商標與其他商業(yè)標識共存判定標準研究
發(fā)布時間：2018-10-24 21:28
【摘要】：最高人民法院在《審理商標授權確權若干問題的意見》中提到,對于那些已經(jīng)使用較長時間且已經(jīng)具有較高聲譽及相關公眾群體的商標,應充分的尊重客觀市場情況,維護市場已形成的穩(wěn)定秩序。我國涉及到商業(yè)標識沖突的案件不在少數(shù),但是由于商標是眾多商業(yè)標識中最具有排他效力的標識,一直受到《商標法》嚴格的保護,因此無論是商標與商標之間的權利沖突,還是商標與其他商業(yè)標識之間的沖突,在司法審判當中,判定共存的標準并不明晰。我國目前的混淆可能性標準與近似標準存在一定混亂之處,而商業(yè)標識共存除了需要以混淆可能性標準加以判定外,還需要考慮知名度情況、當事人主觀情況以及歷史與現(xiàn)實市場格局等。但是目前我國在判定知名度、主觀意圖、市場格局以及其他具體標準方面沒有明確的規(guī)定,從時間到空間,劃分的標準都很模糊,使得案例的審理個案性過強。而關于簽訂有共存協(xié)議的案件,我國雖然承認其合同性質(zhì),但實踐中對待共存協(xié)議的效力問題態(tài)度并不明朗,對于共存協(xié)議的審查、約定內(nèi)容等細節(jié)問題更是無法可依。確立其標準有利于確立混淆可能性在商標法律制度中的地位及適用的靈活度,其內(nèi)容的完善和細化也是司法實踐中能夠準確合理判定商業(yè)標識共存的關鍵。商標與其他商業(yè)標識共存盡管在我國實踐中的承認度有所提高,但是由于我國的混淆可能性判定標準在適用方面不夠完善,加之在判定商業(yè)標識共存時大多需要考量除混淆可能性以外的眾多因素,使得商業(yè)標識在我國的判定中依然存在些許問題。我國雖然將共存協(xié)議界定為合同,也肯定了其合法性,但是對共存協(xié)議內(nèi)容的審核以及效力的判斷仍然存在空白。我國司法實踐中關于共存協(xié)議的司法判例也是比較少。針對我國在實踐當中所考量的標準,本文著重探討了在判定商業(yè)標識共存時的混淆可能性標準、知名度的標準、主觀意圖標準以及對于共存協(xié)議等考量標準。筆者認為應該明確我國混淆可能性的相關判定標準,引入對商標使用的時間及地域等判定因素。以混淆可能性作為商標與其他商業(yè)標識能否共存的最終檢驗標準,將商業(yè)標識構成要素上的近似、使用的時間和地域、已經(jīng)形成的市場格局、當事人主觀意圖以及當事人之前簽署的共存協(xié)議等作為是否有可能造成相關消費者混淆的具體考量因素。關于共促協(xié)議的效力問題,可以考慮結合我國的實際情況,并參考國外相關案件中對于共存協(xié)議的闡述,合理看待共存協(xié)議,對于不涉及重大公共利益的共存協(xié)議,持以更為寬容的態(tài)度。共存協(xié)議在當事人平等自愿的基礎上達成合同性約定,在不嚴重侵害社會公共利益的前提下,根據(jù)合同自由原則,應確保其有效性,鼓勵意思自治,允許商標與其他商業(yè)標識共存,互相影響,獲得更大的經(jīng)濟利益。通過共存協(xié)議和平、無沖突地使用近似標識,有利于市場公平競爭,實現(xiàn)互利共贏。本文共分四個部分。第一章概述,主要介紹了本文所寫商業(yè)標識的概念以及沖突,在沖突的前提下,引出商標與商業(yè)標識的共存,從法律經(jīng)濟學角度、公平正義原理的角度分析了商業(yè)標識共存的法理基礎。第二章是對于我國目前實踐中商標與其他商業(yè)標識沖突后的裁判情況及案件梳理,立足于我國現(xiàn)實,實事求是地分析了我國商標與其他商業(yè)標識共存的原因、類型;運用歸納、列舉的方法簡要介紹了我國商業(yè)標識共存的現(xiàn)狀,并通過現(xiàn)狀的分析歸納出其中存在的不足。第三章主要介紹了國外商標與其他商業(yè)標識共存的情況,包括立法方面的規(guī)定以及判例的梳理,并討論國外的經(jīng)驗和思路是否值得我國的借鑒參考。第四章主要分析了我國目前在判定商業(yè)標識共存的過程中考量的因素以及內(nèi)容的完善,并在借鑒國外立法經(jīng)驗的基礎上,運用分析比較的方法論述了司法判定中的標準及內(nèi)容。本文旨在借鑒、吸取國外立法與判例經(jīng)驗教訓的基礎上,歸納以及分析我國商標與其他商業(yè)標識共存判定標準的不足,探尋我國的在此方面的完善途徑。結合我國商標與其他商業(yè)標識共存的現(xiàn)狀,明確我國判定標準的內(nèi)容,完善法定共存和約定共存所適用的條件,為我國商標與其他商業(yè)標識共存的判定標準提出自己的建議。
[Abstract]:In the opinion of the Supreme People's Court in a number of questions concerning the right to authorize trademark authorization, the Supreme People's Court mentioned that for those trademarks which have been used for a long time and have a higher reputation and relevant public groups, the objective market situation should be fully respected and the stable order formed by the market should be maintained. The number of cases involving commercial identification conflicts in our country has been limited, but since the trademark is the most exclusive identification of the number of commercial logos, it has always been protected by the <0.05> strict protection, and hence the rights conflicts between the trade mark and the trade mark, It is also the conflict between the trade mark and other business identities. In judicial trials, it is not clear that the standard of coexistence is not clear. At present, there is a certain confusion between the possibility criterion of confusion and the approximate standard, and the coexistence of commercial identification needs to consider the popularity situation, the subjective situation of the parties, the history and the real market pattern, besides the need to judge the possibility criterion of confusion. But at present, our country has no definite stipulations in judging the popularity, the subjective intention, the market pattern and other specific standards. However, in the case of signing a coexistence agreement, although the nature of the contract is recognized, the attitude towards the validity of the coexistence agreement in practice is not clear, and the details such as the review of the coexistence agreement and the agreed contents can't be relied upon. The establishment of the standard is conducive to establishing the position of confusion possibility in the trademark legal system and the flexibility of application, and the perfection and refinement of its content is also the key to be able to accurately and reasonably determine the co-existence of business identity in judicial practice. While the coexistence of trademarks and other commercial identities has improved in the practice of our country, it is not perfect in the application of the criteria for judging the possibility of confusion in our country, and