本文選題：商標(biāo)權(quán) + 商標(biāo)功能論��； 參考：《華東政法大學(xué)》2014年博士論文

【摘要】：商標(biāo)權(quán)被傳統(tǒng)地歸類為私權(quán)和知識產(chǎn)權(quán)，但商標(biāo)權(quán)具有區(qū)別于典型知識產(chǎn)權(quán)的特征。商標(biāo)權(quán)的本質(zhì)困擾著商標(biāo)法研究者和裁判者，商標(biāo)救濟(jì)的真正基礎(chǔ)究竟是保護(hù)商人的財產(chǎn)利益還是保護(hù)消費者免受混淆誤認(rèn)之虞？本文提出了商標(biāo)財產(chǎn)本質(zhì)論，認(rèn)為商標(biāo)法是權(quán)利授予法，發(fā)動商標(biāo)救濟(jì)的動因是商標(biāo)權(quán)的支配力，保護(hù)商人的財產(chǎn)利益是商標(biāo)救濟(jì)的真正基礎(chǔ)，消費者的利益在商標(biāo)法中不具有獨立性，應(yīng)當(dāng)根據(jù)支配性原理解釋和重構(gòu)商標(biāo)侵權(quán)規(guī)則。全文共有五章，第一章引出商標(biāo)法體系定位的困惑，第二章從歷史角度論證商標(biāo)財產(chǎn)論，第三章從規(guī)則適用角度研究商標(biāo)財產(chǎn)論，第四章構(gòu)建新型（內(nèi)涵）的商標(biāo)財產(chǎn)論，第五章研究商標(biāo)財產(chǎn)本質(zhì)論的運用。 本文第一章是商標(biāo)法的體系論，是對商標(biāo)法的體系定位進(jìn)行研究，著重對商標(biāo)法與反不正當(dāng)競爭法之間的關(guān)系進(jìn)行闡述。商標(biāo)法與反不正當(dāng)競爭法既有聯(lián)系又有區(qū)別，商標(biāo)法的體系定位成為困擾研究者的問題，彰顯商標(biāo)權(quán)本質(zhì)研究之必要。兩者之間的差異對決定商標(biāo)法的歸屬更具意義，體現(xiàn)了商標(biāo)法的個性化特征，是商標(biāo)財產(chǎn)論研究的序曲。 就聯(lián)系而言，商標(biāo)法和反不正當(dāng)競爭法均源自欺詐侵權(quán)之訴；在我國，仿冒之訴與商標(biāo)侵權(quán)共同組建了商業(yè)標(biāo)識保護(hù)體系，兩者在構(gòu)成要件上具有多個相同的聯(lián)結(jié)點；商標(biāo)法和反不正當(dāng)競爭法還具有相同的救濟(jì)請求權(quán)。就差異而言，商標(biāo)法和反不正當(dāng)競爭法具有不同的保護(hù)客體，前者的私法特征濃厚，商譽是商標(biāo)權(quán)的客體，商標(biāo)侵權(quán)之訴的核心在于制止貿(mào)易被轉(zhuǎn)移對商人所造成的損害，商標(biāo)保護(hù)的目標(biāo)在于保護(hù)商人的財產(chǎn)利益。商標(biāo)法不為消費者提供專門保護(hù)，商標(biāo)法不存在消費者協(xié)會或其他公立機構(gòu)的訴權(quán)問題。就不法行為的構(gòu)成要件而言，商標(biāo)法中的“競爭關(guān)系”和“競爭行為”均具有區(qū)別于反不正當(dāng)競爭法的內(nèi)涵。就類型化程度而言，商標(biāo)侵權(quán)行為的類型采法定主義，具有封閉性，而不正當(dāng)競爭行為則呈現(xiàn)出開放性的特點。 第二章是商標(biāo)財產(chǎn)論的歷史論，是在商標(biāo)法的早期和晚近發(fā)展歷史中梳理出商標(biāo)權(quán)的本質(zhì)。第一節(jié)透過商標(biāo)法的早期發(fā)展歷史梳理商標(biāo)權(quán)成為一種財產(chǎn)權(quán)的過程和原因。十九世紀(jì)后半葉，商人對商業(yè)利益的保護(hù)訴求、古典自然法思潮、英國司法運動的倡導(dǎo)以及商標(biāo)立法運動等因素相互呼應(yīng)，使商標(biāo)權(quán)的類型化障礙通過中央注冊登記制度的引入而得到解決，商標(biāo)權(quán)作為一種財產(chǎn)權(quán)的觀點廣為接受。 第二節(jié)通過考察近現(xiàn)代商標(biāo)法的發(fā)展史，發(fā)現(xiàn)商標(biāo)財產(chǎn)論的基礎(chǔ)地位。商標(biāo)功能對商標(biāo)權(quán)擴(kuò)張的拉動作用不能稀釋商標(biāo)權(quán)本質(zhì)的認(rèn)識，質(zhì)量保證功能、廣告功能和投資功能實質(zhì)上都是商標(biāo)財產(chǎn)論的直觀運用、體現(xiàn)了商標(biāo)權(quán)作為一種財產(chǎn)權(quán)的邏輯，而最具爭議的識別功能的擴(kuò)張，一旦結(jié)合商標(biāo)法早期發(fā)展過程中早已解決的混淆可能性的地位，也不難理解識別功能發(fā)展的背后仍然是權(quán)利人財產(chǎn)權(quán)控制范圍的擴(kuò)張，仍然是在商標(biāo)財產(chǎn)論的框架之中。 第三章主要從規(guī)則適用角度界分商標(biāo)財產(chǎn)論和商標(biāo)功能論，可以稱為商標(biāo)財產(chǎn)論的規(guī)則論。代表功利主義哲學(xué)的商標(biāo)功能論，將商標(biāo)法作為反不正當(dāng)競爭法的一環(huán)，將商標(biāo)作為實施仿冒行為的工具，以商標(biāo)功能是否受損（消費者是否受到混淆）為商標(biāo)侵權(quán)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，以行為的不正當(dāng)性作為發(fā)動救濟(jì)的源泉。依照商標(biāo)財產(chǎn)論，發(fā)動商標(biāo)救濟(jì)機制的動因是商標(biāo)權(quán)的支配力，保護(hù)商人的財產(chǎn)利益是商標(biāo)救濟(jì)的基礎(chǔ)，商標(biāo)權(quán)（支配權(quán)）受到侵害是商標(biāo)侵權(quán)認(rèn)定的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，消費者混淆可能性則是判斷財產(chǎn)損害即將發(fā)生的事實證據(jù)。 以法哲學(xué)基礎(chǔ)作為商標(biāo)本質(zhì)論的論證標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，在于檢討商標(biāo)財產(chǎn)論與商標(biāo)功能論在法哲學(xué)上的正當(dāng)性。體現(xiàn)商標(biāo)財產(chǎn)論的自然法哲學(xué)對商標(biāo)權(quán)類型化的貢獻(xiàn)功不可沒，，在商標(biāo)法的發(fā)展早期階段為商標(biāo)權(quán)的正當(dāng)性提供了道德基礎(chǔ)，而體現(xiàn)商標(biāo)功能論的功利主義哲學(xué)對現(xiàn)代商標(biāo)法規(guī)則的建構(gòu)和解釋則越來越有說服力。以保護(hù)對象作為論證標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，商標(biāo)權(quán)是商標(biāo)法框架中的一種權(quán)利，也是反不正當(dāng)競爭法框架中的一種財產(chǎn)法益，但究其本質(zhì)而言，商標(biāo)權(quán)是一種財產(chǎn)權(quán)利，其所調(diào)整的是商人對商標(biāo)中商譽的支配關(guān)系。以構(gòu)成要件為論證標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，未注冊商標(biāo)的保護(hù)存在地域性權(quán)利現(xiàn)象，注冊商標(biāo)的保護(hù)則不支持遠(yuǎn)方市場的使用，在商標(biāo)的“相同使用”情形，依照商標(biāo)權(quán)的支配力可直接認(rèn)定成立商標(biāo)侵權(quán)，至于是否發(fā)生混淆可能性則在所不論。 