論我國商業(yè)外觀的法律保護(hù)
發(fā)布時(shí)間：2018-11-03 19:29
【摘要】：我國相關(guān)法律制度中并沒有“商業(yè)外觀”的概念，其來源于美國的司法實(shí)踐，并通過判例的形式予以保護(hù)。商業(yè)外觀是商品呈現(xiàn)給消費(fèi)者的產(chǎn)品的外形或者形狀、產(chǎn)品的包裝、在產(chǎn)品或其包裝上使用的顏色或者設(shè)計(jì)、所使用的顏色與其他因素的組合，甚至營銷技巧等整體性觀感。商業(yè)外觀通常包括產(chǎn)品自身的外觀，產(chǎn)品包裝的外觀及服務(wù)裝潢的外觀、網(wǎng)站外觀等四種類型。 隨著我國市場經(jīng)濟(jì)的迅速發(fā)展，無形資產(chǎn)的保護(hù)問題受到越來越多的關(guān)注，人們對商業(yè)外觀的保護(hù)意識(shí)日益增強(qiáng)。備受矚目的“王老吉”商標(biāo)使用權(quán)案于2012年5月經(jīng)中國國際經(jīng)濟(jì)貿(mào)易委員會(huì)確認(rèn)，廣藥集團(tuán)收回了“王老吉”注冊商標(biāo)的使用權(quán)，，但廣藥集團(tuán)與加多寶公司就“紅罐”包裝一案卻進(jìn)入了曠日持久的訴訟當(dāng)中。2013年5月15日，廣藥集團(tuán)、加多寶公司就王老吉、加多寶紅罐外包裝裝潢權(quán)進(jìn)行了相互訴訟，經(jīng)最高人民法院指定，由廣東省高級(jí)人民法院開庭審理，其審判結(jié)果將決定紅罐涼茶外包裝歸屬權(quán)。此案涉及的案價(jià)之大，屬國內(nèi)罕見，被媒體稱為“中國包裝裝潢第一案”。然而該案至今沒有審判結(jié)果。 理論界對紅罐包裝歸屬有不同看法。以中國社會(huì)科學(xué)院知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)中心主任李明德、西南政法大學(xué)知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)學(xué)院教授張玉敏等為代表的多位法律界專家，認(rèn)為知名商品王老吉涼茶特有的紅罐、紅瓶包裝裝潢權(quán)，應(yīng)屬于廣藥集團(tuán)；然而以北京大學(xué)國際知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)研究中心主任鄭勝利為代表的學(xué)者，認(rèn)為紅罐是加多寶設(shè)計(jì)并最先使用，那么紅罐顯然應(yīng)該歸屬加多寶。 本文試圖以王老吉與加多寶“紅罐”之爭訴訟案為切入點(diǎn)，對商業(yè)外觀的法律保護(hù)進(jìn)行研究，運(yùn)用比較法、價(jià)值分析法，通過研究借鑒美國、德國等國家商業(yè)外觀的保護(hù)，結(jié)合知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)國際條約相關(guān)內(nèi)容，得出對于商業(yè)外觀侵權(quán)判定的原則，以“混淆可能性”作為侵權(quán)判定原則，及在其判定混淆可能性過程中加以參酌的因素。同時(shí)提出在保護(hù)商業(yè)外觀過程中應(yīng)當(dāng)遵循的“非功能性”要求。我國現(xiàn)有相關(guān)法律制度基本上對大多數(shù)類型的商業(yè)外觀予以保護(hù)，同時(shí)也看到現(xiàn)有保護(hù)方面存在的缺陷，提出了筆者的建議。
[Abstract]:There is no concept of "commercial appearance" in the relevant legal system of our country, which comes from the judicial practice of the United States and is protected by the form of case law. Commercial appearance is the appearance or shape of the product presented to the consumer, the packaging of the product, the color or design used in the product or its packaging, the combination of the color used with other factors, and even the holistic perception of the marketing technique. The commercial appearance usually includes the appearance of the product itself, the appearance of the product package and the appearance of the service decoration, and the appearance of the website. With the rapid development of market economy in China, more and more attention has been paid to the protection of intangible assets. The high-profile "Wang Laoji" trademark use right case was confirmed by the China International Economic and Trade Commission in May 2012 that Guang Yao Group had taken back the right to use the registered trademark of "Wang Laoji". On May 15, 2013, Guang Yao Group and Gadobo Co., Ltd. entered into a protracted lawsuit over the right of Wang Laoji, Gadobo Red jar to package and decorate the outer packaging of the red jar, and on May 15, 2013, Guang Yao Group and Gadobo Co., Ltd., took part in a mutual lawsuit against each other over the right to package and decorate the outer packaging of the red jar. Appointed by the Supreme people's Court and heard by the Guangdong Provincial higher people's Court, the result of the trial will determine the ownership of the outer packaging of the red pot of herbal tea. The case involved a large price, is rare in China, known by the media as "the first case of packaging and decoration in China." However, the trial has so far been inconclusive. The theory circle has different view to the red can packing attribution. Many legal experts, such as Li Mingde, director of the intellectual property Center of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, and Zhang Yumin, a professor at the intellectual property School of Southwest University of political Science and Law, held that the famous commodity Wang Laoji's unique red jar and red bottle packaging and decorating rights are unique to Wang Laoji's herbal tea. Belong to Guang Yao Group; However, Zheng Shengli, director of the International intellectual property Research Center of Peking University, believes that the red pot is the first to be designed and used by Kadobo, so the red pot should obviously belong to Kadobo. This paper attempts to study the legal protection of the commercial appearance with Wang Laoji and Garduobo's "Red jar" lawsuit as the starting point. By using comparative law and value analysis method, we can learn from the protection of the commercial appearance of the United States, Germany and other countries. Combined with the relevant contents of international treaties on intellectual property rights, this paper draws the principle of judging the infringement of commercial appearance, taking the possibility of confusion as the principle of judgment of infringement, and the factors that should be taken into account in the process of judging the possibility of confusion. At the same time, the non-functional requirements should be followed in the process of protecting commercial appearance. The existing relevant legal system of our country basically protects most types of commercial appearance, at the same time, it also sees the defects of the existing protection, and puts forward the author's suggestion.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：吉林大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2014