many factors besides the possibility of confusion need to be taken into account in determining the co-existence of the business identity, so that the commercial identification still has some problems in the determination of our country. Although the coexistence agreement is defined as a contract, its validity is affirmed, but there is still a gap in the review and validity of the coexistence agreement. The judicial precedents of the coexistence agreement in our judicial practice are relatively few. In view of the standards considered by our country in practice, this paper discusses the criterion of confusion possibility, the standard of visibility, the standard of subjective intention and the criterion of the coexistence protocol. In the author's opinion, the relevant decision criteria for the possibility of confusion in our country should be clarified, and the factors such as the time and region for the use of the trademark should be introduced. a market pattern that has been formed in terms of the likelihood of confusion as the ultimate inspection criterion for the co-existence of the trade mark with other commercial logos, the approximation, the time and region used, the time and region used, The subjective intention of the parties and the coexistence agreements signed by the parties may serve as a specific consideration for the possibility of confusion between the relevant consumers. On the issue of the effectiveness of co-promotion agreement, we can take into consideration the actual situation of our country, and refer to the elaboration of the coexistence agreement in the foreign related cases, view the coexistence agreement reasonably, and take a more tolerant attitude towards the coexistence agreement that does not involve the major public interests. Under the premise of not serious infringement of the public interest, the coexistence agreement shall ensure its validity, encourage the autonomy of meaning, allow the trademark to coexist with other commercial logos and influence each other, according to the principle of freedom of contract. to gain greater economic benefits. By the coexistence protocol, the approximate identification can be used without conflict, thereby being beneficial to fair competition in the market and realizing mutual benefit and win-win. This paper is divided into four parts. The first chapter outlines the concept and conflict of the business identity written in this paper. On the premise of conflict, the coexistence of the trade mark and the commercial identity is led out, and the legal basis of the coexistence of business identity is analyzed from the angle of legal economics and the principle of fairness and justice. The second chapter is to analyze the reasons and types of the coexistence of trademarks and other commercial logos in our country based on our reality and seek truth from facts. This paper briefly introduces the present situation of co-existence of commercial logos in China, and sums up the deficiencies in the analysis of the present situation. The third chapter mainly introduces the coexistence of foreign trade marks and other commercial logos, including the legislative provisions and the carding of the case, and discusses whether foreign experiences and thoughts are worthy of reference in our country. The fourth chapter mainly analyzes the factors that China is considering in the process of judging the co-existence of business identity and the perfection of content, and discusses the standards and contents in judicial decision based on the reference of foreign legislation experience. On the basis of drawing lessons from foreign legislation and case lessons, this paper sums up and analyzes the deficiency of China's trademark and other business identity coexistence judging standards, and explores the perfect way of our country in this respect. In combination with the present situation of the coexistence of trademark and other commercial logos in our country, it is clear that the content of our decision-making standard, perfect the conditions applicable to the coexistence of legal coexistence and agreement, and put forward its own suggestions for the determination standard of the coexistence of trademark and other commercial logos in our country.
