本文選題：舊瓶新用 + 商標(biāo)使用　； 參考：《華東政法大學(xué)》2015年碩士論文

【摘要】：所謂“舊瓶新用”指的是一些商家為了節(jié)約經(jīng)濟(jì)成本,對(duì)其他商家所生產(chǎn)的并已經(jīng)推入市場(chǎng)的啤酒、飲料、墨水、液化氣、香水等產(chǎn)品的容器進(jìn)行回收,然后裝入自己公司生產(chǎn)的產(chǎn)品并重新推入市場(chǎng)的現(xiàn)象。“舊瓶新用”原本是我國(guó)司空見慣的現(xiàn)象,同時(shí)對(duì)舊瓶的回收利用似乎也符合國(guó)家政策和行業(yè)慣例的倡導(dǎo),但是近年來(lái)卻在國(guó)內(nèi)引發(fā)了一系列的商標(biāo)侵權(quán)案,尤其以啤酒回收利用侵權(quán)案最為典型。最近的“上海百威啤酒案”和“重慶啤酒案”案更是將其推送了風(fēng)口浪尖之境。兩個(gè)法院在基本相同的案情下做出了大相徑庭的判決。事實(shí)上,從國(guó)內(nèi)外的司法實(shí)踐來(lái)看,除了啤酒瓶回收利用產(chǎn)生了商標(biāo)侵權(quán)糾紛外,商家在對(duì)其他產(chǎn)品的容器回收利用,例如醋和醬油包裝容器、液化氣鋼瓶、牛奶瓶、護(hù)發(fā)素容器也產(chǎn)生了類似的侵權(quán)糾紛。此類“舊瓶新用”的案件雖然具體案情各不相同,但是爭(zhēng)議焦點(diǎn)基本一致,即被告回收利用瓶身帶有原告特定商標(biāo)的舊瓶,對(duì)其填充自己生產(chǎn)的產(chǎn)品,同時(shí)在該瓶上貼上自己的商標(biāo)或者說(shuō)明標(biāo)簽的行為是否構(gòu)成商標(biāo)侵權(quán)。司法實(shí)踐和學(xué)術(shù)界對(duì)于此類問(wèn)題爭(zhēng)議不斷,莫衷一是。其主要爭(zhēng)議點(diǎn)集中在:“舊瓶新用”是否構(gòu)成商標(biāo)使用、“舊瓶新用”是否可能造成消費(fèi)者混淆、“舊瓶新用”是否可以適用商標(biāo)權(quán)用盡原則以及其他考慮因素如國(guó)家政策、行業(yè)慣例對(duì)此類侵權(quán)案件的適用。隨著我國(guó)“舊瓶新用”侵權(quán)案件的日益突顯,以上觀點(diǎn)的分歧,直接影響到了“舊瓶新用”案件的侵權(quán)判定和法律適用,故有必要進(jìn)一步加以辨析和研究。要解決第一個(gè)問(wèn)題,即“舊瓶新用”是否構(gòu)成商標(biāo)使用,就必須首先明晰何為商標(biāo)使用以及如何界定商標(biāo)使用行為。我國(guó)新《商標(biāo)法》第48條雖然對(duì)商標(biāo)使用進(jìn)行了規(guī)定,但是由于該規(guī)定較為簡(jiǎn)單和抽象,由此帶來(lái)了兩個(gè)問(wèn)題:首先,商標(biāo)使用在商標(biāo)侵權(quán)中的地位如何?其是否屬于商標(biāo)侵權(quán)判斷的邏輯前提?其次,如何對(duì)第48條的“商業(yè)活動(dòng)”和“用于識(shí)別商品來(lái)源”進(jìn)行理解?本文通過(guò)分析論證認(rèn)為商標(biāo)使用屬于商標(biāo)侵權(quán)的邏輯前提,商標(biāo)使用和混淆可能性是商標(biāo)侵權(quán)判斷中相互獨(dú)立的兩個(gè)判斷要素。同時(shí)本文通過(guò)商標(biāo)法的基本原理分析和相關(guān)案例的索引,歸納出商標(biāo)使用的兩個(gè)構(gòu)成要件:(1)商標(biāo)使用是一種獲取經(jīng)濟(jì)優(yōu)勢(shì)的商業(yè)行為;(2)商標(biāo)使用是意圖在特定商標(biāo)和特定商品或服務(wù)之間建立經(jīng)濟(jì)聯(lián)系的行為。如果商家回收利用舊瓶時(shí)沒有將烙在瓶上的商標(biāo)予以遮蓋,符合上述兩個(gè)構(gòu)成要件,因此可以構(gòu)成商標(biāo)使用行為。解決完第一個(gè)問(wèn)題之后,便面臨第二個(gè)問(wèn)題,即“舊瓶新用”是否可能造成消費(fèi)者的混淆。由于商家“舊瓶新用”的行為屬于在相同產(chǎn)品上使用相同商標(biāo)的行為(以下簡(jiǎn)稱為“雙相同情形”),因此要判斷商家“舊瓶新用”的行為是否會(huì)產(chǎn)生混淆可能性,就必須解決以下問(wèn)題,即雙相同情形下的商標(biāo)侵權(quán)判斷中是否應(yīng)該考慮混淆可能性。對(duì)于這一問(wèn)題,理論界和實(shí)務(wù)界產(chǎn)生了兩種截然相反的觀點(diǎn):第一種觀點(diǎn)認(rèn)為,在雙相同情形下,混淆可能性屬于推定的混淆,在相反證據(jù)的情形下可以被推翻;第二種觀點(diǎn)認(rèn)為,在雙相同情形下,混淆可能性屬于絕對(duì)的推定,不能被推翻。本文通過(guò)《商標(biāo)法》的本質(zhì)屬性和功能、立法意圖以及歐盟和我國(guó)的司法實(shí)踐等多角度對(duì)這一問(wèn)題進(jìn)行論證分析,最終認(rèn)為在雙相同情形下仍應(yīng)該堅(jiān)持混淆理論,混淆可能性在相反證據(jù)的情形下可以被推翻。而后本文通過(guò)對(duì)國(guó)內(nèi)外相關(guān)“舊瓶新用”案件的分析,總結(jié)出了“舊瓶新用”案件中判斷混淆可能性可供考慮的七大因素。法院應(yīng)該根據(jù)具體案情,結(jié)合這七要素進(jìn)行綜合考量。針對(duì)第三個(gè)問(wèn)題,即“舊瓶新用”是否適用商標(biāo)權(quán)用盡原則,在理論界產(chǎn)生了相關(guān)爭(zhēng)議。本文通過(guò)商標(biāo)權(quán)用盡的基本原理和內(nèi)涵分析,同時(shí)結(jié)合國(guó)內(nèi)外的相關(guān)司法實(shí)踐,總結(jié)出了商標(biāo)權(quán)用盡原則的兩個(gè)構(gòu)成要件:(1)再銷售的商品來(lái)源應(yīng)合法;(2)再銷售商品應(yīng)具有同一性。此處的同一性指的是在再銷售的商品質(zhì)量沒有發(fā)生改變或損壞。由于回收利用商再將產(chǎn)品推入市場(chǎng)之前,會(huì)在舊瓶上重新填充自己的產(chǎn)品,已經(jīng)使得產(chǎn)品的內(nèi)容發(fā)生實(shí)質(zhì)性的改變,并不具有同一性,因此“舊瓶新用”并不適用商標(biāo)權(quán)用盡原則。有些法院在處理“舊瓶新用”案件時(shí),還會(huì)將行業(yè)慣例、國(guó)家政策以及競(jìng)爭(zhēng)秩序作為侵權(quán)判斷的考量因素。本文認(rèn)為:首先,法院在將行業(yè)慣例作為裁判依據(jù)的前提是行業(yè)慣例必須不得與現(xiàn)行法沖突、不得違背公序良俗,因此當(dāng)法律明文規(guī)定的商標(biāo)權(quán)與行業(yè)慣例沖突時(shí),法院不應(yīng)將行業(yè)慣例作為斷案依據(jù)。