論文第四章是對商標(biāo)財產(chǎn)論的重構(gòu)，旨在調(diào)和商標(biāo)財產(chǎn)論和商標(biāo)功能論之間的矛盾。第一節(jié)沿著傳統(tǒng)民法的研究路徑，構(gòu)造商標(biāo)權(quán)的支配法律關(guān)系。文章認(rèn)為，商標(biāo)權(quán)的客體是承載在商標(biāo)中的商譽，商標(biāo)權(quán)人可對其商譽直接支配，商標(biāo)權(quán)內(nèi)容的實現(xiàn)無需第三人協(xié)助。商標(biāo)權(quán)是一種支配權(quán)，具有占有、使用、收益和處分權(quán)能，遵循“所有權(quán)權(quán)能分離理論”，在此意義上，商標(biāo)權(quán)是一種類似所有權(quán)的完全物權(quán)，商標(biāo)權(quán)人可基于其意志創(chuàng)設(shè)“類定限物權(quán)”，被許可人的獨占許可權(quán)就是一種類定限物權(quán)。商標(biāo)權(quán)的支配性，意味著在缺乏可適用的規(guī)則時，原則可類推適用傳統(tǒng)物權(quán)法規(guī)則。共有人對商標(biāo)權(quán)的處分，如轉(zhuǎn)讓和放棄商標(biāo)權(quán)，應(yīng)取得全體共有人的同意；每一共有人均可提起商標(biāo)侵權(quán)之訴，無需經(jīng)其他共有人同意。就善意取得而言，登記簿上商標(biāo)權(quán)屬的穩(wěn)定性并不高，難以保障商標(biāo)權(quán)的交易安全，不足以產(chǎn)生商標(biāo)權(quán)屬的公信力，商標(biāo)權(quán)不能適用善意取得。 如何解釋競爭性特征在商標(biāo)財產(chǎn)論中的地位，是第二節(jié)需要解決的問題。在商標(biāo)法體系內(nèi)部，貫穿在商標(biāo)法原理和規(guī)則中的“中等消費者”、“混淆可能性”、“商品或服務(wù)相同或類似”、“商品或服務(wù)知名度”等市場因素，與傳統(tǒng)財產(chǎn)權(quán)沒有直接關(guān)系，而與市場競爭相關(guān)，商標(biāo)權(quán)具有競爭功能，商標(biāo)法以確保商品的自由流通和市場的有序競爭為目標(biāo)之一。競爭功能影響著商標(biāo)權(quán)規(guī)則的建構(gòu)和商標(biāo)權(quán)本質(zhì)的判斷。傳統(tǒng)財產(chǎn)法的研究思路無法解釋商標(biāo)法的全部規(guī)則，商標(biāo)法兼具有動態(tài)資源利用法的特性。 貫穿在商標(biāo)法中的“中等消費者”、“混淆可能性”、“商品或服務(wù)相同或類似”等市場因素構(gòu)成對商標(biāo)支配權(quán)的限制，統(tǒng)一于商標(biāo)財產(chǎn)論中。商標(biāo)權(quán)競爭功能的限制主要有三個方面：商標(biāo)使用的限制，即商標(biāo)使用對注冊商標(biāo)權(quán)行使及效力的限制；競爭關(guān)系的限制，即商標(biāo)禁止權(quán)的“射程”僅限定在相同或類似的商品或服務(wù)上；競爭秩序的限制，即商標(biāo)權(quán)的外圍邊界由商標(biāo)功能來劃定，商標(biāo)功能是競爭秩序的體現(xiàn)，損害商標(biāo)功能實質(zhì)上是對競爭秩序的損害。 第五章闡述商標(biāo)財產(chǎn)論的運用，第一節(jié)依據(jù)這一理論對商標(biāo)權(quán)基本問題進(jìn)行回應(yīng)，第二節(jié)研究這一理論對商標(biāo)法具體規(guī)則的解釋和建構(gòu)意義。 商標(biāo)法規(guī)則的解釋和建構(gòu)應(yīng)遵循所有人中心主義。就保護(hù)目標(biāo)而言，商標(biāo)法的立法目的是保護(hù)商人的利益，消費者的混淆可能性是證明商標(biāo)權(quán)人貿(mào)易被轉(zhuǎn)移（損害即將發(fā)生，即傳統(tǒng)民法上的“危險”）的事實證據(jù)，混淆可能性的認(rèn)定在性質(zhì)上是一種事實判斷�！盎煜龢�(biāo)準(zhǔn)”并未在商標(biāo)法中樹立一個與“所有人中心主義”相對立的“消費者中心主義”，不具有獨立性，也不應(yīng)稱為侵權(quán)認(rèn)定的“標(biāo)準(zhǔn)”。商標(biāo)法上的支配關(guān)系體現(xiàn)為商標(biāo)權(quán)人與商譽之間的“一一對應(yīng)的聯(lián)系”。 就商標(biāo)權(quán)歸屬的爭論而言，商人對商標(biāo)權(quán)的享有乃基于法律的授權(quán)，所授予的商標(biāo)權(quán)是一種支配性質(zhì)的權(quán)利，商標(biāo)權(quán)的積極和消極權(quán)能均源自于支配力。支配屬性是商標(biāo)權(quán)的本質(zhì)屬性，商標(biāo)法的真正歸屬是知識產(chǎn)權(quán)法，而不是反不正當(dāng)競爭法。商標(biāo)法以保護(hù)商人利益為最終目的，間接地保護(hù)消費者不受混淆誤認(rèn)的公共利益，這種間接保護(hù)可以理解為一種“反射利益”�，F(xiàn)代商標(biāo)法的保護(hù)目的呈現(xiàn)多元化的發(fā)展趨勢，但并未脫離商標(biāo)權(quán)的本質(zhì)，是否應(yīng)啟動商標(biāo)救濟(jì)機制，仍需回歸構(gòu)成要件的分析。 就商標(biāo)侵權(quán)規(guī)則而言，首先，商標(biāo)權(quán)的保護(hù)范圍可劃分為專屬區(qū)域和延伸區(qū)域，兩個區(qū)域均屬財產(chǎn)利益的區(qū)域，是商標(biāo)權(quán)的支配范圍。其次，落入商標(biāo)權(quán)專屬區(qū)域的行為，即在相同商品或服務(wù)上使用相同商標(biāo)的行為，構(gòu)成商標(biāo)侵權(quán)，至于商標(biāo)未使用或者存在實際混淆的市場調(diào)查報告等因素，則在所不問。是否落入延伸區(qū)域的行為則根據(jù)商標(biāo)使用行為、混淆可能性或淡化可能性進(jìn)行認(rèn)定；混淆或淡化可能性是損害發(fā)生的表征，并非商標(biāo)侵權(quán)的要件，存在混淆或淡化可能性則表明存在侵犯商標(biāo)權(quán)的危險，依支配權(quán)對危險排除的原理可請求消除危險。最后，對商標(biāo)支配權(quán)的侵犯是指商標(biāo)權(quán)人不能圓滿自由地支配承載在商標(biāo)中的商譽，使商標(biāo)權(quán)人的支配利益“外溢”，商標(biāo)法應(yīng)以商標(biāo)顯著性受到損害為侵權(quán)判定標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，對顯著性不同的商標(biāo)掌握不同的認(rèn)定尺度（淡化可能性或混淆可能性）。商標(biāo)權(quán)所控制的行為是商標(biāo)使用行為，應(yīng)以商標(biāo)使用行為作為界分商標(biāo)直接侵權(quán)和間接侵權(quán)的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。