【學位授予單位】：華東政法大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2016
【分類號】：D923.43
本文編號：2292610
[Abstract]:In the opinion of the Supreme People's Court in a number of questions concerning the right to authorize trademark authorization, the Supreme People's Court mentioned that for those trademarks which have been used for a long time and have a higher reputation and relevant public groups, the objective market situation should be fully respected and the stable order formed by the market should be maintained. The number of cases involving commercial identification conflicts in our country has been limited, but since the trademark is the most exclusive identification of the number of commercial logos, it has always been protected by the <0.05> strict protection, and hence the rights conflicts between the trade mark and the trade mark, It is also the conflict between the trade mark and other business identities. In judicial trials, it is not clear that the standard of coexistence is not clear. At present, there is a certain confusion between the possibility criterion of confusion and the approximate standard, and the coexistence of commercial identification needs to consider the popularity situation, the subjective situation of the parties, the history and the real market pattern, besides the need to judge the possibility criterion of confusion. But at present, our country has no definite stipulations in judging the popularity, the subjective intention, the market pattern and other specific standards. However, in the case of signing a coexistence agreement, although the nature of the contract is recognized, the attitude towards the validity of the coexistence agreement in practice is not clear, and the details such as the review of the coexistence agreement and the agreed contents can't be relied upon. The establishment of the standard is conducive to establishing the position of confusion possibility in the trademark legal system and the flexibility of application, and the perfection and refinement of its content is also the key to be able to accurately and reasonably determine the co-existence of business identity in judicial practice. While the coexistence of trademarks and other commercial identities has improved in the practice of our country, it is not perfect in the application of the criteria for judging the possibility of confusion in our country, and many factors besides the possibility of confusion need to be taken into account in determining the co-existence of the business identity, so that the commercial identification still has some problems in the determination of our country. Although the coexistence agreement is defined as a contract, its validity is affirmed, but there is still a gap in the review and validity of the coexistence agreement. The judicial precedents of the coexistence agreement in our judicial practice are relatively few. In view of the standards considered by our country in practice, this paper discusses the criterion of confusion possibility, the standard of visibility, the standard of subjective intention and the criterion of the coexistence protocol. In the author's opinion, the relevant decision criteria for the possibility of confusion in our country should be clarified, and the factors such as the time and region for the use of the trademark should be introduced. a market pattern that has been formed in terms of the likelihood of confusion as the ultimate inspection criterion for the co-existence of the trade mark with other commercial logos, the approximation, the time and region used, the time and region used, The subjective intention of the parties and the coexistence agreements signed by the parties may serve as a specific consideration for the possibility of confusion between the relevant consumers. On the issue of the effectiveness of co-promotion agreement, we can take into consideration the actual situation of our country, and refer to the elaboration of the coexistence agreement in the foreign related cases, view the coexistence agreement reasonably, and take a more tolerant attitude towards the coexistence agreement that does not involve the major public interests. Under the premise of not serious infringement of the public interest, the coexistence agreement shall ensure its validity, encourage the autonomy of meaning, allow the trademark to coexist with other commercial logos and influence each other, according to the principle of freedom of contract. to gain greater economic benefits. By the coexistence protocol, the approximate identification can be used without conflict, thereby being beneficial to fair competition in the market and realizing mutual benefit and win-win. This paper is divided into four parts. The first chapter outlines the concept and conflict of the business identity written in this paper. On the premise of conflict, the coexistence of the trade mark and the commercial identity is led out, and the legal basis of the coexistence of business identity is analyzed from the angle of legal economics and the principle of fairness and justice. The second chapter is to analyze the reasons and types of the coexistence of trademarks and other commercial logos in our country based on our reality and seek truth from facts. This paper briefly introduces the present situation of co-existence of commercial logos in China, and sums up the deficiencies in the analysis of the present situation. The third chapter mainly introduces the coexistence of foreign trade marks and other commercial logos, including the legislative provisions and the carding of the case, and discusses whether foreign experiences and thoughts are worthy of reference in our country. The fourth chapter mainly analyzes the factors that China is considering in the process of judging the co-existence of business identity and the perfection of content, and discusses the standards and contents in judicial decision based on the reference of foreign legislation experience. On the basis of drawing lessons from foreign legislation and case lessons, this paper sums up and analyzes the deficiency of China's trademark and other business identity coexistence judging standards, and explores the perfect way of our country in this respect. In combination with the present situation of the coexistence of trademark and other commercial logos in our country, it is clear that the content of our decision-making standard, perfect the conditions applicable to the coexistence of legal coexistence and agreement, and put forward its own suggestions for the determination standard of the coexistence of trademark and other commercial logos in our country.
