【摘要】：經(jīng)濟(jì)全球化趨勢加劇,我國市場經(jīng)濟(jì)迅速發(fā)展,經(jīng)濟(jì)活動(dòng)也隨著市場的開放越來越頻繁,而在企業(yè)經(jīng)營活動(dòng)中,也產(chǎn)生了新的社會(huì)關(guān)系,由此產(chǎn)生的矛盾也越來越突出,實(shí)踐中侵犯企業(yè)名稱權(quán)的案例形式也越來越多樣化,現(xiàn)有的法律已經(jīng)不能完全滿足實(shí)踐需求。我國于1992年中共十四大提出發(fā)展社會(huì)主義市場經(jīng)濟(jì),作為專門維護(hù)社會(huì)主義市場經(jīng)濟(jì)秩序的1993年制定的《反不正當(dāng)競爭法》明顯已經(jīng)不適應(yīng)現(xiàn)在經(jīng)濟(jì)快速發(fā)展的需要。法律規(guī)范是我國市場經(jīng)濟(jì)更加健康發(fā)展的保障,所以應(yīng)該加深對(duì)企業(yè)名稱權(quán)的研究,讓關(guān)于企業(yè)名稱權(quán)的相關(guān)法規(guī)規(guī)范更加適應(yīng)保護(hù)企業(yè)名稱權(quán)的現(xiàn)實(shí)需要。本文以天津中國青年旅行社訴天津國青國際旅行社擅自使用他人企業(yè)名稱糾紛案為切入點(diǎn)。首先,根據(jù)案情及審理情況,提出并解析原審法院認(rèn)定事實(shí)、原審判決法律適用及互聯(lián)網(wǎng)關(guān)鍵詞競價(jià)服務(wù)之提供者責(zé)任三方面的案件焦點(diǎn)問題;其次,筆者根據(jù)爭議焦點(diǎn)分析了企業(yè)簡稱獲得反不正當(dāng)競爭法保護(hù)的理論背景,企業(yè)簡稱被設(shè)置成搜索關(guān)鍵詞是否應(yīng)當(dāng)由反不正當(dāng)競爭法保護(hù),同時(shí)總結(jié)出企業(yè)簡稱要想獲得法律保護(hù)應(yīng)當(dāng)具備的前提條件;最后筆者根據(jù)案例引發(fā)了相關(guān)法律思考,主要是企業(yè)名稱權(quán)尤其企業(yè)簡稱保護(hù)排他效力和救濟(jì)效力不足,提出了完善企業(yè)名稱權(quán)反不正當(dāng)競爭法保護(hù)的立法方面建議和司法方面建議。
[Abstract]:As the trend of economic globalization intensifies, China's market economy develops rapidly, economic activities become more and more frequent with the opening up of the market, and new social relations have emerged in the business activities of enterprises, resulting in more and more prominent contradictions. In practice, the cases of infringing the right of enterprise name are becoming more and more diversified, and the existing laws can not fully meet the needs of practice. In 1992, the 14th National Congress of the Communist Party of China proposed the development of socialist market economy. The Anti-unfair Competition Law, formulated in 1993, which specially maintains the order of socialist market economy, has obviously failed to meet the needs of rapid economic development. The legal norm is the guarantee of the healthy development of the market economy of our country, so we should deepen the research on the enterprise name right, and let the relevant laws and regulations on the enterprise name right adapt to the practical need of protecting the enterprise name right more. This article takes Tianjin China Youth Travel Service v. Tianjin Guoqing International Travel Agency as the starting point. First of all, according to the facts of the case and the trial, the author puts forward and analyzes the case focus in three aspects: the fact that the original trial court found the facts, the application of the law of the original trial judgment and the liability of the provider of the Internet keyword bidding service; secondly, According to the focus of the dispute, the author analyzes the theoretical background of the protection of the short title of the enterprise against unfair competition law, and whether the short title of the enterprise is set up as a search keyword should be protected by the anti-unfair competition law. At the same time, the author summarizes the prerequisite that the enterprise abbreviated to obtain legal protection should have; finally, the author causes the relevant legal thinking according to the case, mainly is the enterprise name right, especially the enterprise abbreviation protection exclusive effect and the relief effect is insufficient, The legislative and judicial suggestions on how to perfect the protection of enterprise name right against unfair competition law are put forward.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：蘭州大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類號(hào)】：D923.43

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 李鋼;王立媛;侯德強(qiáng);;擅自使用他人企業(yè)簡稱構(gòu)成不正當(dāng)競爭[J];人民司法;2015年20期

2 李友根;;論企業(yè)名稱的競爭法保護(hù)——最高人民法院第29號(hào)指導(dǎo)案例研究[J];中國法學(xué);2015年04期

3 吳光俠;;《天津中國青年旅行社訴天津國青國際旅行社擅自使用他人企業(yè)名稱糾紛案》的理解與參照——有商號(hào)作用的企業(yè)名稱簡稱應(yīng)視為企業(yè)名稱[J];人民司法;2015年12期

4 姚鶴徽;;論商標(biāo)侵權(quán)判定中的消費(fèi)者注意程度[J];知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán);2014年04期

5 孔祥俊;;反不正當(dāng)競爭法的司法創(chuàng)新和發(fā)展——為《反不正當(dāng)競爭法》施行20周年而作[J];知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán);2013年12期

6 _5^懔，

本文編號(hào)：2193937