商標(biāo)與其他商業(yè)標(biāo)識(shí)共存判定標(biāo)準(zhǔn)研究
發(fā)布時(shí)間：2018-10-24 21:28
【摘要】：最高人民法院在《審理商標(biāo)授權(quán)確權(quán)若干問題的意見》中提到,對(duì)于那些已經(jīng)使用較長時(shí)間且已經(jīng)具有較高聲譽(yù)及相關(guān)公眾群體的商標(biāo),應(yīng)充分的尊重客觀市場情況,維護(hù)市場已形成的穩(wěn)定秩序。我國涉及到商業(yè)標(biāo)識(shí)沖突的案件不在少數(shù),但是由于商標(biāo)是眾多商業(yè)標(biāo)識(shí)中最具有排他效力的標(biāo)識(shí),一直受到《商標(biāo)法》嚴(yán)格的保護(hù),因此無論是商標(biāo)與商標(biāo)之間的權(quán)利沖突,還是商標(biāo)與其他商業(yè)標(biāo)識(shí)之間的沖突,在司法審判當(dāng)中,判定共存的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)并不明晰。我國目前的混淆可能性標(biāo)準(zhǔn)與近似標(biāo)準(zhǔn)存在一定混亂之處,而商業(yè)標(biāo)識(shí)共存除了需要以混淆可能性標(biāo)準(zhǔn)加以判定外,還需要考慮知名度情況、當(dāng)事人主觀情況以及歷史與現(xiàn)實(shí)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(biāo)準(zhǔn)方面沒有明確的規(guī)定,從時(shí)間到空間,劃分的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)都很模糊,使得案例的審理個(gè)案性過強(qiáng)。而關(guān)于簽訂有共存協(xié)議的案件,我國雖然承認(rèn)其合同性質(zhì),但實(shí)踐中對(duì)待共存協(xié)議的效力問題態(tài)度并不明朗,對(duì)于共存協(xié)議的審查、約定內(nèi)容等細(xì)節(jié)問題更是無法可依。確立其標(biāo)準(zhǔn)有利于確立混淆可能性在商標(biāo)法律制度中的地位及適用的靈活度,其內(nèi)容的完善和細(xì)化也是司法實(shí)踐中能夠準(zhǔn)確合理判定商業(yè)標(biāo)識(shí)共存的關(guān)鍵。商標(biāo)與其他商業(yè)標(biāo)識(shí)共存盡管在我國實(shí)踐中的承認(rèn)度有所提高,但是由于我國的混淆可能性判定標(biāo)準(zhǔn)在適用方面不夠完善,加之在判定商業(yè)標(biāo)識(shí)共存時(shí)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(biāo)識(shí)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(duì)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(shí)踐中關(guān)于共存協(xié)議的司法判例也是比較少。針對(duì)我國在實(shí)踐當(dāng)中所考量的標(biāo)準(zhǔn),本文著重探討了在判定商業(yè)標(biāo)識(shí)共存時(shí)的混淆可能性標(biāo)準(zhǔn)、知名度的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)、主觀意圖標(biāo)準(zhǔn)以及對(duì)于共存協(xié)議等考量標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。筆者認(rèn)為應(yīng)該明確我國混淆可能性的相關(guān)判定標(biāo)準(zhǔn),引入對(duì)商標(biāo)使用的時(shí)間及地域等判定因素。以混淆可能性作為商標(biāo)與其他商業(yè)標(biāo)識(shí)能否共存的最終檢驗(yàn)標(biāo)準(zhǔn),將商業(yè)標(biāo)識(shí)構(gòu)成要素上的近似、使用的時(shí)間和地域、已經(jīng)形成的市場格局、當(dāng)事人主觀意圖以及當(dāng)事人之前簽署的共存協(xié)議等作為是否有可能造成相關(guān)消費(fèi)者混淆的具體考量因素。關(guān)于共促協(xié)議的效力問題,可以考慮結(jié)合我國的實(shí)際情況,并參考國外相關(guān)案件中對(duì)于共存協(xié)議的闡述,合理看待共存協(xié)議,對(duì)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(dāng)事人平等自愿的基礎(chǔ)上達(dá)成合同性約定,在不嚴(yán)重侵害社會(huì)公共利益的前提下,根據(jù)合同自由原則,應(yīng)確保其有效性,鼓勵(lì)意思自治,允許商標(biāo)與其他商業(yè)標(biāo)識(shí)共存,互相影響,獲得更大的經(jīng)濟(jì)利益。通過共存協(xié)議和平、無沖突地使用近似標(biāo)識(shí),有利于市場公平競爭,實(shí)現(xiàn)互利共贏。本文共分四個(gè)部分。第一章概述,主要介紹了本文所寫商業(yè)標(biāo)識(shí)的概念以及沖突,在沖突的前提下,引出商標(biāo)與商業(yè)標(biāo)識(shí)的共存,從法律經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)角度、公平正義原理的角度分析了商業(yè)標(biāo)識(shí)共存的法理基礎(chǔ)。第二章是對(duì)于我國目前實(shí)踐中商標(biāo)與其他商業(yè)標(biāo)識(shí)沖突后的裁判情況及案件梳理,立足于我國現(xiàn)實(shí),實(shí)事求是地分析了我國商標(biāo)與其他商業(yè)標(biāo)識(shí)共存的原因、類型;運(yùn)用歸納、列舉的方法簡要介紹了我國商業(yè)標(biāo)識(shí)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(biāo)與其他商業(yè)標(biāo)識(shí)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(yàn)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(biāo)識(shí)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(yàn)的基礎(chǔ)上,運(yùn)用分析比較的方法論述了司法判定中的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)及內(nèi)容。本文旨在借鑒、吸取國外立法與判例經(jīng)驗(yàn)教訓(xùn)的基礎(chǔ)上,歸納以及分析我國商標(biāo)與其他商業(yè)標(biāo)識(shí)共存判定標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的不足,探尋我國的在此方面的完善途徑。結(jié)合我國商標(biāo)與其他商業(yè)標(biāo)識(shí)共存的現(xiàn)狀,明確我國判定標(biāo)準(zhǔn)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(biāo)與其他商業(yè)標(biāo)識(shí)共存的判定標(biāo)準(zhǔn)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(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】：2016
