發(fā)布時間：2018-06-13 00:51

  本文選題：商標俗稱 + 商標法��； 參考：《華東政法大學》2015年碩士論文

【摘要】：商標俗稱是指社會公眾對于某一商標通俗的稱呼。這種俗稱通常都是社會公眾為了方便記憶等原因所形成的,商標權(quán)人自己并不會使用這些俗稱。在現(xiàn)實生活中,這種俗稱很多,例如“C字型蔓藤花”商標被稱為“巴黎之花”,“Land Rover”的正式譯文是“路華”,但公眾習慣將其稱為“陸虎”。這些俗稱的存在本身不會對商標權(quán)人的利益造成影響,反而在一定程度上會幫助商標權(quán)人宣傳自己的商標,獲得更大的商業(yè)價值。但正是因為這點,這些俗稱被一些不法商家利用,向商標局申請注冊這些商標俗稱。在司法實踐中,針對此類爭議,法院通常的態(tài)度為判決第三人因“申請在先”而勝訴。但是,這種做法勢必會導(dǎo)致兩種不公平現(xiàn)象的產(chǎn)生:其一為第三人利用了該商標俗稱與原商標權(quán)人商品之間的確定聯(lián)系,利用了原商標權(quán)人在商品上所累積的商譽搭了便車;其二為使消費者對商品來源產(chǎn)生了混淆,擾亂了正常的市場秩序。于是,是一味地保護“申請在先”原則,還是在適當時候保護商標俗稱與原商品之間的聯(lián)系,這個問題在學術(shù)界展開了激烈的討論。而且,即使是都主張保護商標俗稱與原商品之間聯(lián)系的學者,在保護路徑的選擇上也各有不同。為能更好地解決此類問題,保護正當?shù)母偁幒凸降氖袌鲋刃?探討商標俗稱法律保護的問題就顯得十分必要了。在結(jié)構(gòu)上本文共分成三個章節(jié):第一章,問題的提出。本章主要分成三個部分。第一部分主要介紹商標俗稱的定義、類型和基本特征,對于一個非法學概念進行界定。在此部分,為了能更明確具體地探討俗稱的保護,筆者根據(jù)商標俗稱知名度的不同將俗稱分成了3類,分別為馳名的俗稱、有一定影響的俗稱和普通的俗稱。第二部分介紹了現(xiàn)如今商標俗稱法律保護在我國的司法實踐。商標俗稱的保護問題是典型的從司法實踐擴展至理論界的問題,所以筆者將最近幾年發(fā)生的案件進行了梳理,厘清現(xiàn)如今我國對商標俗稱的保護現(xiàn)狀。雖然司法實踐中普遍保護第三人“申請在先”,但搶注商標俗稱的行為造成了消費者對商品來源的混淆,擾亂了正常的市場秩序,一味地保護在先申請人的利益也是不公平的。所以在某些情形下,禁止在先申請人注冊并使用商標俗稱也是必須的。第三部分筆者從商標俗稱的使用者、保護路徑等角度出發(fā),探討理論界對商標俗稱保護路徑選擇上存在的爭議。在保護路徑上大致有商標法和反不正當競爭法兩種路徑的區(qū)分。正是由于學術(shù)界對此問題上存在爭議,才使得本文的研究顯得具有實用價值和意義,也由此引出本文的寫作重點。通過本章的分析,得出的基本結(jié)論是:商標俗稱與被指向商品產(chǎn)生了唯一確定的聯(lián)系。雖然第三人“申請在先”,但商標俗稱與原商標權(quán)人商品之間存在的聯(lián)系,以及消費者對該聯(lián)系的認可,如果為了第三人一己之益,勢必損害大多數(shù)人。所以,有必要保護商標俗稱不被第三人申請注冊和使用。但是根據(jù)筆者對商標俗稱的分類,每種類型的俗稱所對應(yīng)的具體保護方案應(yīng)該是不同的,不可一概而論。于是,最終可以得出,保護是必須的,但采取何種保護方案尚待進一步論證。第二章,商標俗稱法律保護的路徑研究。理論界對于商標俗稱保護路徑大多從商標法出發(fā)進行探討。此章主要有三部分組成,第一部分論述了對于未注冊的商標俗稱,依據(jù)商標法保護雖然在某些情形下是可行的,但在多數(shù)情形下,依據(jù)商標法保護存在障礙,具體原因如下:第一,我國商標法采取注冊取得制度,未經(jīng)注冊的商標俗稱并不能產(chǎn)生商標權(quán)。第二,社會公眾使用并不等同于商標法意義上的使用,援引在先使用進行保護也不具有可行性。第三,一些學者企圖用未注冊馳名商標和“其他不良影響”來主張權(quán)利,但也由于存在制度上或理解上的偏差而失去依據(jù)。所以,對于這些類型的俗稱,筆者認為不應(yīng)該依據(jù)商標法獲得保護。第二部分,鑒于商標法與反不正當競爭法之間的特殊關(guān)系,在無法主張商標權(quán)時,可以為不受商標法保護的商標提供補充保護;而且從反不正當競爭法的立法目的看來,第三人申請注冊商標俗稱的行為損害了消費者福利,為不正當競爭行為。依據(jù)我國反不正當競爭法的規(guī)定,該行為應(yīng)屬仿冒行為,需要受到反不正當競爭法的規(guī)制。故這些類型的俗稱保護的路徑為反不正當競爭法。第三部分是商標俗稱反不正當競爭法路徑選擇上的域外考察。先從美國商標俗稱法律保護的司法實踐入手。美國在上世紀初就出現(xiàn)了第三人申請注冊商標俗稱的行為,隨著判例的不斷增多,美國在保護商標俗稱上也有自己獨特的思路,值得我們借鑒,也通過對美國保護商標俗稱司法實踐的分析,使得選擇反不正當競爭法保護商標俗稱更具說服力。之后,筆者還借鑒了德國新反不正當競爭法的某些規(guī)定,試圖能提出更合理的商標俗稱保護思路。在德國2008年新修訂的反不正競爭法中,被模仿產(chǎn)品的生產(chǎn)者對可避免的來源欺騙有不作為請求權(quán)和損害賠償請求權(quán)。德國學者也指出,來源欺騙事實上對消費者利益也會造成一定程度的損害,倘若被模仿產(chǎn)品的生產(chǎn)者出于種種原因沒有行使請求權(quán)的話,消費者的利益將得不到保護,為此應(yīng)該給予消費者對來源欺騙享有請求權(quán)。通過本章的分析,筆者得出的基本結(jié)論是:由于商標俗稱沒有注冊,雖然在商標俗稱與原商標相近似的情形下可以依據(jù)商標法保護,但在多數(shù)情形下商標俗稱若利用商標法保護存在障礙,而利用反不正當競爭法保護則具有可行性。第三章,商標俗稱反不正當競爭法保護的具體方案。商標俗稱依據(jù)反不正當競爭法保護是可行的,但保護的具體方案還需進一步論證。所以本章分成兩部分,分別論述了對于未注冊的馳名商標俗稱、未注冊的有一定影響的商標俗稱如果依據(jù)知名商品特有名稱進行保護需要具備的構(gòu)成要件,其余類型的俗稱依據(jù)反不正當競爭法一般條款進行保護需要滿足的前提。通過本文的論述,商標俗稱的保護應(yīng)該遵循以下思路:對于未注冊的馳名商標俗稱、有一定影響的商標俗稱,可以依據(jù)知名商品的特有名稱進行保護;對于普通商標俗稱,如果其能夠滿足一般條款的適用條件,則依據(jù)反不正當競爭法一般條款獲得救濟;反之,不予保護。
[Abstract]:Trademark is commonly referred to as the popular name of the public for a trademark. This common term is usually formed by the public for the convenience of memory and other reasons. The trademark owners themselves do not use these vulgar names. In real life, such a popular name is called "Perrier Jouet", "Land Rover", "Land Rover". The official translation is "Lu Hua", but the public is used to call it the "land tiger". These commonly known existence itself will not affect the interests of the trademark owners, but to some extent help the trademark owners to publicize their own trademarks and gain greater commercial value. Apply to the Trademark Office to register these trademarks. In judicial practice, in response to such disputes, the court usually wins the case for the judgment of third people because of the "first application". However, this practice will inevitably lead to the emergence of two injustice: one of the third people used the trademark to be commonly known as the goods of the original trademark owner. It makes use of the goodwill accumulated by the original trademark owner in the commodity, and the second is to make the consumer