【摘要】："互聯(lián)網(wǎng)+"的深度發(fā)展衍生出移動互聯(lián)網(wǎng)APP運營產(chǎn)業(yè)的繁榮和活躍。APP應(yīng)用程序與APP標(biāo)志的合理分離使得對于APP標(biāo)志的規(guī)制排除了專利法和著作權(quán)法的保護,引發(fā)對APP標(biāo)志的法律屬性的爭論。由于APP標(biāo)志與其他標(biāo)識之間既有共同之處又有區(qū)別點,是否具有將其納入商標(biāo)法調(diào)整的充分證據(jù)眾說紛紜。再加之移動互聯(lián)網(wǎng)變化快,APP標(biāo)志侵權(quán)主體難以確定,商標(biāo)侵權(quán)的認定和免責(zé)條件適用難度加大。移動互聯(lián)網(wǎng)發(fā)展過程中,當(dāng)事人將APP標(biāo)志侵權(quán)行為訴諸商標(biāo)法律關(guān)系調(diào)整的訴求屢有發(fā)生,這與APP標(biāo)志侵權(quán)問題的現(xiàn)有規(guī)制有一定的關(guān)系。本文試圖從近幾年移動互聯(lián)網(wǎng)APP標(biāo)志的侵權(quán)現(xiàn)象入手進行分析,比較APP標(biāo)志與其他商業(yè)標(biāo)志之間的區(qū)別點,厘清APP標(biāo)志納入商標(biāo)法調(diào)整的合理性。其次,從APP標(biāo)志上傳者和APP標(biāo)志第三方平臺提供者兩個可能侵權(quán)主體角度出發(fā)評價其行為在商標(biāo)法律關(guān)系中的定性和突破。最后,結(jié)合法律條文和司法實踐就APP標(biāo)志所涉商標(biāo)侵權(quán)行為規(guī)制提出建議。本文一共分為五個部分。第一部分首先提出將APP應(yīng)用程序與APP標(biāo)志相分離,明確論文將探討的對象。其次從APP標(biāo)志的發(fā)展情況得出APP標(biāo)志具有數(shù)量眾多、發(fā)展水平不高,生命周期較短的特征,引出移動互聯(lián)網(wǎng)領(lǐng)域APP標(biāo)志侵權(quán)行為頻發(fā)的原因。最后描述目前關(guān)于APP標(biāo)志侵權(quán)事件,當(dāng)事人將其訴諸商標(biāo)法調(diào)整的現(xiàn)實,將APP標(biāo)志界定在商標(biāo)法律關(guān)系范疇。第二部分承接上文中"APP標(biāo)志屬于商標(biāo)法律關(guān)系調(diào)整范圍"的論點,論證即使在新環(huán)境下APP標(biāo)志呈現(xiàn)不同于傳統(tǒng)商業(yè)標(biāo)志的形態(tài)和特征,但其顯著識別部分的商標(biāo)屬性決定APP標(biāo)志確可歸于商標(biāo)法保護。此外,比照APP標(biāo)志與馳名商標(biāo)、域名、特殊標(biāo)志的區(qū)別點,為下文討論如何適用商標(biāo)法相關(guān)規(guī)定埋下伏筆。第三部分主要結(jié)合目前商標(biāo)法的相關(guān)規(guī)定,從APP標(biāo)志上傳者上傳APP標(biāo)志是否屬于商標(biāo)性使用分析得出其行為性質(zhì),從而認定APP標(biāo)志與傳統(tǒng)商業(yè)標(biāo)志一樣,具有區(qū)分APP來源的作用,一旦造成混淆,可適用現(xiàn)有商標(biāo)法規(guī)定判定其行為構(gòu)成商標(biāo)侵權(quán)行為。此外,結(jié)合移動互聯(lián)網(wǎng)自身特征,側(cè)重于對反向混淆現(xiàn)象的關(guān)注。同時結(jié)合相關(guān)案例進行佐證。第四部分主要分析另一個可能侵權(quán)主體—APP標(biāo)志第三方服務(wù)提供商的商標(biāo)侵權(quán)認定標(biāo)準(zhǔn)與免責(zé)條件的適用。同樣出于現(xiàn)實需要,在認定APP標(biāo)志第三方服務(wù)提供商侵權(quán)時,根據(jù)其所具有的實際控制能力,提高對事前的審查和注意義務(wù)以及事后的預(yù)防義務(wù)的更高要求。在免責(zé)情形中,限制條款適用范圍愈加限縮,"避風(fēng)港"規(guī)則的適用更加嚴(yán)格,以平衡受損害方與APP標(biāo)志服務(wù)提供商之間的利益關(guān)系。同時結(jié)合實際案例進行闡述。第五部分在前四部分論述的基礎(chǔ)上,總結(jié)司法實踐經(jīng)驗,進一步指出商標(biāo)法、反不正當(dāng)競爭法(修訂草案)在可操作性方面的提高和側(cè)重之處,促進制度設(shè)計更加完善和平衡。
[Abstract]:The deep development of "Internet" has spawned the prosperity and activity of APP operation industry in mobile Internet. The reasonable separation of app application program and APP logo makes the regulation of APP logo exclude the protection of patent law and copyright law. Lead to a debate about the legal attributes of the APP logo. Because there are both similarities and differences between APP logo and other marks, there are different opinions about whether there is sufficient evidence to incorporate it into trademark law adjustment. In addition, the rapid change of mobile Internet makes it difficult to determine the subject of APP logo infringement, and the identification of trademark infringement and the application of exemption conditions are more difficult. In the process of the development of mobile Internet, the demand of the parties to resort to the adjustment of trademark legal relationship for APP logo infringement has occurred repeatedly, which has something to do with the existing regulation of APP logo infringement. This paper attempts to analyze the infringement phenomenon of APP logo in mobile Internet in recent years, compare the differences between APP logo and other commercial marks, and clarify the rationality of APP logo being included in trademark law adjustment. Secondly, the qualitative and breakthrough of APP logo uploading and APP logo third party platform provider in trademark legal relationship