【分類號(hào)】：D923.43
本文編號(hào)：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(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】：2016
【分類號(hào)】：D923.43
【相似文獻(xiàn)】
相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條
1 楊軍;;基于品牌戰(zhàn)略視角的商業(yè)標(biāo)識(shí)法律制度完善[J];南京社會(huì)科學(xué);2008年11期
2 萬久祝;商業(yè)標(biāo)識(shí)的網(wǎng)絡(luò)沖突規(guī)制[J];山東公安�？茖W(xué)校學(xué)報(bào);2003年02期
3 鄭海味;企業(yè)商業(yè)標(biāo)識(shí)知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)保護(hù)策略[J];華東經(jīng)濟(jì)管理;2004年04期
4 孫雙秀;王金貴;;試論商業(yè)標(biāo)識(shí)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(biāo)識(shí)立法的體系化[J];法學(xué);2007年03期
6 劉洋;;論反不正當(dāng)競爭法對(duì)商業(yè)標(biāo)識(shí)的保護(hù)[J];知識(shí)經(jīng)濟(jì);2011年12期
7 劉曉;;商業(yè)標(biāo)識(shí)法律保護(hù)的體系化研究[J];中州大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào);2011年03期
8 寧立志;徐升權(quán);;我國商業(yè)標(biāo)識(shí)權(quán)保護(hù)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(quán);;論“商業(yè)標(biāo)識(shí)權(quán)”[J];知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán);2012年09期
10 金莉娟;;論商業(yè)標(biāo)識(shí)的法律保護(hù)[J];福建廣播電視大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào);2007年03期
相關(guān)重要報(bào)紙文章 前10條
1 本報(bào)記者 俞家驊 通訊員 楊寧;透過標(biāo)識(shí)看品牌[N];中國黃金報(bào);2006年
2 陳瑤瑤;法國品牌發(fā)飾“搶”商標(biāo) 滬上法官說法定紛爭[N];人民法院報(bào);2013年
3 江濤 黃淳 重慶市第五中級(jí)人民法院;使用近似商業(yè)標(biāo)識(shí)構(gòu)成侵犯商標(biāo)權(quán)的判定標(biāo)準(zhǔn)[N];人民法院報(bào);2014年
4 周瑞平 王懷正;商標(biāo)侵權(quán)糾紛 因猴坑而起[N];人民法院報(bào);2011年
5 須曉云;商業(yè)標(biāo)識(shí)權(quán)利沖突急需對(duì)策[N];中國知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)報(bào);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(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)報(bào);2007年
7 上海市第二中級(jí)人民法院 袁博;“便于識(shí)別”與商標(biāo)的固有顯著性[N];中國知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)報(bào);2013年
8 黃淳 黃鍵 重慶市第五中級(jí)人民法院;未引起混淆與誤認(rèn)不構(gòu)成侵權(quán)[N];人民法院報(bào);2014年
9 本報(bào)記者 史曉芳;四川民企遭遇“泰V紜盵N];中華工商時(shí)報(bào);2013年
10 本報(bào)記者 崔文宇 衣朋華;“蕉葉”之爭的前前后后[N];中國知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)報(bào);2011年
相關(guān)博士學(xué)位論文 前1條
1 徐升權(quán);商業(yè)標(biāo)識(shí)權(quán)論[D];武漢大學(xué);2012年
相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前10條
1 陳浩;商業(yè)標(biāo)識(shí)統(tǒng)一立法初探[D];四川大學(xué);2004年
2 吳瑤璐;商標(biāo)與其他商業(yè)標(biāo)識(shí)共存判定標(biāo)準(zhǔn)研究[D];華東政法大學(xué);2016年
3 許彥生;中美商業(yè)標(biāo)識(shí)立法比較研究[D];華東政法大學(xué);2008年
4 吳鵬彬;論我國商業(yè)標(biāo)識(shí)法律保護(hù)的完善[D];復(fù)旦大學(xué);2009年
5 蔡碧川;商業(yè)標(biāo)識(shí)權(quán)利沖突論[D];中南民族大學(xué);2011年
6 趙博;論商業(yè)標(biāo)識(shí)法律保護(hù)體系[D];黑龍江大學(xué);2013年
7 王爽;商業(yè)標(biāo)識(shí)保護(hù)法律體系研究[D];黑龍江大學(xué);2014年
8 王安琪;商業(yè)標(biāo)識(shí)法律保護(hù)制度研究[D];河北經(jīng)貿(mào)大學(xué);2015年
9 潘波;商業(yè)標(biāo)識(shí)的不正當(dāng)競爭法律保護(hù)[D];內(nèi)蒙古大學(xué);2009年
10 付景虎;附加適當(dāng)區(qū)別標(biāo)識(shí)研究[D];華東政法大學(xué);2013年
，本文編號(hào)：2292610
本文鏈接：http://sikaile.net/falvlunwen/minfalunwen/2292610.html
最近更新
教材專著
