本文選題：廣告 + 搜索引擎商　； 參考：《山西大學(xué)》2017年碩士論文

【摘要】：隨著互聯(lián)網(wǎng)技術(shù)的快速發(fā)展,網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)提供者在利益的驅(qū)動(dòng)下,開始尋找新的盈利模式,于是關(guān)鍵詞廣告的競(jìng)價(jià)排名技術(shù)應(yīng)運(yùn)而生。該網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)營(yíng)銷的興起,為廣大的中小企業(yè)提供了比傳統(tǒng)營(yíng)銷模式更加廉價(jià)且有效的推廣方式,但同時(shí)也引發(fā)了商標(biāo)侵權(quán)的糾紛。在關(guān)鍵詞廣告競(jìng)價(jià)排名服務(wù)下,企業(yè)作為廣告主,為了使自己的網(wǎng)站鏈接更容易被搜索到,就會(huì)選擇使用率高的他人的商標(biāo)作為關(guān)鍵詞,這可能就會(huì)侵犯到他人的商標(biāo)專有權(quán)利。由于網(wǎng)絡(luò)侵權(quán)的復(fù)雜性和隱蔽性,商標(biāo)權(quán)人難以向侵犯商標(biāo)權(quán)的廣告主尋求救濟(jì),往往就會(huì)選擇轉(zhuǎn)向提供關(guān)鍵詞廣告服務(wù)的搜索引擎商。立法上的不足以及理論上的分歧,使得法院在審理中就搜索引擎商責(zé)任承擔(dān)的問題無法形成統(tǒng)一的認(rèn)識(shí)。所以需要解決的問題就是:在涉及關(guān)鍵詞廣告競(jìng)價(jià)排名商標(biāo)侵權(quán)的案件中,搜索引擎商究竟應(yīng)當(dāng)承擔(dān)何種形式的責(zé)任?美國(guó)法院在審理該類案件時(shí),通過判斷搜索引擎商對(duì)涉案商標(biāo)的使用是否屬于商標(biāo)法意義上的“商標(biāo)使用”以及是否會(huì)造成消費(fèi)者混淆,從而認(rèn)定搜索引擎商是否承擔(dān)商標(biāo)直接侵權(quán)的責(zé)任。美國(guó)的這一審理思路并不適合運(yùn)用在我國(guó)的司法實(shí)務(wù),但就“商標(biāo)使用”認(rèn)定方面,如果搜索引擎商在關(guān)鍵詞競(jìng)價(jià)排名中直接參與了關(guān)鍵詞的選擇,則很有可能就會(huì)構(gòu)成“商標(biāo)使用”,進(jìn)而構(gòu)成商標(biāo)侵權(quán)責(zé)任。歐洲法院在涉及關(guān)鍵詞競(jìng)價(jià)排名服務(wù)中搜索引擎商責(zé)任認(rèn)定的案件時(shí),首先也會(huì)和美國(guó)法院一樣認(rèn)定是否構(gòu)成商標(biāo)直接侵權(quán),但不同的是,當(dāng)法院在認(rèn)定搜索引擎商不成立商標(biāo)直接侵權(quán)時(shí),轉(zhuǎn)而判斷搜索引擎商的幫助侵權(quán)責(zé)任,歐洲法院法官所提出的對(duì)搜索引擎商分層審查的觀點(diǎn)值得我們借鑒。對(duì)搜索引擎商幫助侵權(quán)責(zé)任的認(rèn)定也是我國(guó)法院一直以來采用的審理思路,但在以往的司法審判中,我國(guó)法院存在著對(duì)搜索引擎商責(zé)任認(rèn)定不統(tǒng)一、身份界定不統(tǒng)一,以及對(duì)搜索引擎商的審查義務(wù)不明確的問題。對(duì)于關(guān)鍵詞廣告服務(wù)中搜索引擎商責(zé)任的認(rèn)定,首先應(yīng)確立商標(biāo)間接侵權(quán)的責(zé)任承擔(dān)形式。商標(biāo)間接侵權(quán)的概念起源于美國(guó)法,Inwood案確立了商標(biāo)間接侵權(quán)的認(rèn)定標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。我國(guó)現(xiàn)行法屬于商標(biāo)間接侵權(quán)規(guī)定的是《商標(biāo)法》第57條第6項(xiàng),依據(jù)該條文的規(guī)定,可以將商標(biāo)間接侵權(quán)的構(gòu)成要件歸納為:存在商標(biāo)直接侵權(quán)行為;客觀上實(shí)施了幫助行為;存在主觀過錯(cuò)。司法實(shí)務(wù)中,對(duì)搜索引擎商主觀過錯(cuò)的認(rèn)定是難點(diǎn),而認(rèn)定主觀過錯(cuò)的前提是明確搜索引擎商的注意義務(wù)。搜索引擎商的注意義務(wù)應(yīng)該來源于法律的規(guī)定,關(guān)鍵詞廣告服務(wù)屬于商業(yè)廣告的性質(zhì),所以搜索引擎商作為廣告發(fā)布者,應(yīng)該對(duì)廣告內(nèi)容負(fù)有審查義務(wù)。但由于搜索引擎技術(shù)的特殊性,我們不得要求搜索引擎商承擔(dān)嚴(yán)格的審查義務(wù),應(yīng)該根據(jù)其注意能力,賦予適度的審查義務(wù)。具體而言,就是將關(guān)鍵詞廣告服務(wù)以搜索引擎商和廣告主簽訂合同之時(shí)為界,劃分為兩個(gè)階段,并分別賦予不同的審查義務(wù)。法院在認(rèn)定搜索引擎商的主觀過錯(cuò)時(shí),就可以根據(jù)其負(fù)擔(dān)的注意義務(wù),分別不同的時(shí)期進(jìn)行判斷。在搜索引擎商應(yīng)該承擔(dān)主動(dòng)審查義務(wù)的階段,以是否履行義務(wù)為標(biāo)準(zhǔn)來判斷其過錯(cuò);在搜索引擎商不承擔(dān)主動(dòng)審查義務(wù)的階段,則以“紅旗標(biāo)準(zhǔn)”和“通知+刪除”規(guī)則來判斷。構(gòu)成商標(biāo)間接侵權(quán)的搜索引擎商應(yīng)當(dāng)與廣告主承擔(dān)連帶的侵權(quán)責(zé)任,且該連帶責(zé)任為不真正的連帶責(zé)任。