[Abstract]:Trademark rights are traditionally classified as private rights and intellectual property rights, but trademark rights are different from typical intellectual property rights. The essence of trademark rights perplexes the researchers and judges of trademark law. The real basis for trademark relief is to protect the property interests of merchants or protect consumers from confusion and misrecognition. This paper puts forward trademark wealth. On the basis of the theory of nature, the trademark law is the right granting law. The motivation of the trademark relief is the dominating force of the trademark right. The protection of the property interests of the merchants is the real foundation of the trademark remedy. The interests of the consumers are not independent in the trademark law. The trademark infringement rules should be explained and reconstructed according to the dominant principle. The full text has five chapters, the first chapter It leads to the confusion of the positioning of the trademark law system. The second chapter demonstrates the theory of trademark property from the historical point of view. The third chapter studies the theory of trademark property from the angle of the application of rules, the fourth chapter constructs a new (connotation) theory of trademark property, and the fifth chapter studies the application of the essence of trademark property.
The first chapter of this article is the system theory of trademark law. It is a study of the system orientation of the trademark law. It emphasizes the relationship between the trademark law and the anti unfair competition law. The trademark law and the anti unfair competition law have both connections and differences. The system orientation of the Trademark Law becomes a problem that puzzles the researchers and highlights the necessity of the study of the essence of the trademark right. The difference between them is more meaningful for deciding the ownership of trademark law, reflecting the individualized characteristics of trademark law, and is a prelude to the study of trademark property theory.
As far as contact is concerned, both trademark law and anti unfair competition law originate from the lawsuit of fraudulent tort; in our country, the commercial logo protection system has been formed by the counterfeiting and trademark infringement. Both of them have the same joint points on the constitutive requirements; the trademark law and the Anti Unfair Competition Law have the same right of request for relief. The standard law and the anti unfair competition law have different protection objects. The former has strong characteristics of private law, goodwill is the object of trademark rights. The core of the trademark infringement lawsuit is to prevent the damage caused by the trade transferred to the merchant. The purpose of the trademark protection is to protect the profit of the merchant's property. The trademark law does not provide special protection for the consumer. The standard law does not exist in the right to appeal of the consumer association or other public institutions. As for the constitutive requirements of the wrongful act, the "competitive relationship" and "competitive behavior" in the trademark law are different from the connotations of the anti unfair competition law. The proper competitive behavior is characterized by openness.
The second chapter is the historical theory of the theory of trademark property. It combs the essence of trademark right in the early and late development history of trademark law. The first section, through the early development history of the trademark law, combs the process and reason for the trademark right to become a kind of property right. In the second half of the nineteenth Century, the demand for the merchant's protection of business interests, the classical natural law trend of thought, The advocacy of the British judicial movement and the movement of the trademark legislation echoed each other so that the typization of trademark rights was solved through the introduction of the central registration system, and the view of trademark right as a property right was widely accepted.