其次,對(duì)于回收利用政策而言,也不應(yīng)該與現(xiàn)行法沖突,當(dāng)其與商標(biāo)權(quán)人的商標(biāo)權(quán)沖突時(shí),應(yīng)該優(yōu)先保護(hù)商標(biāo)權(quán)。最后,通過(guò)對(duì)商標(biāo)法的立法來(lái)源和基本原理并結(jié)合歐盟相關(guān)案例進(jìn)行分析后認(rèn)為,當(dāng)法院對(duì)混淆可能性的判斷較難抉擇時(shí),可適時(shí)將競(jìng)爭(zhēng)秩序作為其侵權(quán)界定的考量因素�，F(xiàn)行司法實(shí)踐和理論界之所以對(duì)“舊瓶新用”的案件產(chǎn)生諸多爭(zhēng)議,一方面的原因在于我國(guó)現(xiàn)行司法實(shí)踐對(duì)商標(biāo)侵權(quán)的判斷標(biāo)準(zhǔn)不一以及缺乏處理類似案件的實(shí)踐經(jīng)驗(yàn);另一方面的原因在于,雖然我國(guó)《再生資源回收管理辦法》、《關(guān)于實(shí)施啤酒強(qiáng)制性國(guó)家標(biāo)準(zhǔn)若干問(wèn)題的通知》等國(guó)家法規(guī)或政策鼓勵(lì)對(duì)舊瓶進(jìn)行回收利用,但是對(duì)于回收利用商相關(guān)責(zé)任和義務(wù)并未予以明確規(guī)定。法律和監(jiān)管的缺失導(dǎo)致舊瓶回收利用市場(chǎng)亂象叢生。因而為了更有利地解決“舊瓶新用”的侵權(quán)糾紛,除了在司法實(shí)踐中,按照前文的建議,統(tǒng)一對(duì)此類商標(biāo)侵權(quán)案件的判斷標(biāo)準(zhǔn),也應(yīng)該在相關(guān)立法方面進(jìn)行完善。從當(dāng)前立法方面來(lái)看,國(guó)外對(duì)回收利用舊瓶的行為采用兩種立法模式:一種模式是單獨(dú)立法的模式;另一種是在刑法的商標(biāo)侵權(quán)部分中對(duì)此類行為進(jìn)行專門規(guī)制的模式。出于我國(guó)基本國(guó)情和立法先例的考慮,本文認(rèn)為最佳做法是出臺(tái)專門針對(duì)舊瓶回收利用的行政法規(guī),對(duì)回收利用商的相關(guān)責(zé)任和義務(wù)進(jìn)行具體規(guī)定。
[Abstract]:The so-called "new use of the old bottle" refers to the recovery of the containers of beer, beverages, inks, liquefied gas, perfume and other products made by other merchants in order to save the cost of the economy, and then to reload the products produced by their own companies and reenter the market. "The new use of the old bottle" was originally the CSI in our country. At the same time, the recovery and utilization of the old bottle also seems to be in line with the national policy and industry practice, but in recent years there has been a series of trademark infringement cases in China, especially in the case of beer recycling and utilization, the latest "Shanghai Budweiser Beer Case" and "Chongqing Beer Case" case is to push it to the wind. The two courts have made a different verdict in the same case. In fact, from domestic and foreign judicial practice, in addition to the trademark infringement disputes arising from the recovery and utilization of beer bottles, businesses are reusing containers for other products, such as vinegar and soy packaging containers, liquefied gas cylinders, milk bottles, and hair care. There are similar cases of tort. The case of this kind of "new bottle" is different, but the focus of the dispute is basically the same, that is, the defendant reclaims the bottle of the bottle with a specific trademark of the plaintiff, fills it with the product produced by the defendant, and attaches its own trademark or label on the bottle. There is no agreement between the judicial practice and the academic circles on such issues. The main controversial points are as follows: whether the "old bottle new use" constitutes the use of the trademark, the new use of the old bottle may cause the confusion of consumers, the "new use of the old bottle" can apply the principle of exhaustion of trademark rights and other considerations. Such as the application of national policy and industry practice to such cases of tort. With the increasing prominence of the "new used bottle" cases in China, the differences of the above views directly affect the infringement judgment and the application of the law in the case of the new use of the old bottle, so it is necessary