【分類號(hào)】：D923.4;D922.294
本文編號(hào)：2308767
[Abstract]:There is no concept of "commercial appearance" in the relevant legal system of our country, which comes from the judicial practice of the United States and is protected by the form of case law. Commercial appearance is the appearance or shape of the product presented to the consumer, the packaging of the product, the color or design used in the product or its packaging, the combination of the color used with other factors, and even the holistic perception of the marketing technique. The commercial appearance usually includes the appearance of the product itself, the appearance of the product package and the appearance of the service decoration, and the appearance of the website. With the rapid development of market economy in China, more and more attention has been paid to the protection of intangible assets. The high-profile "Wang Laoji" trademark use right case was confirmed by the China International Economic and Trade Commission in May 2012 that Guang Yao Group had taken back the right to use the registered trademark of "Wang Laoji". On May 15, 2013, Guang Yao Group and Gadobo Co., Ltd. entered into a protracted lawsuit over the right of Wang Laoji, Gadobo Red jar to package and decorate the outer packaging of the red jar, and on May 15, 2013, Guang Yao Group and Gadobo Co., Ltd., took part in a mutual lawsuit against each other over the right to package and decorate the outer packaging of the red jar. Appointed by the Supreme people's Court and heard by the Guangdong Provincial higher people's Court, the result of the trial will determine the ownership of the outer packaging of the red pot of herbal tea. The case involved a large price, is rare in China, known by the media as "the first case of packaging and decoration in China." However, the trial has so far been inconclusive. The theory circle has different view to the red can packing attribution. Many legal experts, such as Li Mingde, director of the intellectual property Center of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, and Zhang Yumin, a professor at the intellectual property School of Southwest University of political Science and Law, held that the famous commodity Wang Laoji's unique red jar and red bottle packaging and decorating rights are unique to Wang Laoji's herbal tea. Belong to Guang Yao Group; However, Zheng Shengli, director of the International intellectual property Research Center of Peking University, believes that the red pot is the first to be designed and used by Kadobo, so the red pot should obviously belong to Kadobo. This paper attempts to study the legal protection of the commercial appearance with Wang Laoji and Garduobo's "Red jar" lawsuit as the starting point. By using comparative law and value analysis method, we can learn from the protection of the commercial appearance of the United States, Germany and other countries. Combined with the relevant contents of international treaties on intellectual property rights, this paper draws the principle of judging the infringement of commercial appearance, taking the possibility of confusion as the principle of judgment of infringement, and the factors that should be taken into account in the process of judging the possibility of confusion. At the same time, the non-functional requirements should be followed in the process of protecting commercial appearance. The existing relevant legal system of our country basically protects most types of commercial appearance, at the same time, it also sees the defects of the existing protection, and puts forward the author's suggestion.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：吉林大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2014
【分類號(hào)】：D923.4;D922.294
【參考文獻(xiàn)】
相關(guān)期刊論文 前1條
1 魏衍亮;用商標(biāo)法保護(hù)商業(yè)外觀[J];中華商標(biāo);2005年03期
相關(guān)博士學(xué)位論文 前1條
1 蔣虹;論商號(hào)及其法律保護(hù)[D];華東政法大學(xué);2011年
本文編號(hào)：2308767
本文鏈接：http://sikaile.net/falvlunwen/zhishichanquanfa/2308767.html
最近更新
教材專著