The second section, through the investigation of the history of the development of the modern trademark law, finds the basic position of the theory of trademark property. The role of trademark function can not dilute the essence of trademark right, and the function of quality assurance, advertising function and investment function are the intuitionistic application of the trademark property theory, which embodies the trademark right as a kind of property. The logic of right, and the expansion of the most controversial recognition function, once combined with the position of the confusing possibility that has been solved in the process of the early development of the trademark law, it is not difficult to understand that behind the development of the recognition function is still the expansion of the scope of the property rights control of the rights holders, still in the framework of the theory of trademark property.
The third chapter mainly divides the trademark property theory and the trademark function theory from the angle of rule application. It can be called the rule theory of the trademark property theory. It represents the trademark function theory of utilitarianism philosophy. It takes the trademark law as a ring of anti unfair competition law, and takes the trademark as a tool for the implementation of the counterfeit behavior. In accordance with the trademark property theory, the motivation of launching trademark relief mechanism is the dominating force of trademark rights. The protection of the property interests of businessmen is the basis of trademark remedy, and the infringement of trademark right (Zhi Peiquan) is the standard of trademark infringement identification, and the confusion of consumers can be confused. Energy is the factual evidence to judge the imminent occurrence of property damage.
The standard of demonstration of the basis of legal philosophy as the essence of trademark is to review the legitimacy of trademark property theory and trademark function theory in legal philosophy. The contribution of natural law philosophy to the typization of trademark right is not impossible, and it provides moral basis for the justifiable of the right of commercial trademark in the early stage of the development of trademark law. The utilitarian philosophy of trademark functionalism is becoming more and more persuasive to the construction and interpretation of the rules of modern trademark law. As a proof standard, trademark right is a right in the framework of trademark law and a property legal benefit in the framework of anti unfair competition law, but the essence of it is a property right, which is the essence of the trademark right. The adjustment is the merchant's domination relation to the goodwill in the trademark. With the constitutive requirements as the proof standard, the protection of the unregistered trademark exists the regional rights phenomenon, the protection of the registered trademark does not support the use of the distant market. In the case of "the same use" of the trademark, the trademark infringement can be found directly in accordance with the domination force of the trademark right, as for The possibility of confusion is no matter what.