to further analyze and study it. "If the trademark is used, it is necessary to clarify the use of the trademark and how to define the use of the trademark. China's new < Trademark Law > forty-eighth stipulates the use of the trademark, but because it is simple and abstract, it brings two questions: first, how is the status of trademark use in trademark infringement? Whether it belongs to the logical premise of trademark infringement judgment? Secondly, how to understand the forty-eighth "commercial activities" and "used to identify the source of the goods"? Through the analysis and demonstration, this paper argues that trademark use belongs to the logical premise of trademark infringement, and the possibility of trademark use and confusion is the two independent judgment factor in the judgment of the trademark infringement. At the same time, through the analysis of the basic principles of the trademark law and the index of the related cases, this paper sums up the two components of the use of a trademark: (1) the use of a trademark is a commercial act to obtain economic advantages; (2) the use of a trademark is intended to establish an economic connection between a specific trademark and a particular commodity or service. When the bottle is not covered with the trademark on the bottle, it conforms to the above two components, so it can form the use of the trademark. After the first question, second questions are faced, that is, whether the "new bottle of the old bottle" may cause the confusion of the consumers. With the act of the same trademark (hereinafter referred to as "the same situation"), it is necessary to solve the following problems to determine whether the behavior of the business "new used bottle" will produce confusion, that is, whether the possibility of confusion should be taken into consideration in the trademark infringement judgment under the same situation. The two opposite view: the first view is that in the same case, the possibility of confusion belongs to the presumption of confusion and can be overthrown in the case of opposite evidence; the second view holds that, in the same case, the possibility of confusion belongs to the absolute presumption and cannot be overthrown. This article passes the essential attribute and function of the trademark law. The legislative intention and the European Union and the judicial practice of our country are discussed and analyzed. Finally, it is believed that the confusion theory should be persisted under the same circumstances, and the possibility of confusion can be overthrown in the case of the opposite evidence. The court should consider the seven factors that can be considered in the case of the new use of the old bottle. The court should consider the seven elements according to the specific circumstances of the case. In view of the third questions, that is, whether the "old bottle new use" applies the principle of the exhaustion of the trademark right or not, has produced relevant arguments in the theoretical circle. Connotation analysis, and combined with the relevant judicial practice at home and abroad, summed up the two components of the principle of the exhaustion of trademark rights: (1) the