本文選題：關(guān)鍵詞廣告　切入點(diǎn)：搜索引擎　出處：《華東政法大學(xué)》2013年碩士論文

【摘要】：如今關(guān)鍵詞廣告服務(wù)在為搜索引擎帶來(lái)巨額利潤(rùn)，為廣告主帶來(lái)商業(yè)機(jī)會(huì)的同時(shí)，也引發(fā)了大量的商標(biāo)侵權(quán)糾紛。搜索引擎將他人商標(biāo)作為關(guān)鍵詞出售給廣告主的行為并不屬于商標(biāo)性使用，故并不能構(gòu)成商標(biāo)直接侵權(quán)，，而只能以間接侵權(quán)追究其法律責(zé)任。而搜擎引擎承擔(dān)間接侵權(quán)責(zé)任的前提在于其具有過(guò)錯(cuò)，因此對(duì)關(guān)鍵詞廣告中搜索引擎過(guò)錯(cuò)的認(rèn)定至關(guān)重要。本文共分為四章，分別是： 第一章首先對(duì)關(guān)鍵詞廣告的商業(yè)模式及其引發(fā)的糾紛進(jìn)行了介紹。在此基礎(chǔ)上，對(duì)我國(guó)典型的司法判例進(jìn)行了檢討，其中我國(guó)法院在對(duì)關(guān)鍵詞廣告中搜索引擎過(guò)錯(cuò)的認(rèn)定上存在分歧，較為集中的體現(xiàn)在搜索引擎是否應(yīng)負(fù)《廣告法》上的審查義務(wù)，亦或僅依賴注意義務(wù)的違反對(duì)其過(guò)錯(cuò)進(jìn)行判定。后筆者指出本文的基本觀點(diǎn)，即關(guān)鍵詞廣告中搜索引擎不應(yīng)負(fù)法定的審查義務(wù)，而僅應(yīng)以注意義務(wù)的違反作為判斷其是否具有過(guò)錯(cuò)的依據(jù)。 第二章則進(jìn)一步說(shuō)明了關(guān)鍵詞廣告中搜索引擎為何不負(fù)有法定的審查義務(wù)，筆者認(rèn)為，雖然關(guān)鍵詞廣告具備廣告的性質(zhì)，但是卻不能當(dāng)然對(duì)其適用《廣告法》中有關(guān)廣告經(jīng)營(yíng)者責(zé)任的規(guī)定。此外，也很難從現(xiàn)有的其他法律規(guī)范中找出搜索引擎應(yīng)在關(guān)鍵詞廣告中承擔(dān)法定審查義務(wù)的依據(jù)。接下來(lái)，結(jié)合歐洲的“LV—谷歌”案指出，盡管搜索引擎不負(fù)有事前審查的法定義務(wù)，但仍需承擔(dān)合理的注意義務(wù)。 第三章則著重分析了應(yīng)如何從注意義務(wù)的角度對(duì)搜索引擎的過(guò)錯(cuò)進(jìn)行判定。在對(duì)搜索引擎的過(guò)錯(cuò)進(jìn)行判定之時(shí)，除了要遵守過(guò)失認(rèn)定之一般規(guī)則，即遵循理性人標(biāo)準(zhǔn)、效益成本標(biāo)準(zhǔn)（漢德公式）以及違法情況下的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)之外，還需要結(jié)合案件的具體情況進(jìn)行分析。指出關(guān)鍵詞廣告中，以搜索引擎服務(wù)的有償性以及所出售商標(biāo)的知名程度作為其承擔(dān)更高水平注意義務(wù)的依據(jù)并不充分，唯有在確實(shí)存在相關(guān)證據(jù)證明搜索引擎的確“應(yīng)知”其系統(tǒng)中存在侵權(quán)事實(shí)卻并未及時(shí)采取措施的情況下，才能認(rèn)定其具有過(guò)錯(cuò)。 第四章為結(jié)論，筆者根據(jù)前三章的分析，對(duì)如何認(rèn)定關(guān)鍵詞廣告中搜索引擎過(guò)錯(cuò)的問(wèn)題進(jìn)行了歸納總結(jié)。
[Abstract]:Nowadays, keyword advertising service brings huge profits for search engines and commercial opportunities for advertisers, but also leads to a large number of trademark infringement disputes.The act that search engine sells other people's trademark to advertisers as keywords does not belong to trademark use, so it can not constitute direct infringement of trademark, but can only be investigated for its legal liability by indirect infringement.The premise of the indirect tort liability of search engine lies in its fault, so it is very important to identify the fault of search engine in keyword advertisement.This paper is divided into four chapters:The first chapter introduces the business model of keyword advertising and the disputes caused by it.On this basis, the typical judicial cases of our country are reviewed, in which the courts of our country have different opinions on the fault of search engines in keyword advertisements.The focus is whether the search engine should bear the obligation to censor the advertisement law, or only rely on the breach of the duty of care to judge its fault.Then the author points out that the search engine in keyword advertisement should not have the legal obligation to censor, but only take the breach of duty of care as the basis to judge whether the search engine is at fault or not.The second chapter further explains why search engines in keyword advertising do not have the statutory obligation to censor. The author believes that, although keyword advertising has the nature of advertising,However, it can not be applied to the advertising law about the liability of advertising operators.In addition, it is difficult to find out from other existing legal norms that search engines should undertake statutory censorship obligations in keyword advertisements.Next, in conjunction with Europe's LV-Google case, the search engine has a reasonable obligation of care, although it does not have a statutory obligation to review in advance.Chapter three focuses on how to judge the fault of search engine from the perspective of duty of care.In order to judge the fault of search engine, in addition to following the general rules of fault determination, that is, the standard of rational person, the criterion of benefit and cost (Hande formula) and the standard in case of violation of the law,It also needs to be analyzed in the light of the specific circumstances of the case.It is pointed out that the compensation of search engine services and the well-known degree of trademarks sold as the basis for assuming a higher level of care in advertising are not sufficient.Only when there is some relevant evidence to prove that the search engine "should know" that there are tort facts in its system, but not taking measures in time, can it be deemed to be at fault.Chapter four is the conclusion. According to the analysis of the first three chapters, the author sums up the problem of how to identify the fault of search engine in keyword advertisement.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：華東政法大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2013
【分類號(hào)】：D922.294

【相似文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 胡丹;;“搜索引擎競(jìng)價(jià)排名”的法律規(guī)制[J];北京郵電大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2009年06期

2 鄧宏光;;網(wǎng)絡(luò)廣告商標(biāo)侵權(quán)問(wèn)題初探[J];科技與法律;2009年06期

3 羅宏偉;羅姚洪;;淺析我國(guó)搜索引擎廣告商標(biāo)侵權(quán)的法律問(wèn)題[J];工商行政管理;2011年14期

4 魏惠斌;;搜索引擎競(jìng)價(jià)排名服務(wù)的法律問(wèn)題分析[J];福建商業(yè)高等�？茖W(xué)校學(xué)報(bào);2008年06期

5 王融;李長(zhǎng)恩;;搜索引擎作為信息中介的侵權(quán)責(zé)任研究[J];北京郵電大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2011年01期

6 呂斌;;百度向左還是向右[J];法人雜志;2009年01期

7 呂斌;;百度向左還是向右[J];法人雜志;2009年02期

8 ;幫你成為"搜索九段"[J];w

本文編號(hào)：1722139