are evaluated from the point of view of two possible infringement subjects. Finally, combined with legal provisions and judicial practice, this paper puts forward some suggestions on the regulation of trademark infringement related to APP logo. This paper is divided into five parts. In the first part, we first propose to separate APP applications from APP flags, and identify the objects to be discussed in this paper. Secondly, from the development of APP logo, it is concluded that APP logo has the characteristics of large number, low development level and short life cycle, which leads to the frequent infringement of APP logo in the field of mobile Internet. Finally, it describes the reality that the parties resort to the adjustment of trademark law about the infringement of APP logo, and defines the APP logo in the category of trademark legal relationship. The second part carries on the argument that "APP logo belongs to the adjustment scope of trademark legal relationship" above, and demonstrates that even in the new environment, APP logo is different from the traditional commercial logo in form and characteristics. However, the trademark attributes of the significant identification part determine that the APP logo can indeed be attributed to the protection of trademark law. In addition, the differences between APP logo and well-known trademark, domain name and special mark lay the groundwork for the following discussion on how to apply the relevant provisions of trademark law. The third part mainly combines the relevant provisions of the current trademark law, and analyzes whether the APP logo uploads the APP logo to the trademark use, so as to conclude that the APP logo is the same as the traditional commercial logo. It has the function of distinguishing the source of APP. Once confusion is caused, the existing trademark law can be applied to determine that its behavior constitutes trademark infringement. In addition, combined with the characteristics of the mobile Internet, focus on the reverse confusion phenomenon. At the same time, combined with the relevant cases to support. The fourth part mainly analyzes the application of trademark infringement identification standard and exemption condition of APP logo third party service provider, which is another possible infringement subject. Also out of practical needs, when recognizing the infringement of the third party service provider marked by APP, according to its actual control ability, it improves the higher requirements for the prior examination and duty of care and the obligation of prevention after the event. In the case of exemption, the scope of application of the restriction clause is more and more limited, and the application of the "safe haven" rule is more strict in order to balance the interest relationship between the injured party and the APP marking service provider. At the same time, combined with the actual case to elaborate. The fifth part summarizes the judicial practice experience on the basis of the first four parts, and further points out the improvement and emphasis on the maneuverability of the trademark law and the anti-unfair competition law (revised draft), so as to promote the system design to be more perfect and balanced.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：浙江工商大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類號】：D923.43

【參考文獻】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前1條

1 劉書瓊;;如何認定《商標(biāo)法》第31條中的商標(biāo)“使用”——兼評“陸虎”商標(biāo)糾紛案[J];中華商標(biāo);2011年08期

，

本文編號：2480633