【摘要】：本文從對國內(nèi)外關(guān)于馳名商標(biāo)認(rèn)定標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的立法研究及對中國的馳名商標(biāo)認(rèn)定實踐中認(rèn)定標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的探索著手,主要分析了司法實踐中馳名商標(biāo)認(rèn)定的公眾范圍標(biāo)準(zhǔn)、地域范圍標(biāo)準(zhǔn)以及知名度標(biāo)準(zhǔn)存在的問題,認(rèn)為應(yīng)該在借鑒國外成功經(jīng)驗的基礎(chǔ)之上,建立靈活動態(tài)的馳名商標(biāo)認(rèn)定標(biāo)準(zhǔn),以符合《商標(biāo)法》馳名商標(biāo)個案認(rèn)定、被動保護(hù)即僅適用于保護(hù)的原則。在公眾范圍標(biāo)準(zhǔn)方面,應(yīng)該建立動態(tài)相關(guān)公眾范圍標(biāo)準(zhǔn),而不是單純的單方相關(guān)公眾范圍和社會公眾范圍。動態(tài)相關(guān)公眾范圍既包含待認(rèn)定商標(biāo)的公眾范圍,也包含異議商標(biāo)的公眾范圍。在地域范圍標(biāo)準(zhǔn)方面,提出對于馳名商標(biāo)認(rèn)定的對外地域范圍標(biāo)準(zhǔn)應(yīng)該在以中國大陸作為地域標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的一般原則之上,將國外馳名商標(biāo)認(rèn)定的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)作為我國商標(biāo)馳名認(rèn)定的參考。在對內(nèi)地域范圍標(biāo)準(zhǔn)方面,應(yīng)該效仿最高人民法院設(shè)立六個巡回法院的做法將中國劃分為六大區(qū)域,根據(jù)案件性質(zhì)確定最終區(qū)域。在知名度標(biāo)準(zhǔn)方面,應(yīng)當(dāng)明確劃分知名度的等級,分別為一定知名度、較高知名度和極高知名度,然后融合地域范圍標(biāo)準(zhǔn)以及涉案商標(biāo)的市場占有率最終認(rèn)定商標(biāo)是否馳名。此外,本文關(guān)于人民法院之間馳名商標(biāo)認(rèn)定標(biāo)準(zhǔn)提出幾點建議,一是,發(fā)揮最高人民法院指導(dǎo)性案例作用,讓地方各級人民法院審理馳名商標(biāo)認(rèn)定案件的法官學(xué)習(xí)、參考最高人民法院發(fā)布的關(guān)于馳名商標(biāo)認(rèn)定的指導(dǎo)性案例,以期統(tǒng)一馳名商標(biāo)認(rèn)定標(biāo)準(zhǔn);二是,加大馳名商標(biāo)司法認(rèn)定培訓(xùn)力度,由于我國東西部差異,一般來講東部地區(qū)法官辦案經(jīng)驗豐富,而中西部地區(qū)法官辦案經(jīng)驗不足,針對這種情況,最高人民法院應(yīng)該加大對馳名商標(biāo)認(rèn)定司法人員的培訓(xùn),定期交流經(jīng)驗合作,除了交流馳名商標(biāo)認(rèn)定的理論知識外,還應(yīng)當(dāng)結(jié)合具體的已經(jīng)審結(jié)的馳名商標(biāo)案例進(jìn)行分析總結(jié),對相關(guān)人員進(jìn)行有針對的培訓(xùn);三是,制定司法解釋,進(jìn)一步細(xì)化馳名商標(biāo)的認(rèn)定標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。最高人民法院通過對各地方人民法院已經(jīng)審結(jié)的馳名商標(biāo)認(rèn)定案件的經(jīng)驗總結(jié),制定可行有效的馳名商標(biāo)認(rèn)定標(biāo)準(zhǔn),這對統(tǒng)一全國各級法院之間馳名商標(biāo)認(rèn)定標(biāo)準(zhǔn)具有重要意義。
[Abstract]:Starting from the legislative research on the identification standard of well-known trademark at home and abroad and the exploration of the identification standard in the practice of well-known trademark recognition in China, this paper mainly analyzes the problems existing in the public scope standard, regional scope standard and popularity standard of well-known trademark recognition in judicial practice, and holds that a flexible and dynamic standard for the identification of well-known trademark should be established on the basis of drawing lessons from the successful experience of foreign countries. According to the well-known trademark case in accordance with Trademark Law, passive protection is only applicable to the principle of protection. In the aspect of public scope standards, dynamic public scope standards should be established, rather than unilateral public scope and social public scope. The dynamic public scope includes both the public scope of the trademark to be recognized and the public scope of the dissenting trademark. In the aspect of regional scope standard, this paper puts forward that the foreign regional scope standard for well-known trademark recognition should be based on the general principle of taking mainland China as the regional standard, and the foreign well-known trademark recognition standard should be taken as the reference for the well-known trademark recognition in our country. In terms of internal regional scope standards, China should be divided into six regions according to the nature of the case, following the practice of setting up six circuit courts by the Supreme people's Court. In the aspect of popularity standard, we should clearly divide the level of popularity, respectively, for a certain degree of popularity, high popularity and extremely high popularity, and then integrate the regional scope standard and the market share of the trademark involved in the final identification of whether the trademark is well-known or not. In addition, this paper puts forward some suggestions on the standards of well-known trademark recognition between people's courts. First, give full play to the guiding case role of the Supreme people's Court, let the judges of local people's courts at all levels hear cases of well-known trademark recognition learn, and refer to the guiding cases issued by the Supreme people's Court on the recognition of well-known trademarks, in order to unify the standards of well-known trademark recognition; Second, to increase the training of judicial identification of well-known trademarks, due to the differences between the east and the west of China, judges in the eastern region generally have rich experience in handling cases, while judges in the central and western regions are inexperienced in handling cases. In view of this situation, the Supreme people's Court should increase the training of judicial personnel in the recognition of well-known trademarks, exchange experience and cooperation on a regular basis, in addition to exchanging theoretical knowledge of well-known trademark identification, It should also be combined with the specific cases of well-known trademarks that have been concluded to analyze and summarize, and carry on the targeted training to the relevant personnel; Third, formulate judicial interpretation to further refine the standards for the identification of well-known trademarks. By summing up the experience of the local people's courts in the identification of well-known trademarks, the Supreme people's Court has formulated a feasible and effective standard for the identification of well-known trademarks, which is of great significance to the unification of the standards for the identification of well-known trademarks among the courts at all levels in the country.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：山東科技大學(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(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 張世紅;;我國馳名商標(biāo)制度的立法突破與完善——以商標(biāo)法的第三次修正為研究視角[J];赤峰學(xué)院學(xué)報(漢文哲學(xué)社會科學(xué)版);2016年12期

