馳名商標(biāo)虛假訴訟研究
發(fā)布時(shí)間：2019-04-16 08:46
【摘要】：最初的馳名商標(biāo)制度是為了突破知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)地域性的限制以及注冊取得原則,防止在外國已經(jīng)注冊的享有較高聲譽(yù)的商標(biāo),在本國遭到搶注,然而根據(jù)公平原則,本國商標(biāo)一樣可以獲得同等的“待遇”。作為通過法律移植過來的制度,在其本土化的過程中,卻悄然從一個(gè)法律制度異化成“質(zhì)量”與“商譽(yù)”的認(rèn)證或保證標(biāo)志。馳名商標(biāo)并不是一類特別的商標(biāo),而是商標(biāo)的法律保護(hù)方法,是司法對(duì)一個(gè)商標(biāo)在相關(guān)公眾領(lǐng)域內(nèi)享有較高商譽(yù)的法律事實(shí)狀態(tài)的確認(rèn),則此商標(biāo)在法律上就獲得了“反混淆”或是“反淡化”的“特權(quán)”。雖然知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)是對(duì)世權(quán),但是馳名商標(biāo)的認(rèn)定確是“個(gè)案有效”,不過“天下熙熙,皆為利來：天下攘攘,皆為利往�！币粫r(shí)間馳名商標(biāo)被捧上了“神壇”,成為了企業(yè)的巨大榮譽(yù),官員的非凡政績,消費(fèi)者的質(zhì)量保證與品位追求,商標(biāo)代理機(jī)構(gòu)與律師的財(cái)富來源,然而卻成為了法官的麻煩事。原被告當(dāng)事人,通過虛構(gòu)商標(biāo)侵權(quán)糾紛,向法院提起訴訟,通過法院對(duì)馳名商標(biāo)進(jìn)行司法認(rèn)定,而以馳名商標(biāo)為前提才可以進(jìn)行的擴(kuò)張保護(hù),就不是真正的目的了。馳名商標(biāo)虛假訴訟為法院帶來了識(shí)別難與懲治難的司法困境,然而為了預(yù)防,法院采取了一系列的措施,起到了一定的效果,如強(qiáng)調(diào)被動(dòng)認(rèn)定、按需認(rèn)定以及個(gè)案有效的認(rèn)定原則,但是有些措施卻出現(xiàn)了矯枉過正的問題,犧牲了馳名商標(biāo)的制度價(jià)值,甚至危及訴訟法律制度的基石。如2009年最高人民法院出臺(tái)《關(guān)于審理涉及馳名商標(biāo)保護(hù)的民事糾紛案件應(yīng)用法律若干問題的解釋》(法釋[2009]3號(hào))劍指馳名商標(biāo)虛假訴訟,規(guī)定不得在判決書主文認(rèn)定馳名商標(biāo),調(diào)解書不得涉及馳名商標(biāo)的認(rèn)定以及排除了域名與馳名商標(biāo)糾紛認(rèn)定馳名商標(biāo)的“緣由”的具體規(guī)制措施,其核心是認(rèn)為馳名商標(biāo)屬于事實(shí)范疇,非權(quán)利范疇,即不是程序法或是實(shí)體法上的權(quán)利或是利益。如此,隨之而來的問題是,馳名商標(biāo)司法認(rèn)定制度,存乎?亡乎?故此,應(yīng)針對(duì)馳名商標(biāo)虛假訴訟的特點(diǎn)以及引起的歷史原因、社會(huì)原因、訴訟法律制度原因以及行為的經(jīng)濟(jì)成本原因出發(fā),提出司法之外預(yù)防,司法之內(nèi)識(shí)別以及刑事懲治等規(guī)制措施。 筆者希望通過本文,首先可以對(duì)馳名商標(biāo)虛假訴訟的司法困境提供有效規(guī)制建議；其次,就是對(duì)虛假訴訟問題的解決提供有益的探索路徑；最后,可以引起各位同仁對(duì)法律移植及其本土化所引起的問題與中國法治進(jìn)程帶來可能的有益的思考。
[Abstract]:The original well-known trademark system was designed to break through the restrictions on the regionality of intellectual property rights and the principle of obtaining registration, and to prevent the registration of highly reputable trademarks already registered in foreign countries from being preempted in their own countries, however, on the basis of the principle of fairness, National trademarks are equally entitled to "treatment". As a system transplanted through the law, in the process of its localization, it quietly dissimilates from a legal system to the certification or guarantee mark of "quality" and "goodwill". A well-known trademark is not a special kind of trademark, but a legal protection method of a trademark. It is a judicial confirmation of the legal fact that a trademark enjoys a high goodwill in the relevant public domain. The trademark is legally entitled to "anti-confusion" or "anti-dilution" privilege. Although intellectual property is the right to the world, but the identification of well-known trademarks is indeed a "case effective", but "the world is Hexi, is profit: the world is bustling, is profit." For a time, well-known trademarks have been praised to the "shrine" and become a huge honor of the enterprise, the extraordinary political achievements of officials, the quality assurance and taste pursuit of consumers, the wealth source of trademark agencies and lawyers, but it has become a troublesome matter for judges. The original defendant party, through the fictitious trademark infringement dispute, brings a lawsuit to the court, through the court carries on the judicial confirmation to the well-known trademark, but takes the well-known trademark as the premise can carry on the expansion protection, is not the real purpose. The well-known trademark false litigation has brought the court difficult to identify and punish the difficult judicial dilemma, however, in order to prevent, the court has taken a series of measures, played a certain effect, such as emphasizing passive identification, On-demand and case-by-case principles of