confuse the source of the goods and disturb the normal market order. Therefore, it is to protect the "first application" principle, or to protect the link between the common name and the original commodity at the appropriate time. There is a heated discussion in the field. Moreover, even the scholars who advocate the protection of the trade between the trademark and the original commodity are different in the choice of the protection path. It is very necessary to discuss the problem of this kind, to protect the legitimate competition and the fair market order, and to discuss the problem of the legal protection of the trademark. This article is divided into three chapters: the first chapter, the question is put forward. This chapter is divided into three parts. The first part mainly introduces the definition, type and basic characteristics of the common name of the trademark, and defines the concept of an illegal learning. In this part, in order to be more specific and concrete to discuss the common name of protection, the author is commonly known as the brand name. Different popular names are divided into 3 types, which are well-known commonly known as common name, common name and common name which have certain influence. The second part introduces the judicial practice of the trademark commonly known as legal protection in our country. The protection problem of trademark common name is a typical problem extending from judicial practice to the theoretical circle, so the author will take case in recent years. The present situation of the protection of the common name of the trademark is clarified in our country. Although the judicial practice generally protects the third people "applying for the first place", the behavior of snatch the common name of the trademark has caused the confusion of the consumer to the source of the goods, disrupted the normal market order, and it is unfair to protect the interests of the first applicant. In some cases, it is also necessary to prohibit the registration of the first applicant and use the common name of the trademark. In the third part, the author, from the angle of the trademark commonly known as the user and the protection path, discusses the dispute between the theoretical circle and the two ways of the Trademark Law and the Anti Unfair Competition Law on the protection path. It is due to the dispute in the academic circle that the study of this article is of practical value and significance, and thus leads to the focus of this article. The basic conclusion of this chapter is that the common name of the trademark has the only definite connection with the directed commodity. Although the third people "apply first", The relationship between the common name of the trademark and the commodity of the original trademark owner and the approval of the consumer on this connection will damage most people for the benefit of the third people. Therefore, it is necessary to protect the trademark not to be registered and used by the third people. But according to the author's classification of the common name of the trademark, the common name for each type is corresponding to the name. The specific protection scheme should be different and not generalise. So, it can be concluded that the protection is necessary, but what protection scheme should be further demonstrated. The second chapter, the trademark commonly known as the path of legal protection. The theoretical circle of trademark commonly known as the path of protection from the trademark law. This chapter is mainly three. Part one, the first part expounds that the trademark law protection is practicable in some cases, although the trademark law is feasible in some cases, but in most cases, the protection of the obstacles exists according to the trademark law. The specific reasons are as follows: first, the Trademark Law of our country is registered to obtain the degree of registration, and the trademark is not produced by the unregistered trademark. Second, the public