The fourth chapter of the paper is the reconstruction of the theory of trademark property, which aims to reconcile the contradiction between the theory of trademark property and the theory of trademark function. The first section, along the path of the traditional civil law, constructs the domination legal relationship of the trademark right. The article holds that the object of the trademark right is the goodwill carrying the trademark in the trademark, and the trademark owner can direct the trade reputation of the trademark and the trademark right. The realization of the content is not required by third people. The trademark right is a kind of dominating right, possessive, using, earning and disposing power, and following the theory of "separation of ownership power and energy". In this sense, trademark right is a kind of complete real right similar to ownership. The trademark owner can create the "class limit property right" based on its intention, and the Licensee's exclusive license Right is a kind of fixed property right. The domination of trademark means that in the absence of applicable rules, the principle can be analogous to the application of the traditional property law rules. A common owner should obtain the consent of all the common owners for the disposition of the trademark rights, such as the transfer or abandonment of the trademark right; each person can bring a lawsuit against the trademark infringement, without any other joint ownership. People agree. As far as bona fide acquisition is concerned, the stability of trademark ownership in the register is not high, it is difficult to guarantee the trade safety of trademark rights, not enough to produce the credibility of the trademark ownership, and the trademark right can not be applied in good faith.
How to explain the position of competitive characteristics in the theory of trademark property is a problem to be solved in the second section. Within the system of trademark law, the "medium consumers", "confusion possibility", "the same or similar goods or services", "business or service popularity", and traditional property, run through the principles and rules of the trademark law. There is no direct relationship between rights and rights, which is related to market competition. Trademark rights have competitive functions. Trademark law is one of the objectives of ensuring the free circulation of goods and orderly competition in the market. The competition function affects the construction of the rules of trademark rights and the judgment of the essence of the trademark right. The standard method also has the characteristics of the dynamic resource utilization method.
In the trademark law, the market factors such as "medium consumers", "confusing possibility", "the same goods or services are the same or similar" constitute the restriction on the right of trademark. It is unified in the theory of trademark property. The limitation of trademark right competition function is mainly three aspects: the limitation of trademark use, that is, the use of trademark to the right of registered trademark and The limitation of effectiveness; the limitation of the competitive relationship, that is, the "range" of the trademark prohibition right is limited to the same or similar goods or services; the restriction of the competition order, that is, the periphery of the trademark right is delimited by the function of the trademark, the function of the trademark is the embodiment of the competition order, and the damage to the trademark function is essentially the damage to the competition order.
The fifth chapter expounds the application of the theory of trademark property. The first section responds to the basic issues of trademark rights according to this theory, and the second section studies the interpretation and construction significance of this theory to the specific rules of trademark law.