effective identification, but some measures have been overdone, sacrificing the system value of well-known trademarks, and even endangering the cornerstone of the legal system of litigation. For example, in 2009, the Supreme people's Court issued an interpretation of certain legal issues concerning the Application of laws in Civil disputes involving the Protection of well-known trademarks (interpretation [2009] No. 3), referring to the false litigation of well-known trademarks. It is stipulated that well-known trademarks shall not be identified in the main text of the judgment, and the mediation statement shall not involve the identification of well-known trademarks and specific regulatory measures that exclude disputes between domain names and well-known trademarks in determining well-known trademarks, and the "cause" of the identification of well-known trademarks, Its core is that the well-known trademark belongs to the category of fact and non-right, that is, it is not the right or interest in procedural law or substantive law. In this way, the following question is, well-known trademark judicial identification system, exist? Dead? Therefore, according to the characteristics of well-known trademark false litigation, as well as the historical reasons, social reasons, litigation legal system reasons and the economic costs of the behavior, we should put forward extra-judicial prevention. Judicial identification and criminal punishment and other regulatory measures. I hope that through this article, first of all, we can provide effective regulatory advice on the judicial dilemma of well-known trademark false litigation; secondly, we can provide a useful exploration path to solve the problem of false litigation; Finally, it can cause some useful thoughts about the problems caused by the transplantation and localization of law and the process of rule of law in China.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：湖南師范大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2013
【分類號(hào)】：D925;D923.43
本文編號(hào)：2458642
[Abstract]:The original well-known trademark system was designed to break through the restrictions on the regionality of intellectual property rights and the principle of obtaining registration, and to prevent the registration of highly reputable trademarks already registered in foreign countries from being preempted in their own countries, however, on the basis of the principle of fairness, National trademarks are equally entitled to "treatment". As a system transplanted through the law, in the process of its localization, it quietly dissimilates from a legal system to the certification or guarantee mark of "quality" and "goodwill". A well-known trademark is not a special kind of trademark, but a legal protection method of a trademark. It is a judicial confirmation of the legal fact that a trademark enjoys a high goodwill in the relevant public domain. The trademark is legally entitled to "anti-confusion" or "anti-dilution" privilege. Although intellectual property is the right to the world, but the identification of well-known trademarks is indeed a "case effective", but "the world is Hexi, is profit: the world is bustling, is profit." For a time, well-known trademarks have been praised to the "shrine" and become a huge honor of the enterprise, the extraordinary political achievements of officials, the quality assurance and taste pursuit of consumers, the wealth source of trademark agencies and lawyers, but it has become a troublesome matter for judges. The original defendant party, through the fictitious trademark infringement dispute, brings a lawsuit to the court, through the court carries on the judicial confirmation to the well-known trademark, but takes the well-known trademark as the premise can carry on the