【摘要】：隨著經(jīng)濟全球化、市場競爭的日益激烈,品牌的重要性與日俱增。最新的-項調(diào)查顯示,顏色對消費者有著重要的意義,它能使消費者更迅速地辨別他們所熟知的品牌,有許多消費者甚至是基于顏色對商品來源進行判斷。目前,有許多商家開始通過新穎商標來樹立品牌形象,將單一顏色商標等多種非傳統(tǒng)商標作為新型營銷手段。經(jīng)過長期使用和宣傳,這些商標與商家的聯(lián)系己然深入人心。單一顏色商標被頗多運用在追求美學性與新穎性效果的時尚產(chǎn)業(yè)中。 單一顏色商標是否應該受到法律保護在國內(nèi)外學術(shù)界有所爭議,但大多發(fā)達國家在立法和司法中確立了單一顏色商標的可注冊性。許多先前立法中不允許注冊單一顏色商標的國家,如日本、韓國、西班牙,也通過商標法修正案的形式確立了單一顏色商標的可注冊性,可見保護單一顏色商標的國際化趨勢。 由于顏色是時尚設(shè)計的基礎(chǔ)元素,在Louboutin案中美國司法界對時尚企業(yè)是否能將單一顏色注冊為商標提出了質(zhì)疑。那么,究竟是否應允許時尚企業(yè)注冊單一顏色商標?商標法對單一顏色商標的保護是否應延伸到時尚產(chǎn)業(yè)?筆者從Louboutin案一審判決的質(zhì)疑中得到啟發(fā),在本文中分析Louboutin案始末,總結(jié)案例經(jīng)驗,圍繞時尚產(chǎn)業(yè)單一顏色商標的可保護性問題進行分析和論述。 筆者認為,雖然顏色在時尚產(chǎn)業(yè)中有著舉足輕重的作用,但這不應成為阻礙顏色被注冊為商標的原因。只要滿足“獲得顯著性”和“非功能性”要件,時尚產(chǎn)業(yè)單一顏色商標就應同樣受到商標法保護。關(guān)于如何完善時尚產(chǎn)業(yè)單一顏色商標的保護,筆者認為,而考慮到顏色在時尚產(chǎn)業(yè)的特殊性,為了促進時尚產(chǎn)業(yè)的健康發(fā)展,在司法實踐中應對時尚產(chǎn)業(yè)單一顏色商標作適當傾斜,具體問題具體分析,寬松適用“功能性否決原則”；為避免保護過度對公平競爭可能造成的影響,應嚴格限定時尚產(chǎn)業(yè)中單一顏色商標的具體使用范圍和情形。 擁有巨大潛力的中國時尚產(chǎn)業(yè)在未來的發(fā)展過程中,不可避免地會遇到像Louboutin案中所討論的問題。我國現(xiàn)行立法暫不保護單一顏色商標,但我國市場中對保護單一顏色商標的需求已經(jīng)涌現(xiàn)。隨著未來市場的進一步細分,單一顏色商標的出現(xiàn)勢必越來越頻繁,保護單一顏色商標需求也將與日俱增。在中國保護單一顏色商標可謂是眾望所歸。本文試圖對時尚產(chǎn)業(yè)單一顏色商標法律保護相關(guān)問題和我國在推進保護過程中遇到的問題進行系統(tǒng)化分析,并通過總結(jié)美國經(jīng)驗,提出對策,希望能夠?qū)ξ覈鴨我活伾虡说睦碚撗芯亢蛯嵺`有所貢獻。 縱觀國內(nèi)外學術(shù)領(lǐng)域,至今鮮有國內(nèi)學者專攻研究時尚產(chǎn)業(yè)的知識產(chǎn)權(quán)保護問題,也鮮有關(guān)于本選題的中文文獻。雖然國外學者在這方面的研究相對超前,但國外學者主要從本國法出發(fā),鮮有談到中國方面的問題及對策。本文的可能創(chuàng)新點主要有： 第一,對時尚產(chǎn)業(yè)特性和國內(nèi)外相關(guān)法律保護現(xiàn)狀的介紹和分析,特別是對中國方面的現(xiàn)狀分析,并提出了中國時尚產(chǎn)業(yè)中現(xiàn)實和潛在的法律保護需求。 第二,針對中國的現(xiàn)實情況,分析在中國法框架下保護時尚產(chǎn)業(yè)單一顏色商標的可行性和立法建議。 本文論述采取的主要方法是比較分析和案例分析。筆者就國內(nèi)外在選題問題上的立法和司法實踐情況進行比較分析。由于美國立法較為完善且在單一顏色商標保護問題上經(jīng)驗豐富,案例分析的重點主要放在美國司法判例的研究上,作者將總結(jié)判例的核心觀點,提煉出可借鑒之處。
[Abstract]:As the economic globalization, the increasingly fierce market competition, the importance of brand is increasing. The latest - item survey shows that color is of great significance to consumers. It can make consumers more quickly identify the brand they know, and many consumers are even based on the color of the commodity. A variety of non-traditional trademarks, such as a single color trademark, are used as new marketing means to establish a brand image through new trademarks. After long-term use and publicity, the links between these trademarks and businesses have been deeply rooted in the hearts of the people.
It is controversial whether a single color trademark should be protected by law at home and abroad, but most developed countries have established the registration of a single color trademark in legislation and judicature. Many previous legislation, such as Japan, South Korea, and Spain, which are not allowed to register a single color trademark, are also in the form of an amendment to the trademark law. The registration of a single color trademark has been established, thus protecting the internationalization trend of single color trademark.
As color is the basic element of fashion design, in the Louboutin case, the American judiciary has questioned whether a fashion enterprise can register a single color as a trademark. The question of the case first trial is enlightened. In this paper, we analyze the beginning and end of the Louboutin case, sum up the case experience, and analyze and discuss the problem of the protection of the single color trademark in the fashion industry.