The interpretation and construction of the rules of the trademark law should follow the centralism of all people. For the purpose of protection, the legislative purpose of the trademark law is to protect the interests of the merchants. The confusion possibility of the consumer is the fact evidence that the trade of the trademark owner is transferred (damage to the forthcoming, that is, the "danger" in the traditional civil law), and the identification of the possibility of confusion is in nature. Quality is a kind of fact judgment. The "confusion standard" does not establish a "consumer centralism" which is opposed to the "all anthropocentrism" in the trademark law. It does not have independence and should not be called the "standard" for tort identification. The domination relationship in the trademark law is a "one-to-one correspondence" between the merchant and the goodwill. Department.
As far as the dispute on the ownership of the trademark right is concerned, the merchant's enjoyment of the trademark right is based on the authorization of the law. The trademark granted is a right to dominate the trademark. The positive and negative power of the trademark rights are derived from the dominating power. The dominant attribute is the essential attribute of the trademark right, and the real attribution of the trademark law is to the law of intellectual property, not the anti illegitimacy. Competition law. The trademark law is the ultimate purpose of protecting the interests of businessmen and indirectly protects the public interests of consumers without confusion and misrecognition. This indirect protection can be understood as a "reflection interest". The purpose of the protection of modern trademark law presents a diversified trend of development, but it does not break out of the essence of trademark rights and should start the trademark relief machine. The analysis of the constitutive requirements of regression is still needed.
As far as trademark infringement rules are concerned, first of all, the scope of the protection of trademark rights can be divided into exclusive area and extension area. The two regions belong to the area of property interests, which are the dominating scope of trademark rights. Secondly, the act of falling into the exclusive area of trademark right, that is, the use of the same trademark in the same commodity or service, constitutes a trademark infringement and as to the business. The factors such as unused or actually confused market investigation report are not asked. Whether or not the act of falling into the extended area is identified according to the use of the trademark, the possibility of confusion or the possibility of desalination, and the possibility of confusion or desalination is the token of the damage, not the requisites of trademark infringement, and the possibility of confusion or dilution. It shows that there is a danger of infringement of trademark right and the principle of domination on the principle of danger exclusion can be requested to eliminate the danger. Finally, the infringement of the trademark right means that the trademark owner can not control the reputation of the trademark in the trademark freely and freely, so that the dominating interests of the trademark owner are "spillover", and the trademark law should be infringed on the trademark saliency. The criteria for determining different trademarks (the possibility of desalination or the possibility of confusion). The behavior controlled by the trademark right is the use of the trademark, and the use of the trademark should be used as the standard for direct infringement and indirect infringement of the trademark.