expansion protection, is not the real purpose. The well-known trademark false litigation has brought the court difficult to identify and punish the difficult judicial dilemma, however, in order to prevent, the court has taken a series of measures, played a certain effect, such as emphasizing passive identification, On-demand and case-by-case principles of effective identification, but some measures have been overdone, sacrificing the system value of well-known trademarks, and even endangering the cornerstone of the legal system of litigation. For example, in 2009, the Supreme people's Court issued an interpretation of certain legal issues concerning the Application of laws in Civil disputes involving the Protection of well-known trademarks (interpretation [2009] No. 3), referring to the false litigation of well-known trademarks. It is stipulated that well-known trademarks shall not be identified in the main text of the judgment, and the mediation statement shall not involve the identification of well-known trademarks and specific regulatory measures that exclude disputes between domain names and well-known trademarks in determining well-known trademarks, and the "cause" of the identification of well-known trademarks, Its core is that the well-known trademark belongs to the category of fact and non-right, that is, it is not the right or interest in procedural law or substantive law. In this way, the following question is, well-known trademark judicial identification system, exist? Dead? Therefore, according to the characteristics of well-known trademark false litigation, as well as the historical reasons, social reasons, litigation legal system reasons and the economic costs of the behavior, we should put forward extra-judicial prevention. Judicial identification and criminal punishment and other regulatory measures. I hope that through this article, first of all, we can provide effective regulatory advice on the judicial dilemma of well-known trademark false litigation; secondly, we can provide a useful exploration path to solve the problem of false litigation; Finally, it can cause some useful thoughts about the problems caused by the transplantation and localization of law and the process of rule of law in China.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：湖南師范大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2013
【分類號(hào)】：D925;D923.43
【參考文獻(xiàn)】
相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條
1 劉銀良;;論我國商標(biāo)法的完善:從制度到文本 基于《商標(biāo)法》第三次修訂草案(征求意見稿)的討論[J];電子知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán);2011年11期
2 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(bào)告[J];法律適用;2008年06期
3 朱健;;論虛假訴訟及其法律規(guī)制[J];法律適用;2012年06期
4 王利明;;侵權(quán)法一般條款的保護(hù)范圍[J];法學(xué)家;2009年03期
5 馬忠法;王高平;;馳名商標(biāo)虛假訴訟成因及其應(yīng)對(duì)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(píng)論;2011年01期
6 鄭小軍;;必勝客訴鴻圖商標(biāo)異議案[J];中華商標(biāo);2006年10期
7 王先林;;試論建立我國馳名商標(biāo)特別保護(hù)的法律制度[J];政法學(xué)刊;1990年01期
8 周翔;;虛假訴訟定義辨析[J];河北法學(xué);2011年06期
9 潘春玲;;論馳名商標(biāo)司法認(rèn)定虛假訴訟之防范[J];湖北廣播電視大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào);2010年08期
10 王琦;;論司法權(quán)的被動(dòng)性——以民事訴訟為視角[J];海南大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(人文社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2007年02期
相關(guān)重要報(bào)紙文章 前3條
1 ;[N];檢察日?qǐng)?bào);2003年
2 陜西省西安市中級(jí)人民法院 姚建軍;[N];人民法院報(bào);2011年
3 清華大學(xué)法學(xué)院教授、博士生導(dǎo)師 張衛(wèi)平;[N];人民法院報(bào);2011年
相關(guān)博士學(xué)位論文 前1條
1 胡業(yè)勛;立法上的金融違法行為入罪研究[D];西南財(cái)經(jīng)大學(xué);2010年
相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前2條
1 許勤;從司法角度看虛假訴訟的刑法規(guī)制[D];華東政法大學(xué);2010年
2 楊成梅;論馳名商標(biāo)司法認(rèn)定虛假訴訟之法律規(guī)制[D];中南大學(xué);2008年
，本文編號(hào)：2458642
本文鏈接：http://sikaile.net/falvlunwen/zhishichanquanfa/2458642.html
最近更新
教材專著
