【摘要】：在我國,馳名商標(biāo)的認(rèn)定是為了加大商標(biāo)權(quán)的保護(hù)力度,引導(dǎo)企業(yè)實施商標(biāo)戰(zhàn)略,使用自主商標(biāo),豐富商標(biāo)內(nèi)涵,重視商標(biāo)知識產(chǎn)權(quán)的創(chuàng)新和保護(hù),從而形成一批擁有自主知識產(chǎn)權(quán)和知名品牌、國際競爭力較強(qiáng)的優(yōu)勢企業(yè),促進(jìn)企業(yè)和社會經(jīng)濟(jì)發(fā)展,推動創(chuàng)新型國家建設(shè)。目前,我國馳名商標(biāo)的認(rèn)定有行政認(rèn)定和司法認(rèn)定兩種途徑。近年來,隨著我國經(jīng)濟(jì)增長水平的不斷發(fā)展,馳名商標(biāo)成了企業(yè)提高市場占有率的砝碼,在經(jīng)濟(jì)發(fā)達(dá)的省份,一度出現(xiàn)馳名商標(biāo)認(rèn)定熱。由于司法認(rèn)定馳名商標(biāo)與行政認(rèn)定相比更加便捷、高效,成本相對低,使一些企業(yè)認(rèn)為通過司法認(rèn)定馳名商標(biāo)是一條捷徑。于是,在司法實踐中,出現(xiàn)了以認(rèn)定馳名商標(biāo)為目的的虛假訴訟。 由于普通商標(biāo)保護(hù)范圍較小,所以商標(biāo)法中專門設(shè)立馳名商標(biāo)保護(hù)制度,給予商標(biāo)權(quán)利人以特殊保護(hù)或更大權(quán)利,以解決特定的法律爭議或糾紛。而馳名商標(biāo)司法認(rèn)定虛假訴訟中,提起訴訟的商標(biāo)權(quán)利人沒有正當(dāng)?shù)睦碛珊鸵罁?jù),蓄意制造商標(biāo)侵權(quán)糾紛,采用虛構(gòu)訴訟主體、法律事實和偽造證據(jù)等手段,以表面合法的形式提起訴訟,申請法院認(rèn)定自己持有的商標(biāo)為馳名商標(biāo),從而提高企業(yè)品牌知名度、打壓競爭對手。造成馳名商標(biāo)認(rèn)定虛假訴訟持續(xù)增多的主要原因有：我國馳名商標(biāo)制度的異化、馳名商標(biāo)市場影響力的驅(qū)動以及馳名商標(biāo)認(rèn)定制度本身的內(nèi)部誘因等。馳名商標(biāo)司法認(rèn)定虛假訴訟危害主要表現(xiàn)為：影響馳名商標(biāo)司法認(rèn)定的權(quán)威性,損害馳名商標(biāo)司法認(rèn)定的公正性,破壞公平競爭的市場秩序。 對于虛假訴訟的行為,兩大法系有代表性國家的規(guī)制規(guī)定雖然有所不同,但都有實體法和程序法兩方面的規(guī)定。在我國,對于司法認(rèn)定馳名商標(biāo)虛假訴訟的現(xiàn)象,已受到各級法院的高度重視。最高人民法院相繼出臺司法解釋,規(guī)范馳名商標(biāo)的司法認(rèn)定。在此基礎(chǔ)上,筆者提出自己的建議,針對馳名商標(biāo)司法認(rèn)定虛假訴訟,首先要完善馳名商標(biāo)保護(hù)制度,同時運用程序法規(guī)制馳名商標(biāo)司法認(rèn)定中的虛假訴訟,建立馳名商標(biāo)司法認(rèn)定虛假訴訟的識別機(jī)制,還要明確馳名商標(biāo)虛假訴訟的法律責(zé)任,構(gòu)建馳名商標(biāo)司法認(rèn)定虛假訴訟侵權(quán)損害賠償機(jī)制。
[Abstract]:In China, the identification of well-known trademarks is to strengthen the protection of trademark rights, guide enterprises to implement trademark strategy, use independent trademarks, enrich the connotation of trademarks, and attach importance to the innovation and protection of trademark intellectual property rights. To form a number of independent intellectual property rights and well-known brands, strong international competitiveness of the advantage of enterprises, promote the development of enterprises and socio-economic, promote the construction of an innovative country. At present, there are two ways to identify well-known trademarks in China: administrative and judicial. In recent years, with the continuous development of China's economic growth level, well-known trademarks have become the weight for enterprises to increase their market share. In economically developed provinces, well-known trademarks have once become a hot cognizance of well-known trademarks. Because judicial cognizance of well-known trademark is more convenient, efficient and relatively low cost, some enterprises think it is a shortcut to identify well-known trademark through judicature. Therefore, in judicial practice, there is a false litigation for the purpose of identifying well-known trademarks. Because the scope of common trademark protection is relatively small, a well-known trademark protection system is specially set up in Trademark Law to give special protection or greater rights to trademark rights holders in order to solve specific legal disputes or disputes. But in the well-known trademark judicial cognizance false lawsuit, the trademark right holder who brought the lawsuit has no legitimate reason and basis, intentionally creates trademark infringement dispute, uses the fictitious lawsuit subject, the legal fact and the forgery evidence and so on means. Sue in a prima facie legal form and apply to the court to identify its trademark as a well-known trademark so as to increase the visibility of the corporate brand and suppress its competitors. The main reasons for the continuous increase of well-known trademark identification false litigation are: the alienation of well-known trademark system in China, the driving force of well-known trademark market influence and the internal inducement of well-known trademark identification system itself. The harm of false litigation in judicial cognizance of well-known trademark is that it affects the authority of judicial cognizance of well-known trademark, impairs the justice of judicial cognizance of well-known trademark, and destroys the market order of fair competition. For the act of false litigation, the regulations of the two representative countries are different, but both have the provisions of substantive law and procedural law. In our country, the phenomenon of judicial cognizance of well-known trademark false litigation has been attached great importance to by all levels of courts. The Supreme people's Court has issued judicial interpretations to standardize the judicial determination of well-known trademarks. On this basis, the author puts forward his own suggestions, in view of the well-known trademark judicial cognizance of false litigation, first of all to improve the well-known trademark protection system, and at the same time use procedures and regulations to make the well-known trademark judicial identification of the false litigation, In order to establish the identification mechanism of well-known trademark judicial cognizance of false litigation, we should make clear the legal liability of well-known trademark false litigation, and construct the compensation mechanism of well-known trademark judicial cognizance of false litigation infringement damage.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：大連海事大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2013
【分類號】：D923.43;D925

