榧词股虡?biāo)所有人該變商品品質(zhì),消費(fèi)者也不享有商標(biāo)法意義上的訴權(quán);且,即使商標(biāo)所有人未盡品質(zhì)保證義務(wù),也不會(huì)導(dǎo)致商標(biāo)被撤銷。其次商標(biāo)許可人的品質(zhì)控制監(jiān)督義務(wù)已與司法和商業(yè)實(shí)踐不符。一是相關(guān)的司法實(shí)踐幾乎不再要求許可人負(fù)有監(jiān)督義務(wù),二是新的商業(yè)實(shí)踐,諸如促銷型許可使得商標(biāo)品質(zhì)保證義務(wù)不再具有適用的余地。最后分析商標(biāo)受讓人不負(fù)有品質(zhì)保證義務(wù)。第四章則對(duì)我國(guó)現(xiàn)行商標(biāo)法中涉及品質(zhì)保證功能的條款進(jìn)行了介紹和評(píng)述;并且,結(jié)合前述理論分析以及域外實(shí)踐的做法,對(duì)相關(guān)條款的修改和完善提出了建議。
[Abstract]:As to the function of trademark quality assurance, there is not enough discussion in the academic circle and the cases in judicial practice have caused different debates. In addition to the theoretical level, the research on this topic is not only discussed, but also discussed at the theoretical level. It should also be put into the system of trademark law practice, through combing the judicial adjudication cases and the latest commercial practice development to draw the relevant conclusions, this article has carried on the preliminary exploration to this, It is concluded that "the function of quality assurance is not independent in trademark law; the obligation of quality assurance (derived from the function of quality assurance) is not the compulsory requirement of trademark law". And points out the possible practical and theoretical value of this conclusion. This paper mainly adopts the historical research method, the literature research method and the comparative research method. The text is divided into four chapters: the first chapter is from the perspective of historical investigation. Analyze the origin and establishment of the function of quality assurance, and the practical significance behind it. Secondly, from the judicial practice, The second chapter analyzes that the function of quality assurance is not independent in trademark law, and it is only a subsidiary of the function of source identification. In the behavior of resale of goods, when the quality of goods is changed and the trademark rights are exhausted, the judicial practice still determines whether the function of source identification is damaged or not. Whether it is the European Union's "goodwill or quality damage" standard, the "substantial" difference standard of the United States, or the Michelin tire trademark case decided by our court, although the court has mentioned and stated that the trademark quality assurance function is impaired, Thus denying the legitimacy of parallel import, but the basic point of trademark infringement judgment is still to return to whether or not to cause confusion to consumers, that is, the function of identifying the source of damage. Finally, in the case of atypical trademark infringement, for example, the goods sold are genuine. But the trademark attached to the genuine product is held by the same manufacturer for other different grades... Although the court considered that the trademark quality assurance function was impaired, The third chapter discusses that the obligation of quality guarantee is not a compulsory requirement of trademark law. First of all, the owner of the trademark does not have the obligation to guarantee the quality. Because even if the owner of the trademark should change the quality of the goods, the consumer does not have the right of action in the sense of trademark law; and even if the owner of the trademark fails to fulfill his obligation to guarantee the quality, Secondly, the quality control supervision obligation of the trademark licensor has been inconsistent with the judicial and commercial practice. One is that the relevant judicial practice almost no longer requires the licensor to have the supervision obligation, and the other is the new commercial practice. Such as promotion license makes the trademark quality guarantee obligation no longer applicable. Finally, the analysis of trademark transferee does not have quality warranty obligations. Chapter 4th is related to the existing trademark law of our country quality assurance function clause. Introduced and commented; In addition, based on the above theoretical analysis and the practice of overseas practice, some suggestions are put forward for the modification and perfection of the relevant articles.
【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

【相似文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前1條

1 ;萊鋼股份有限公司品質(zhì)保證部:嚴(yán)把“四關(guān)”確保質(zhì)檢廉潔高效[J];中國(guó)監(jiān)察;2005年08期

相關(guān)會(huì)議論文 前1條

1 婁改煥;;強(qiáng)化全數(shù)品質(zhì)保證體制 提高商品化線直行率[A];第九屆河南省汽車工程技術(shù)研討會(huì)論文集[C];2012年

相關(guān)重要報(bào)紙文章 前10條

1 崔發(fā)鳳;廉政文化化身“質(zhì)量衛(wèi)士”[N];中國(guó)冶金報(bào);2007年

2 顏崇宇;用品質(zhì)保證產(chǎn)品質(zhì)量[N];中國(guó)質(zhì)量報(bào);2004年

3 崔發(fā)鳳;萊鋼品質(zhì)保證部煉就“火眼金睛”[N];中國(guó)冶金報(bào);2004年

4 本報(bào)記者 王欣;“石產(chǎn)動(dòng)畫(huà)”成動(dòng)漫界品質(zhì)保證[N];石家莊日?qǐng)?bào);2014年

5 本報(bào)記者 趙偉;產(chǎn)能增長(zhǎng)與品質(zhì)保證的完美平衡[N];中國(guó)質(zhì)量報(bào);2010年

6 蔚藍(lán)佳策;品質(zhì)是“靈魂”[N];中國(guó)電力報(bào);2000年

7 張平;選空調(diào) 看品質(zhì)[N];重慶商報(bào);2000年

8 朱f^初;品質(zhì)保證：中瑞嘉珩發(fā)展之本[N];中國(guó)建材報(bào);2007年

9 ;定制精裝是新趨勢(shì)[N];中國(guó)建設(shè)報(bào);2014年

10 本報(bào)記者 趙偉;高端輕卡“超越”追求品質(zhì)[N];中國(guó)質(zhì)量報(bào);2013年

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前3條

1 何鵬;商標(biāo)品質(zhì)保證功能研究[D];華東政法大學(xué);2015年

2 王豐;東風(fēng)股份全過(guò)程品質(zhì)保證體系的研究及應(yīng)用[D];湖南大學(xué);2010年

3 張?zhí)鞎r(shí);GB公司A車型制造工序品質(zhì)保證能力研究[D];華南理工大學(xué);2011年

，

本文編號(hào)：1601572