【摘要】：商標(biāo)權(quán)與表達(dá)自由沖突的表現(xiàn)及原因可從表達(dá)自由和商標(biāo)權(quán)兩方面分別論述。對(duì)表達(dá)自由自身的判例及理論來(lái)說(shuō),也根據(jù)表達(dá)內(nèi)容的性質(zhì)為商業(yè)或非商業(yè)表達(dá)提供不同程度的保護(hù)。盡管這種劃分被部分研究者質(zhì)疑,但劃分本身仍被大多數(shù)研究者多遵循。并且,在表達(dá)自由法理的發(fā)展歷程中,商標(biāo)權(quán)并非一個(gè)特別突出的因素。表達(dá)自由也沒(méi)有因此專門就商標(biāo)權(quán)發(fā)展出一些特別的抗辯。這兩方面的原因?qū)е略谏虡?biāo)權(quán)與表達(dá)自由的沖突中,表達(dá)自由得不到的充分保護(hù)。商標(biāo)權(quán)與表達(dá)自由沖突的表現(xiàn)及原因還可從商標(biāo)權(quán)角度論述,且商標(biāo)權(quán)的擴(kuò)張是造成沖突的主要原因。商標(biāo)權(quán)的擴(kuò)張表現(xiàn)為混淆理論適用范圍的擴(kuò)大和淡化理論的提出,權(quán)利性質(zhì)上主要是禁止他人使用商標(biāo)范圍的擴(kuò)大。商標(biāo)權(quán)的擴(kuò)張需要構(gòu)建自身的理論正當(dāng)性。商標(biāo)功能和功能的闡釋成為商標(biāo)權(quán)人支撐其主張的根據(jù)。此外,商標(biāo)權(quán)人乃至商標(biāo)自身政治|經(jīng)濟(jì)|文化等維度的變化客觀上也使得商標(biāo)成為表達(dá)自由的重要工具。這些政治、經(jīng)濟(jì)乃至文化現(xiàn)象中對(duì)商標(biāo)的使用不必然屬于商標(biāo)權(quán)人禁止權(quán)的范疇。然而,商標(biāo)權(quán)人并不這樣認(rèn)為,堅(jiān)持從商標(biāo)權(quán)的視角將這些使用行為囊括進(jìn)禁止權(quán)的范圍,是導(dǎo)致同表達(dá)自由沖突的根本原因。對(duì)商標(biāo)權(quán)和表達(dá)自由的協(xié)調(diào)問(wèn)題,本文對(duì)歐盟和美國(guó)在立法和司法實(shí)踐中發(fā)展出的理論及其不足進(jìn)行了考察。歐盟和美國(guó)由于法律傳統(tǒng)的不同,在大致趨近的前提下發(fā)展出各自的協(xié)調(diào)方法。其中商標(biāo)權(quán)和表達(dá)自由分別成為協(xié)調(diào)的主要方面。在最后,本文對(duì)我國(guó)在商標(biāo)立法和司法實(shí)踐中存在的問(wèn)題進(jìn)行了剖析。立法上存在的問(wèn)題主要是混淆理論擅自引入淡化因素。司法上存在的問(wèn)題是對(duì)混淆理論的任意使用和裁判標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的不一致問(wèn)題。最后,本文借鑒歐盟和美國(guó)的方法,為我國(guó)立法和司法政策的改善提出一些建議。
[Abstract]:The expression and reason of the conflict between trademark right and freedom of expression can be discussed from two aspects: freedom of expression and trademark right. According to the nature of the expression content, it also provides varying degrees of protection for the commercial or non-commercial expression in the jurisprudence and theory of freedom of expression itself. Although this division is questioned by some researchers, the division itself is still followed by most researchers. Moreover, trademark right is not a particularly prominent factor in the development of freedom of expression. Freedom of expression has not therefore developed special defences against trademark rights. These two reasons lead to the insufficient protection of freedom of expression in the conflict between trademark right and freedom of expression. The expression and reason of the conflict between trademark right and freedom of expression can also be discussed from the angle of trademark right, and the expansion of trademark right is the main cause of the conflict. The expansion of trademark rights is manifested in the expansion of the scope of application of the confusion theory and the introduction of the dilution theory. The nature of the rights is mainly the expansion of the scope of prohibiting others from using trademarks. The expansion of trademark rights needs to build its own theoretical legitimacy. The interpretation of trademark functions and functions becomes the basis for trademark owners to support their claims. In addition, the changes of the dimensions of trademark owner and trademark itself, such as political, economic, cultural and so on, make trademark an important tool for freedom of expression. The use of trademarks in these political, economic and cultural phenomena does not necessarily belong to the scope of trademark rights. However, the trademark owners do not think so, insisting on including these use actions in the scope of the prohibition right from the perspective of trademark rights is the fundamental reason leading to the conflict with freedom of expression. On the issue of coordination between trademark rights and freedom of expression, this paper examines the theories and deficiencies developed in legislation and judicial practice in the European Union and the United States. The European Union and the United States have developed their respective coordination methods under the premise of approximate convergence due to the difference of legal traditions. Among them, trademark right and freedom of expression are respectively the main aspects of coordination. Finally, this paper analyzes the problems in trademark legislation and judicial practice in China. The main problem in legislation is the introduction of dilution factors into the confusion theory without authorization. The problem in the judicature is the inconsistency between the arbitrary use of the confusion theory and the standard of adjudication. Finally, this paper proposes some suggestions for the improvement of our country's legislation and judicial policy by using the European Union and the United States for reference.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：華中師范大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2015
【分類號(hào)】：D923.43

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前4條

1 杜穎;;地名商標(biāo)的可注冊(cè)性及其合理使用——從“百家湖”案談起[J];法學(xué);2007年11期

2 蘇平;胡海容;李慶;;論商標(biāo)侵權(quán)中“商標(biāo)使用”的判斷標(biāo)準(zhǔn)[J];法律適用;2013年01期

3 彭學(xué)龍;;信息經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)視角下的商標(biāo)制度[J];知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán);2012年08期

4 徐聰穎;;商標(biāo)與商譽(yù)關(guān)系的再思考——由 “王老吉”商標(biāo)的法律紛爭(zhēng)說(shuō)起[J];知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán);2012年09期

相關(guān)博士學(xué)位論文 前1條

1 秦潔;商標(biāo)淡化研究[D];西南政法大學(xué);2012年

，

本文編號(hào)：2367604