The author believes that although color plays an important role in the fashion industry, it should not be the reason why the color is registered as a trademark. As long as it meets the requirements of "gaining significant" and "non functional", the single color trademark of fashion industry should be protected by the same trademark law. In order to promote the healthy development of fashion industry, the author thinks that, in order to promote the healthy development of fashion industry, we should take a proper inclination of the single color trademark in the fashion industry in judicial practice, specific analysis of specific problems, and loosely apply the principle of "functional veto" in order to avoid excessive protection against fair competition. The specific scope and circumstances of the single color trademark in the fashion industry should be strictly limited.
In the course of future development, China's fashion industry with great potential will inevitably meet the problems discussed in the Louboutin case. The current legislation in China does not protect the single color trademark temporarily, but the demand for the protection of a single color trademark has emerged in our market. With the further segmentation of the future market, a single color trademark is also made. There will be more and more frequent emergence and increasing demand for the protection of single color trademarks. The protection of a single color trademark in China is the most popular. This paper attempts to systematically analyze the problems related to the legal protection of the single color trademark in the fashion industry and the problems encountered in the process of promoting the protection of our country, and through the summary of the American classics. We hope to be able to contribute to the theoretical research and practice of single color trademark in China.
Throughout the academic field at home and abroad, there are few domestic scholars specializing in the study of intellectual property protection in the fashion industry, and there are few Chinese literature about this topic. Although foreign scholars have been relatively advanced in this field, foreign scholars rarely talk about China's problems and countermeasures. The new points are as follows:
First, the introduction and analysis of the characteristics of the fashion industry and related legal protection at home and abroad, especially the analysis of the current situation in China, and the practical and potential legal protection requirements in China's fashion industry.
Secondly, in view of the reality of China, this paper analyzes the feasibility and legislative suggestions of protecting the single color trademark of fashion industry under the framework of Chinese law.
The main methods used in this paper are comparative analysis and case analysis. The author makes a comparative analysis on the legislation and judicial practice on the topic of selection at home and abroad. Because of the more perfect legislation in the United States and rich experience in the protection of the single color trademark, the focus of the case analysis is mainly on the study of the judicial precedents of the United States. They will summarize the core points of the case and extract some useful points.
【學位授予單位】：北京外國語大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2014
【分類號】：D997.1

【參考文獻】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前9條

1 王笑冰;從顏色商標保護看美國商標法的“第二含義”[J];中華商標;2000年08期

2 李長寶;單一顏色商標的可注冊性[J];中華商標;2005年10期

3 董葆霖;常艷麗;;單一顏色商標在歐洲[J];中華商標;2006年02期

4 杜穎;;單一顏色商標注冊問題研究——以美國法為中心的比較分析[J];法學評論;2009年01期

5 董傳傳;;從Louboutin案看美國單一顏色商標在時裝領(lǐng)域的保護[J];中華商標;2013年07期

6 郭建廣;;美國單一顏色商標制度簡介[J];中華商標;2012年12期

7 曾如鈺;;顏色商標的注冊問題分析——以近年美國顏色商標保護案例為切入點[J];經(jīng)濟視角(中旬);2011年05期

8 杜穎;;商標淡化理論及其應用[J];法學研究;2007年06期

9 湛茜;;單一顏色商標的注冊問題研究[J];暨南學報(哲學社會科學版);2012年10期

，

本文編號：2157788