【學(xué)位授予單位】：華東政法大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：博士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2014
【分類號】：D923.43

【相似文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 尚玉為 ,張麗麗;適應(yīng)入世要求加大商標(biāo)保護(hù)力度[J];黑河科技;2002年04期

2 趙桂英;論述商標(biāo)及其價值[J];價格月刊;2003年03期

3 趙毓坤;民國時期的商標(biāo)立法與商標(biāo)保護(hù)[J];歷史檔案;2003年03期

4 洪建國;第四屆淮海經(jīng)濟(jì)區(qū)商標(biāo)保護(hù)協(xié)作會召開[J];中華商標(biāo);2003年01期

5 卞耀武;商標(biāo)立法與商標(biāo)法制[J];中華商標(biāo);2003年03期

6 楊彬,黃海洋;商標(biāo)的保護(hù)問題研究[J];遼寧廣播電視大學(xué)學(xué)報;2003年02期

7 王春艷;加強商標(biāo)保護(hù) 防止國外搶注[J];經(jīng)營與管理;2005年09期

8 蔣國艷;商標(biāo)反向假冒的法律探討[J];桂海論叢;2005年04期

9 陳濤;如何運用商標(biāo)保護(hù)老字號[J];中國工商管理研究;2005年11期

10 楊葉璇;;試論商標(biāo)“竊權(quán)”行為及其懲治方法——兼議我國商標(biāo)保護(hù)機制的改革[J];知識產(chǎn)權(quán);2005年06期

相關(guān)會議論文 前10條

1 吳凱;;藥品商標(biāo)保護(hù)的最新進(jìn)展[A];中國藥學(xué)會醫(yī)藥知識產(chǎn)權(quán)研究專業(yè)委員會2013年學(xué)術(shù)年會會議資料[C];2013年

2 瞿東亮;;如何運用商標(biāo)保護(hù)戰(zhàn)略防范商標(biāo)侵權(quán)的風(fēng)險和提高維權(quán)的力度[A];2009中華全國律師協(xié)會知識產(chǎn)權(quán)專業(yè)委員會年會暨中國律師知識產(chǎn)權(quán)高層論壇論文集（下）[C];2009年