use of the public is not equal to the use of trademark law, and it is not feasible to invoke the prior use of protection. Third, some scholars attempt to claim rights with unregistered well-known trademarks and "other adverse effects", but they also lose the basis for the deviation in institutional or theoretical solutions. In the second part, in view of the special relationship between the trademark law and the anti unfair competition law, the author can provide a supplementary protection for the trademark that is not protected by the trademark law when the trademark law is unable to stand for the trademark law. And, in the view of the legislative purpose of the anti unfair competition law, third applicants are applied to the Registrar. According to the regulations of Anti Unfair Competition Law of China, the behavior should be imitated by anti unfair competition law according to the law of anti unfair competition in our country. Therefore, the common way of these types of protection is anti unfair competition law. The third part is the trademark commonly known as anti unfair competition law. Beginning with the judicial practice of the American trademark, which is commonly known as the legal protection of the legal protection. In the beginning of the last century, the United States appeared third people to apply for the common name of the registered trademark. With the increasing number of cases, the United States has its own unique ideas on the common name for the protection of trademarks, which is worth our reference and through the protection of the United States trademark. It is commonly known as the analysis of judicial practice, making it more convincing to choose the anti unfair competition law to protect the trademark. After that, the author also draws on some provisions of the new German anti unfair competition law and tries to put forward a more reasonable idea of trademark protection. In the newly revised anti unfair competition law in Germany in 2008, the producers of imitated products have been able to do so. The avoidable source deception has the right of inaction and the claim for damages. The German scholar also points out that the source deception actually causes a certain degree of damage to the interests of the consumer. If the producers of the imitated product do not exercise the claim for a variety of reasons, the interests of the consumers will not be protected and should be given to them. According to the analysis of this chapter, the author draws the basic conclusion that, as the trademark is commonly known as no registration, although the trademark is commonly known as the original trademark in the case that the trademark law can be protected according to the trademark law, but in most cases, the trademark is commonly known as the trademark law to protect the existence of obstacles, and the use of anti unfair. The protection of competition law is feasible. In the third chapter, the trademark is commonly known as the concrete scheme of the protection of anti unfair competition law. The trademark is commonly known as the protection of the anti unfair competition law, but the concrete scheme of the protection needs to be further demonstrated. So this chapter is divided into two parts. The trademark commonly known as the trademark of a well-known commodity needs to be protected in accordance with the specific name of the well-known commodity, and the other types are commonly known as the premise that the protection needs to be met according to the general provisions of the anti unfair competition law. It is said that a trademark that has a certain influence is commonly said to be protected on the basis of the special name of a well-known commodity; for the common trademark, if it can meet the applicable conditions of the general terms, the general terms of the anti unfair competition law can be remedied, and conversely, it is not protected.
【學位授予單位】：華東政法大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2015
【分類號】：D923.43