【學位授予單位】：華東政法大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2016
【分類號】：D923.43
【相似文獻】
相關期刊論文 前10條
1 楊軍;;基于品牌戰(zhàn)略視角的商業(yè)標識法律制度完善[J];南京社會科學;2008年11期
2 萬久祝;商業(yè)標識的網(wǎng)絡沖突規(guī)制[J];山東公安�？茖W校學報;2003年02期
3 鄭海味;企業(yè)商業(yè)標識知識產(chǎn)權保護策略[J];華東經(jīng)濟管理;2004年04期
4 孫雙秀;王金貴;;試論商業(yè)標識沖突的成因及其后果[J];社科縱橫;2006年11期
5 王蓮峰;;論我國商業(yè)標識立法的體系化[J];法學;2007年03期
6 劉洋;;論反不正當競爭法對商業(yè)標識的保護[J];知識經(jīng)濟;2011年12期
7 劉曉;;商業(yè)標識法律保護的體系化研究[J];中州大學學報;2011年03期
8 寧立志;徐升權;;我國商業(yè)標識權保護立法的現(xiàn)狀與完善[J];中國工商管理研究;2012年05期
9 徐升權;;論“商業(yè)標識權”[J];知識產(chǎn)權;2012年09期
10 金莉娟;;論商業(yè)標識的法律保護[J];福建廣播電視大學學報;2007年03期
相關重要報紙文章 前10條
1 本報記者 俞家驊 通訊員 楊寧;透過標識看品牌[N];中國黃金報;2006年
2 陳瑤瑤;法國品牌發(fā)飾“搶”商標 滬上法官說法定紛爭[N];人民法院報;2013年
3 江濤 黃淳 重慶市第五中級人民法院;使用近似商業(yè)標識構成侵犯商標權的判定標準[N];人民法院報;2014年
4 周瑞平 王懷正;商標侵權糾紛 因猴坑而起[N];人民法院報;2011年
5 須曉云;商業(yè)標識權利沖突急需對策[N];中國知識產(chǎn)權報;2003年
6 竇新穎;螞蟻撼大樹,小民企力搏飲料巨頭[N];中國知識產(chǎn)權報;2007年
7 上海市第二中級人民法院 袁博;“便于識別”與商標的固有顯著性[N];中國知識產(chǎn)權報;2013年
8 黃淳 黃鍵 重慶市第五中級人民法院;未引起混淆與誤認不構成侵權[N];人民法院報;2014年
9 本報記者 史曉芳;四川民企遭遇“泰V紜盵N];中華工商時報;2013年
10 本報記者 崔文宇 衣朋華;“蕉葉”之爭的前前后后[N];中國知識產(chǎn)權報;2011年
相關博士學位論文 前1條
1 徐升權;商業(yè)標識權論[D];武漢大學;2012年
相關碩士學位論文 前10條
1 陳浩;商業(yè)標識統(tǒng)一立法初探[D];四川大學;2004年
2 吳瑤璐;商標與其他商業(yè)標識共存判定標準研究[D];華東政法大學;2016年
3 許彥生;中美商業(yè)標識立法比較研究[D];華東政法大學;2008年
4 吳鵬彬;論我國商業(yè)標識法律保護的完善[D];復旦大學;2009年
5 蔡碧川;商業(yè)標識權利沖突論[D];中南民族大學;2011年
6 趙博;論商業(yè)標識法律保護體系[D];黑龍江大學;2013年
7 王爽;商業(yè)標識保護法律體系研究[D];黑龍江大學;2014年
8 王安琪;商業(yè)標識法律保護制度研究[D];河北經(jīng)貿(mào)大學;2015年
9 潘波;商業(yè)標識的不正當競爭法律保護[D];內(nèi)蒙古大學;2009年
10 付景虎;附加適當區(qū)別標識研究[D];華東政法大學;2013年
，本文編號：2292610
本文鏈接：http://sikaile.net/falvlunwen/minfalunwen/2292610.html