3 孔德麗;;關(guān)于閑置商標(biāo)的幾點看法[A];哈爾濱市工商行政管理學(xué)會第四屆會員代表大會會刊暨2001年度獲獎優(yōu)秀理論文章調(diào)研成果匯編[C];2003年

4 蔡葉菁;;商標(biāo)共存問題研究——原理、比較與建構(gòu)[A];探索社會主義司法規(guī)律與完善民商事法律制度研究——全國法院第23屆學(xué)術(shù)討論會獲獎?wù)撐募ㄏ拢C];2011年

5 劉佳婕;;論在先使用商標(biāo)的保護(hù)[A];2013年中華全國專利代理人協(xié)會年會暨第四屆知識產(chǎn)權(quán)論壇論文匯編第四部分[C];2013年

6 路洋;;試論商標(biāo)的顯著性特征[A];當(dāng)代法學(xué)論壇（2008年第1輯）[C];2008年

7 劉遠(yuǎn)山;夏余楊;;論我國商標(biāo)侵權(quán)及其民事和行政法律制裁[A];當(dāng)代法學(xué)論壇（2007年第1輯）[C];2007年

8 姜斐斐;;論商標(biāo)的淡化及其法律規(guī)制[A];2009中華全國律師協(xié)會知識產(chǎn)權(quán)專業(yè)委員會年會暨中國律師知識產(chǎn)權(quán)高層論壇論文集（上）[C];2009年

9 趙立春;;巧選商品項目,合理保護(hù)商標(biāo)[A];2014年中華全國專利代理人協(xié)會年會第五屆知識產(chǎn)權(quán)論壇論文（第二部分）[C];2014年

10 李靜冰;;缺乏內(nèi)在顯著性的著名商標(biāo)是否受反淡化法的保護(hù)——2002年國際商標(biāo)協(xié)會第124屆年會模擬法庭辯論綜述[A];入世后知識產(chǎn)權(quán)法律服務(wù)實務(wù)研討會暨全國律協(xié)知識產(chǎn)權(quán)專業(yè)委員會2002年年會論文匯編[C];2002年

相關(guān)重要報紙文章 前10條

1 周祚;15％內(nèi)地知名商標(biāo)境外遭搶注[N];廣州日報;2004年

2 ;港澳臺頻頻搶注內(nèi)地商標(biāo)[N];經(jīng)理日報;2004年

3 本報見習(xí)記者 蘇磊;南充名校商標(biāo)資源亟待開發(fā)[N];南充日報;2005年

4 本報記者;北方十一省市商標(biāo)辦案協(xié)作會在并舉行[N];山西日報;2003年

5 見習(xí)記者 胡曉偉;你的商標(biāo)你作主了嗎？[N];天津日報;2005年

6 文雪梅;中國企業(yè)商標(biāo)保護(hù)迫在眉睫[N];中華工商時報;2005年

7 記者 蔣鑫富 通訊員 王偉民;紹興筑起商標(biāo)“保護(hù)墻”[N];浙江日報;2004年

8 章韌;怪味樓主的商標(biāo)大亨夢[N];中國知識產(chǎn)權(quán)報;2004年

9 李戈修;商標(biāo)更需全面保護(hù)[N];中國知識產(chǎn)權(quán)報;2004年

10 肖崇;保護(hù)商標(biāo)也要更新觀念[N];中國知識產(chǎn)權(quán)報;2005年

相關(guān)博士學(xué)位論文 前10條

1 李小武;商標(biāo)反淡化研究[D];中國社會科學(xué)院研究生院;2010年

2 葉強;我國商標(biāo)侵權(quán)治理的制度因素研究[D];南京航空航天大學(xué);2009年

3 黃暉;商標(biāo)權(quán)利范圍的比較研究[D];中國社會科學(xué)院研究生院;2000年

4 徐聰穎;論商標(biāo)的符號表彰功能[D];西南政法大學(xué);2011年

5 魏森;論商標(biāo)的淡化[D];對外經(jīng)濟(jì)貿(mào)易大學(xué);2007年

6 金YТ

本文編號：1801383