re sale of commodity sources should be legal; (2) re sales of goods should have the same character. Before the product is pushed into the market, it will refill its own product on the old bottle, which has made the content of the product substantially changed and does not have the same character. Therefore, the "old bottle new use" does not apply the principle of exhaustion of trademark rights. Some courts will also take trade practice, national policy and competition order when dealing with the "new bottle" case. As the consideration factor for the judgment of tort, this article holds that, first, the court in the industry practice as the basis of the referee is the premise that the industry practice must not conflict with the current law, and may not violate the public order and good customs, therefore, when the trademark rights and trade practices clearly stipulated in the law conflict, the law academy should not be the basis of the case. Secondly, As far as the policy of recycling is concerned, it should not conflict with the current law. When it conflicts with the trademark rights of the trademark owners, it should be given priority to the protection of the trademark right. Finally, after the analysis of the legislative source and basic principles of the trademark law and the relevant EU cases, it is believed that when the court is difficult to decide on the possibility of confusion, it will be able to compete in a timely manner. The current judicial practice and theorists have caused many disputes over the case of "the new use of the old bottle" in the current judicial practice and theorists. One reason is that the current judicial practice in our country has different judgment standards for trademark infringement and the lack of practical experience in dealing with similar cases; on the other hand, the reason lies in the fact that, though, the reason is that although China's Reclaimed resource recovery management method, the notifications of several issues concerning the implementation of compulsory national standards for beer, and other national regulations or policies encourage the recycling of the old bottles, but the liability and obligations of the recyclers are not clearly defined. The lack of law and supervision leads to a mess of the recycling market. Therefore, in order to better solve the "new bottle of the new use" of the tort dispute, in addition to the judicial practice, in accordance with the previous suggestions, the unified judgment standards for such trademark infringement cases, should also be improved in the relevant legislation. From the current legislative aspect, the foreign use of the use of the old bottle of the use of two legislative patterns: a The model is the mode of separate legislation; the other is the mode of special regulation of this kind of act in the part of the trademark infringement of the criminal law. For the consideration of the basic national conditions and legislative precedents of our country, the best practice is to introduce the administrative regulations specially aimed at the recycling of the old bottles, and carry out the relevant responsibilities and obligations of the recycler. It is stipulated in the body.