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 來小鵬;傅家杰;;論馳名商標(biāo)司法認(rèn)定制度的完善[J];電子知識產(chǎn)權(quán);2009年08期

2 張愛國;;論馳名商標(biāo)司法認(rèn)定中基礎(chǔ)理論的缺失[J];福建政法管理干部學(xué)院學(xué)報;2009年01期

3 夏君麗;;關(guān)于馳名商標(biāo)司法保護(hù)價值取向及制度設(shè)置的思考[J];法律適用;2007年12期

4 北京市第一中級人民法院課題組;宿遲;楊柏勇;姜穎;喬平;;馳名商標(biāo)司法認(rèn)定若干問題[J];法律適用;2007年12期

5 鐘蔚莉;胡昌明;王煜玨;;關(guān)于審判監(jiān)督程序中發(fā)現(xiàn)的虛假訴訟的調(diào)研報告[J];法律適用;2008年06期

6 徐愛國;;英美法中“濫用法律訴訟”的侵權(quán)責(zé)任[J];法學(xué)家;2000年02期

7 朱蘭萍;;我國馳名商標(biāo)法律制度的完善——以馳名商標(biāo)權(quán)利濫用及規(guī)制為視角[J];法制與社會;2011年10期

8 葛志群;;淺析我國馳名商標(biāo)的認(rèn)定[J];法制與社會;2012年07期

9 王曉曄;重要的補(bǔ)充——反不正當(dāng)競爭法與相鄰法的關(guān)系[J];國際貿(mào)易;2004年07期

10 馬忠法;王高平;;馳名商標(biāo)虛假訴訟成因及其應(yīng)對之探究——由“康王”商標(biāo)糾紛案引發(fā)的思考[J];西部法學(xué)評論;2011年01期

，

本文編號：2439306