【參考文獻】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 郭杰;高龍;;知名商品特有名稱、包裝、裝潢法律保護研究[J];法制與社會;2015年01期

2 姚鶴徽;;論商標侵權(quán)判定中的消費者注意程度[J];知識產(chǎn)權(quán);2014年04期

3 魯維佳;;商標“被動使用”的法律困境[J];中華商標;2013年02期

4 董篤篤;;論商標法中的“公眾使用規(guī)則”——以吉利“杧虎”商標爭議案為例[J];知識產(chǎn)權(quán);2013年01期

5 吳漢東;;論反不正當競爭中的知識產(chǎn)權(quán)問題[J];現(xiàn)代法學;2013年01期

6 黃匯;謝申文;;駁商標被動使用保護論[J];知識產(chǎn)權(quán);2012年07期

7 杜志浩;;“聯(lián)系說”視角下商標俗稱搶注案的法律思考[J];成都理工大學學報(社會科學版);2012年04期

8 高榮林;;商標權(quán)產(chǎn)生的第三種方式——社會公眾的使用[J];中華商標;2012年06期

9 袁博;;商標俗稱的法律保護途徑——“索愛”商標爭議案評析[J];中華商標;2012年05期

10 劉麗娟;;論知識產(chǎn)權(quán)法與反不正當競爭法的適用關(guān)系[J];知識產(chǎn)權(quán);2012年01期

相關(guān)博士學位論文 前1條

1 楊建鋒;論TRIPS協(xié)定下商標注冊制度[D];復(fù)旦大學;2009年

相關(guān)碩士學位論文 前1條

1 李楠;論知識產(chǎn)權(quán)法與反不正當競爭法的關(guān)系[D];安徽大學;2011年

，

本文編號：2011865