2 王雪;;中日商標(biāo)保護(hù)的比較研究——以日本本田和重慶力帆商標(biāo)訴訟為例[J];全國商情;2016年35期

3 李怡文;;馳名商標(biāo)的跨類保護(hù)研究——基于TRIPS協(xié)議第16條的分析[J];浙江萬里學(xué)院學(xué)報;2016年04期

4 商君紅;;馳名商標(biāo)司法認(rèn)定制度研究[J];洛陽理工學(xué)院學(xué)報(社會科學(xué)版);2016年02期

5 潘丹丹;;論我國馳名商標(biāo)認(rèn)定標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的構(gòu)建與適用[J];學(xué)理論;2016年03期

6 秦莉莉;;我國馳名商標(biāo)三十年:溯源、回顧與反思[J];理論界;2015年05期

7 林炎孌;;論我國馳名商標(biāo)的保護(hù)[J];長江大學(xué)學(xué)報(社科版);2015年01期

8 王太平;盧結(jié)華;;歐盟商標(biāo)法上侵犯商標(biāo)權(quán)的判斷標(biāo)準(zhǔn)[J];知識產(chǎn)權(quán);2014年11期

9 王太平;;商標(biāo)侵權(quán)的判斷標(biāo)準(zhǔn):相似性與混淆可能性之關(guān)系[J];法學(xué)研究;2014年06期

10 王太平;;論馳名商標(biāo)認(rèn)定的公眾范圍標(biāo)準(zhǔn)[J];法學(xué);2014年10期

相關(guān)重要報紙文章 前1條

1 ;馳名商標(biāo)：認(rèn)定有標(biāo)準(zhǔn) 保護(hù)有限度[N];中國工商報;2014年

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前7條

1 相全宏;馳名商標(biāo)認(rèn)定標(biāo)準(zhǔn)研究[D];華東政法大學(xué);2015年

2 周剛(SHU Go);我國境外馳名商標(biāo)的認(rèn)定和保護(hù)—中日立法與司法實踐之比較[D];清華大學(xué);2015年

3 鄭丹虹;我國馳名商標(biāo)司法認(rèn)定法律問題研究[D];華南理工大學(xué);2014年

4 鮑旭煒;美國馳名商標(biāo)認(rèn)定要素研究[D];吉林大學(xué);2012年

5 呂冰;中日馳名商標(biāo)跨類保護(hù)案例比較研究[D];上海交通大學(xué);2012年

6 李強(qiáng);馳名商標(biāo)認(rèn)定標(biāo)準(zhǔn)量化分析[D];西南政法大學(xué);2010年

7 劉文軍;中德馳名商標(biāo)認(rèn)定標(biāo)準(zhǔn)比較研究[D];中國政法大學(xué);2010年

，

本文編號：2508436