【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10條

1 石傳柏,李曙明;北方十省市商標(biāo)辦案協(xié)作會(huì)在鄭召開[J];中華商標(biāo);2000年01期

2 李琛 ,孫維國(guó);商標(biāo)固有的顯著性對(duì)其擴(kuò)大保護(hù)的影響——關(guān)于兩“醒目”商標(biāo)異議案裁定結(jié)果不同的一種解釋[J];知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán);2003年05期

3 左旭初;我國(guó)第一部商標(biāo)法規(guī)誕生始末[J];中華商標(biāo);2004年04期

4 王翔;趙泓任;;從商標(biāo)功能的演變看商標(biāo)保護(hù)理論的發(fā)展[J];中國(guó)工商管理研究;2006年07期

5 安青虎;;品牌與商標(biāo)[J];知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán);2006年04期

6 邱平榮;張曉云;;新農(nóng)村建設(shè)中農(nóng)產(chǎn)品商標(biāo)保障策略探究[J];重慶科技學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2007年05期

7 谷昕;;淺議中藥商標(biāo)保護(hù)問(wèn)題及對(duì)策[J];經(jīng)營(yíng)管理者;2011年22期

8 周新艷;;試看中國(guó)企業(yè)海外商標(biāo)保護(hù)需求[J];電子知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán);2011年11期

9 唐永春;國(guó)際商標(biāo)保護(hù)簡(jiǎn)述[J];國(guó)際貿(mào)易問(wèn)題;1986年02期

10 謝元元;著名商標(biāo)保護(hù)的研究[J];福建論壇(經(jīng)濟(jì)社會(huì)版);1996年06期

相關(guān)會(huì)議論文 前10條

1 吳凱;;藥品商標(biāo)保護(hù)的最新進(jìn)展[A];中國(guó)藥學(xué)會(huì)醫(yī)藥知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)研究專業(yè)委員會(huì)2013年學(xué)術(shù)年會(huì)會(huì)議資料[C];2013年

2 瞿東亮;;如何運(yùn)用商標(biāo)保護(hù)戰(zhàn)略防范商標(biāo)侵權(quán)的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)和提高維權(quán)的力度[A];2009中華全國(guó)律師協(xié)會(huì)知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)專業(yè)委員會(huì)年會(huì)暨中國(guó)律師知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)高層論壇論文集（下）[C];2009年

3 孔德麗;;關(guān)于閑置商標(biāo)的幾點(diǎn)看法[A];哈爾濱市工商行政管理學(xué)會(huì)第四屆會(huì)員代表大會(huì)會(huì)刊暨2001年度獲獎(jiǎng)優(yōu)秀理論文章調(diào)研成果匯編[C];2003年

4 蔡葉菁;;商標(biāo)共存問(wèn)題研究——原理、比較與建構(gòu)[A];探索社會(huì)主義司法規(guī)律與完善民商事法律制度研究——全國(guó)法院第23屆學(xué)術(shù)討論會(huì)獲獎(jiǎng)?wù)撐募ㄏ拢C];2011年

