【摘要】：商標(biāo)權(quán)與在先權(quán)利之間的沖突一直是商標(biāo)司法實(shí)踐領(lǐng)域內(nèi)長(zhǎng)期探討的問(wèn)題。特別是在商標(biāo)注冊(cè)五年之后，根據(jù)《商標(biāo)法》的相關(guān)規(guī)定，在先權(quán)利人已經(jīng)無(wú)法提起商標(biāo)撤銷申請(qǐng)。在這種情況下，在先權(quán)利人是否還能通過(guò)民事訴訟的程序獲得停止侵權(quán)或損失賠償?shù)让袷戮葷?jì)，以及如何獲得此類民事救濟(jì)？ 就這一問(wèn)題，我國(guó)的目前立法層面存在缺失，導(dǎo)致最高人民法院和其他司法執(zhí)法機(jī)關(guān)力求在現(xiàn)有法律框架內(nèi)達(dá)到利益平衡公平公正的效果，但卻造成了司法解釋和司法操作中矛盾重重的局面。法律方面，《商標(biāo)法》只是規(guī)定了侵犯他人在先權(quán)利的注冊(cè)商標(biāo)的注冊(cè)規(guī)則，而《反不正當(dāng)競(jìng)爭(zhēng)法》等法律則只是原則性的規(guī)定了使用某些他人享有權(quán)利的標(biāo)識(shí)屬于假冒行為，應(yīng)當(dāng)受到禁止和處罰，但沒有涉及商標(biāo)權(quán)和此類標(biāo)識(shí)權(quán)發(fā)生沖突時(shí)的民事救濟(jì)規(guī)則。對(duì)于這一缺失，司法解釋和司法實(shí)踐對(duì)于在先權(quán)利人的民事救濟(jì)的觀點(diǎn)逐步從行政撤銷程序優(yōu)先于民事救濟(jì)的觀點(diǎn)，發(fā)展為這種的民事救濟(jì)獨(dú)立的觀點(diǎn)。然后目前，司法解釋層面并沒有完整和統(tǒng)一的規(guī)定，最新的《關(guān)于當(dāng)前經(jīng)濟(jì)形勢(shì)下知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)審判服務(wù)大局若干問(wèn)題的意見》對(duì)于商標(biāo)注冊(cè)五年后在先權(quán)利人尋求民事救濟(jì)方面，不合理地區(qū)別處理了不同的在先權(quán)利，同時(shí)在賦予在先權(quán)利人民事救濟(jì)的同事，剝奪了在先權(quán)利的排他性，這種缺乏法律邏輯的實(shí)踐觀點(diǎn)背后的根本原因，是法律明文規(guī)定的缺失。 從法律屬性的角度而言，使用注冊(cè)商標(biāo)侵犯他人在先權(quán)利的本質(zhì)是權(quán)利之間的沖突。因此，在解決這一問(wèn)題時(shí)，應(yīng)當(dāng)充分考慮權(quán)利沖突解決原則的適用，包括尊重在先權(quán)利原則、保護(hù)公共利益原則和利益平衡原則——一方面，法律應(yīng)當(dāng)給在先權(quán)利提供保護(hù)，但另一方面，這種保護(hù)并不是沒有期限和范圍的，為了防止“在權(quán)利上沉睡”的情況，也為了保護(hù)消費(fèi)者對(duì)已經(jīng)長(zhǎng)時(shí)間使用的商標(biāo)所產(chǎn)生的信賴?yán)�，�?yīng)當(dāng)對(duì)在先權(quán)利人民事救濟(jì)的期限作出規(guī)定。從這一點(diǎn)上，可以借鑒《保護(hù)工業(yè)產(chǎn)權(quán)巴黎公約》之《關(guān)于保護(hù)馳名商標(biāo)的規(guī)定的聯(lián)合建議》，，以及歐洲商標(biāo)指令和商標(biāo)條例的規(guī)定，將商標(biāo)撤銷的五年期限同時(shí)規(guī)定為在先權(quán)利人進(jìn)行民事救濟(jì)的期限。
[Abstract]:The conflict between trademark right and prior right has long been discussed in the field of trademark judicial practice. Especially after five years of trademark registration, according to the relevant provisions of the Trademark Law, the prior right holder has been unable to file an application for trademark revocation. In this case, is the prior right holder able to obtain civil remedies, such as cessation of infringement or damages, through civil proceedings, and how to obtain such civil remedies? With regard to this issue, there is a lack of legislation at present in our country, which has led the Supreme people's Court and other judicial law enforcement agencies to strive to achieve a fair and just balance of interests within the existing legal framework. However, the judicial interpretation and judicial operation of the situation is full of contradictions. In terms of law, the Trademark Law only prescribes the rules for the registration of registered trademarks that infringe upon the rights of others in the first place, while laws such as the Anti-unfair Competition Law only provide in principle that the use of marks of rights enjoyed by certain others is an act of counterfeiting. It should be prohibited and punished, but does not deal with the civil remedy rules in the event of a conflict between trademark rights and such marking rights. For this deficiency, the viewpoint of judicial interpretation and judicial practice on the civil relief of the prior right holder gradually develops from the point of view that the administrative revocation procedure takes precedence over the civil relief, and develops into the independent viewpoint of the civil relief. Then, at present, there are no complete and unified provisions on judicial interpretation. The latest opinion on several issues of intellectual property rights trial serving the overall situation under the current economic situation, for trademark registration five years after seeking civil remedies for the prior right holder, At the same time, in giving civil relief to the former right holder, he deprived the exclusivity of the prior right, which is the fundamental reason behind the lack of legal logic in practice. It is the absence of legal provisions. From the point of view of legal attribute, the essence of infringing the prior rights of others by using registered trademark is the conflict between rights. Therefore, in addressing this issue, due consideration should be given to the application of the principle of conflict of rights resolution, including respect for the principle of prior rights, the principle of protection of the public interest and the principle of balance of interests-on the one hand, the law should provide protection for prior rights, The time limit for civil relief of the prior right holder shall be stipulated. In this regard, reference may be made to the Joint recommendation on provisions for the Protection of Well-known trademarks of the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial property, as well as to the provisions of the European Trademark Directive and regulations, The five-year period of trademark revocation is also defined as the time limit of civil relief for the prior right holder.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：華東政法大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2013
【分類號(hào)】：D923.43

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前1條

1 馮曉青,楊利華;知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)權(quán)利沖突及其解決原則[J];法學(xué)論壇;2001年03期

本文編號(hào)：2281067