本文選題：購(gòu)物網(wǎng)站 + 商標(biāo)侵權(quán)��； 參考：《福州大學(xué)》2014年碩士論文

【摘要】：隨著網(wǎng)絡(luò)購(gòu)物這種全新的電子商務(wù)模式的興起,伴隨而來(lái)的是更多的法律問(wèn)題亟待解決。購(gòu)物網(wǎng)站在第三方商標(biāo)侵權(quán)中的責(zé)任認(rèn)定問(wèn)題,便是其中這一。傳統(tǒng)的共同侵權(quán)理論在解決此類案件時(shí),出現(xiàn)了許多困惑,也導(dǎo)致了司法實(shí)踐的混亂。《商標(biāo)法》第三次修訂,雖然確立了“間接侵權(quán)”制度,但卻過(guò)于簡(jiǎn)單和粗糙,不便于在司法實(shí)踐中的適用。以平衡商標(biāo)權(quán)人和購(gòu)物網(wǎng)站的利益為出發(fā)點(diǎn),借鑒國(guó)外先進(jìn)的立法,合理界定購(gòu)物網(wǎng)站在第三方商標(biāo)侵權(quán)中的責(zé)任,進(jìn)而對(duì)我國(guó)商標(biāo)間接侵權(quán)制度的完善加以探析,是本文的研究目的。認(rèn)定購(gòu)物網(wǎng)站的權(quán)利、義務(wù)和責(zé)任,界定其正確的法律地位是前提。將購(gòu)物網(wǎng)站按照B2B、B2C、C2C、O2O進(jìn)行分類,并不能清楚地界定購(gòu)物網(wǎng)站的地位。而根據(jù)購(gòu)物網(wǎng)站是自主銷售產(chǎn)品,還是僅提供平臺(tái)服務(wù),亦或是混合經(jīng)營(yíng),則可以很好地界定其法律地位。“通知與刪除”程序作為購(gòu)物網(wǎng)站的免責(zé)條款,實(shí)踐中卻等于是非常具體地規(guī)定了網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)商的有限注意義務(wù),對(duì)購(gòu)物網(wǎng)站適用合理注意義務(wù),并不會(huì)對(duì)購(gòu)物網(wǎng)站造成過(guò)重的負(fù)擔(dān),卻可以減少網(wǎng)絡(luò)商標(biāo)侵權(quán)糾紛的產(chǎn)生。商標(biāo)間接侵權(quán)行為存在多種表現(xiàn)形式,不同的主體、不同的商業(yè)模型和不同的技術(shù)模式都影響著合理注意義務(wù)、主觀過(guò)錯(cuò)和免責(zé)事由的判定。因此立法中應(yīng)明確購(gòu)物網(wǎng)站商標(biāo)侵權(quán)的構(gòu)成要件,細(xì)化其注意義務(wù)和免責(zé)事由,強(qiáng)化其民事責(zé)任承擔(dān)。本文主要采用比較研究、理論分析、實(shí)證分析的方法,分五部分探討我國(guó)購(gòu)物網(wǎng)站商標(biāo)間接侵權(quán)問(wèn)題。第一部分介紹了國(guó)內(nèi)兩起關(guān)于購(gòu)物網(wǎng)站商標(biāo)侵權(quán)的典型案例,從中發(fā)現(xiàn)目前我國(guó)關(guān)于此類案件審判中存在的問(wèn)題。第二部分從法理上分析了購(gòu)物網(wǎng)站商標(biāo)侵權(quán)問(wèn)題。從正確界定購(gòu)物網(wǎng)站的法律地位入手,闡述了購(gòu)物網(wǎng)站承擔(dān)侵權(quán)責(zé)任的法理依據(jù),從而為購(gòu)物網(wǎng)站設(shè)定了一系列的注意義務(wù)。第三部分將國(guó)內(nèi)外關(guān)于購(gòu)物網(wǎng)站商標(biāo)間接侵權(quán)的立法進(jìn)行比較。主要通過(guò)與美國(guó)和歐盟商標(biāo)侵權(quán)的立法例進(jìn)行比較,尋找我國(guó)目前立法存在的缺陷。第四部分是關(guān)于我國(guó)購(gòu)物網(wǎng)站商標(biāo)間接侵權(quán)責(zé)任分析。論述了“間接侵權(quán)理論”與“共同侵權(quán)理論”的區(qū)別、購(gòu)物網(wǎng)站商標(biāo)間接侵權(quán)的歸責(zé)原則、構(gòu)成要件、免責(zé)事由和責(zé)任承擔(dān)。第五部分提出完善我國(guó)購(gòu)物網(wǎng)站商標(biāo)間接侵權(quán)的法律規(guī)制建議。
[Abstract]:With the rise of online shopping, more and more legal problems need to be solved. Shopping website in the third-party trademark infringement in the responsibility of the problem, is one of them. When the traditional joint tort theory solves this kind of cases, there appear many puzzles, which also lead to the confusion of judicial practice. The third revision of the Trademark Law establishes the system of "indirect infringement", but it is too simple and rough. It is not convenient to apply in judicial practice. In order to balance the interests of trademark owners and shopping websites, draw lessons from foreign advanced legislation, reasonably define the responsibility of shopping websites in the third party trademark infringement, and then probe into the perfection of the system of indirect trademark infringement in our country. It is the purpose of this paper. Determining the rights, obligations and responsibilities of shopping websites and defining their correct legal status are prerequisites. The classification of shopping websites according to B2BX B2CU C2CO2O does not clearly define the status of shopping websites. The legal status of shopping websites can be defined according to whether they sell their products independently or provide only platform services or mixed operation. "Notification and deletion" procedure is regarded as an exemption clause for shopping websites, but in practice it is tantamount to specifying the limited duty of care of network service providers, and applying reasonable duty of care to shopping websites. Do not cause excessive burden on shopping websites, but can reduce the network trademark infringement disputes. There are many forms of indirect trademark infringement, different subjects, different business models and different technical models all affect the determination of reasonable duty of care, subjective fault and exemption. Therefore, the legislation should clarify the constituent elements of trademark infringement of shopping website, refine its duty of care and exoneration, and strengthen its civil liability. This article mainly uses the comparative research, the theory analysis, the demonstration analysis method, divides into five parts to discuss our country shopping website trademark indirect infringement question. The first part introduces two typical cases of trademark infringement on shopping websites in China. The second part analyzes the trademark infringement problem of shopping website. Starting with the correct definition of the legal status of shopping websites, this paper expounds the legal basis of the tort liability of shopping websites, and sets up a series of duty of care for shopping websites. The third part compares domestic and foreign legislation on indirect trademark infringement of shopping websites. By comparing with the legislation of trademark infringement in the United States and the European Union, this paper finds out the defects of the current legislation in our country. The fourth part is about our country shopping website trademark indirect tort liability analysis. This paper discusses the difference between "indirect tort theory" and "joint tort theory", the principle of imputation of indirect infringement of trademark on shopping website, the elements of constitution, the reason of exemption and the burden of liability. In the fifth part, the author puts forward some suggestions to perfect the legal regulation of trademark indirect infringement on shopping websites in China.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：福州大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2014
【分類號(hào)】：D923.43

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前1條

1 戴謀富;;論侵權(quán)法中的注意義務(wù)[J];福建政法管理干部學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2008年03期

，

本文編號(hào)：1881681