5 劉佳婕;;論在先使用商標(biāo)的保護(hù)[A];2013年中華全國(guó)專利代理人協(xié)會(huì)年會(huì)暨第四屆知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)論壇論文匯編第四部分[C];2013年

6 路洋;;試論商標(biāo)的顯著性特征[A];當(dāng)代法學(xué)論壇（2008年第1輯）[C];2008年

7 劉遠(yuǎn)山;夏余楊;;論我國(guó)商標(biāo)侵權(quán)及其民事和行政法律制裁[A];當(dāng)代法學(xué)論壇（2007年第1輯）[C];2007年

8 姜斐斐;;論商標(biāo)的淡化及其法律規(guī)制[A];2009中華全國(guó)律師協(xié)會(huì)知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)專業(yè)委員會(huì)年會(huì)暨中國(guó)律師知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)高層論壇論文集（上）[C];2009年

9 趙立春;;巧選商品項(xiàng)目,合理保護(hù)商標(biāo)[A];2014年中華全國(guó)專利代理人協(xié)會(huì)年會(huì)第五屆知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)論壇論文（第二部分）[C];2014年

10 李靜冰;;缺乏內(nèi)在顯著性的著名商標(biāo)是否受反淡化法的保護(hù)——2002年國(guó)際商標(biāo)協(xié)會(huì)第124屆年會(huì)模擬法庭辯論綜述[A];入世后知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)法律服務(wù)實(shí)務(wù)研討會(huì)暨全國(guó)律協(xié)知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)專業(yè)委員會(huì)2002年年會(huì)論文匯編[C];2002年

相關(guān)重要報(bào)紙文章 前10條

1 劉紅霞;論商標(biāo)價(jià)值的構(gòu)成[N];中國(guó)工商報(bào);2002年

2 于夢(mèng);中部六省商標(biāo)保護(hù)協(xié)作網(wǎng)將建[N];中國(guó)知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)報(bào);2007年

3 記者 王英;我市新增知名商標(biāo)57件[N];蘇州日?qǐng)?bào);2009年

4 李南玲 李 萍;“商標(biāo)短視病”纏身中國(guó)企業(yè)[N];中國(guó)企業(yè)報(bào);2005年

5 記者 姜龍;我市去年查辦商標(biāo)案件109起[N];大慶日?qǐng)?bào);2010年

6 記者 甘曉妹　通訊員 苗青;17個(gè)商標(biāo)和企業(yè)將被重點(diǎn)保護(hù)[N];徐州日?qǐng)?bào);2010年

7 集佳知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)代理有限公司 周新艷;中國(guó)企業(yè)海外商標(biāo)保護(hù)需求特點(diǎn)[N];國(guó)際商報(bào);2011年

8 本報(bào)記者 李春 實(shí)習(xí)生 許夢(mèng)迪;構(gòu)筑起企業(yè)商標(biāo)保護(hù)“防火墻”[N];中國(guó)工商報(bào);2012年

9 陳希榮 牟文秋;包裝圖案及商標(biāo)的定位與設(shè)計(jì)[N];中國(guó)包裝報(bào);2005年

10 陳奇?zhèn)?劉曉軍;商標(biāo)與知識(shí)經(jīng)濟(jì)時(shí)代[N];中國(guó)工商報(bào);2001年

相關(guān)博士學(xué)位論文 前10條

1 李小武;商標(biāo)反淡化研究[D];中國(guó)社會(huì)科學(xué)院研究生院;2010年

2 葉強(qiáng);我國(guó)商標(biāo)侵權(quán)治理的制度因素研究[D];南京航空航天大學(xué);2009年

3 黃暉;商標(biāo)權(quán)利范圍的比較研究[D];中國(guó)社會(huì)科學(xué)院研究生院;2000年

4 徐聰穎;論商標(biāo)的符號(hào)表彰功能[D];西南政法大學(xué);2011年

5 魏森;論商標(biāo)的淡化[D];對(duì)外經(jīng)濟(jì)貿(mào)易大學(xué);2007年

6 金YТ，

本文編號(hào)：1788004