【摘要】：2013年11月21日,路必達(dá)馬球公司的一場(chǎng)新聞發(fā)布會(huì)在廣州召開(kāi),發(fā)布會(huì)上宣布,Burberry格子圖文商標(biāo)被成功申請(qǐng)撤銷。與此同時(shí),路必達(dá)馬球公司表示將向Burberry索賠5億元。2012年,北京一中院判決維持商標(biāo)評(píng)審委員會(huì)的決定,不同意埃爾梅斯國(guó)際提出的要求撤銷達(dá)豐制衣公司的愛(ài)馬仕中文商標(biāo)的請(qǐng)求。埃爾梅斯國(guó)際早在30多年之前即開(kāi)拓中國(guó)市場(chǎng),但當(dāng)時(shí)只申請(qǐng)注冊(cè)“Hermes”英文商標(biāo),并未注冊(cè)相應(yīng)的中文商標(biāo)。此次也是在其發(fā)現(xiàn)原對(duì)應(yīng)的中文商標(biāo)被已被其他公司注冊(cè)后,先向中國(guó)商評(píng)委提起撤銷請(qǐng)求遭拒,后以其中文商標(biāo)是未注冊(cè)馳名商標(biāo)為由起訴商評(píng)委。然而該訴求并未獲得北京一中院的支持,北京一中院最終維持了商評(píng)委的決定。類似的涉及奢侈品商標(biāo)的爭(zhēng)議案例,有共性或者個(gè)性的原因,除了是因?yàn)樯莩奁飞a(chǎn)或提供商在商標(biāo)戰(zhàn)略制定與實(shí)施上的漏洞,我國(guó)現(xiàn)行的有關(guān)奢侈品商標(biāo)法律保護(hù)措施是否也存在缺失,這些都有必要作深入的梳理和研究。本課題擬從比較典型的奢侈品商標(biāo)爭(zhēng)議案例著手分析研究,深入挖掘奢侈品與普通商標(biāo)的區(qū)別以及奢侈品商標(biāo)的內(nèi)在特質(zhì),試圖找到奢侈品商標(biāo)與普通商標(biāo)之間,奢侈品商標(biāo)與馳名商標(biāo)之間的不同之處,分析奢侈品生產(chǎn)或提供商在商標(biāo)戰(zhàn)略的規(guī)劃與執(zhí)行過(guò)程中的得與失,從奢侈品廠商自身和法律保護(hù)兩個(gè)方面提出奢侈品商標(biāo)保護(hù)制度的完善建議。
[Abstract]:On November 21, 2013, a news conference of Luda Polo Company was held in Guangzhou, at which it was announced that the Burberry plaid logo had been successfully applied for cancellation. At the same time, Lupida Polo said it would claim 500 million yuan from Burberry. In 2012, the Beijing first Central Court ruled to uphold the decision of the Trademark Review Committee. Disagreed with Elmes International's request to rescind the Herm 貓 s Chinese trademark of Dafeng Garment Company. Elmes International opened up the Chinese market more than 30 years ago, but at that time only applied to register the "Hermes" English trademark, and did not register the corresponding Chinese trademark. This time, after it found that the original Chinese trademark had been registered by other companies, it first filed a request for cancellation with the Chinese business judge, and then sued the judge on the grounds that its Chinese trademark was an unregistered well-known trademark. However, the appeal was not supported by the Beijing first Middle School, which finally maintained the decision of the commercial judges. Similar controversial cases involving luxury trademarks have common or individual reasons, except for loopholes in the formulation and implementation of trademark strategies by luxury goods manufacturers or providers. There are also some deficiencies in the current legal protection measures of luxury trademarks in China, which need to be combed and studied in depth. This paper intends to analyze and study the typical cases of luxury trademark dispute, dig into the difference between luxury trademark and ordinary trademark, as well as the inherent characteristics of luxury trademark, and try to find out the relationship between luxury trademark and ordinary trademark. The differences between luxury trademark and well-known trademark are analyzed, and the gains and losses of luxury goods production or supplier in the planning and implementation of trademark strategy are analyzed. This paper puts forward some suggestions on the improvement of luxury trademark protection system from two aspects: luxury goods manufacturers themselves and legal protection.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：上海交通大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2015
【分類號(hào)】：D920.5;D923.43

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前7條

1 張林;;詞典與商標(biāo)顯著性的認(rèn)定——從“優(yōu)盤”商標(biāo)案談起[J];中華商標(biāo);2015年03期

2 羅瑞豐;;奢侈品商標(biāo)未必能獲得跨類保護(hù)[J];中華商標(biāo);2011年01期

3 張?jiān)倨?閆春德;;未注冊(cè)中文譯名商標(biāo)的法律保護(hù)與司法實(shí)踐評(píng)析[J];今日財(cái)富(中國(guó)知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán));2010年10期

4 朱明俠;周云;;奢侈品的廣義定義及其研究框架[J];經(jīng)濟(jì)師;2008年07期

5 肖海;;企業(yè)商標(biāo)注冊(cè)的策略[J];企業(yè)經(jīng)濟(jì);2007年05期

6 馮曉青;;企業(yè)商標(biāo)使用策略研究[J];東南大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(哲學(xué)社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2006年05期

7 彭學(xué)龍;;商標(biāo)顯著性新探[J];法律科學(xué).西北政法學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2006年02期

相關(guān)重要報(bào)紙文章 前1條

1 任靜;;國(guó)際知名品牌未注冊(cè)中文商標(biāo)的法律困境[N];中國(guó)知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)報(bào);2013年

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前1條

1 劉鵬飛;奢侈品商標(biāo)權(quán)保護(hù)制度研究[D];華中師范大學(xué);2013年

，

本文編號(hào)：2480534