[Abstract]:With the rapid development of Internet technology, the network service providers, driven by the interests of the Internet, began to look for new profit patterns, so the bidding ranking technology of keyword advertising came into being. The rise of the network service marketing provides a cheaper and effective way of popularization for the large and small enterprises than the traditional marketing model, but at the same time In order to make their website links easier to be searched, enterprises will choose the trademarks of others with high rate as key words, which may infringe on the exclusive rights of other people's trademarks. Because of the complexity and concealment of the network infringement, the enterprise will be used as the advertiser. It is difficult for the trademark owners to seek relief from the advertisers who violate the trademark rights. They often choose to turn to the search engines that provide the service of keyword advertising. The shortcomings of the legislation and the differences in theory make it impossible for the court to form a unified understanding of the question of the business responsibility of the search engine in the trial. What kind of responsibility should a search engine be responsible for in a case involving a competitive bid for a keyword advertising bid? In the case of such a case, the court of the United States judges whether the use of a trademark in the sense of trademark law in the sense of trademark law by a search engine trader or whether it will cause confusion to consumers in the case of such cases. It is found that the search engine business is responsible for the direct infringement of the trademark. This thought of the United States is not suitable for the application of the judicial practice in our country, but the "trademark use" is likely to form a "trademark use" if the search engine is directly involved in the selection of key words in the ranking of keyword bidding. The European Court, in the case of the search engine business liability in the keyword competition ranking service, will first identify with the United States Court whether it constitutes a trademark direct infringement, but the difference is that when the court finds that the search engine does not become a direct trademark infringement, it will judge the search engine business. To help the tort liability, the European Court of court judge's view of the search engine business delamination is worth our reference. The definition of identity is not uniform and the censorship of search engines is not clear. For the identification of search engine business responsibility in the keyword advertising service, first of all, the responsibility for indirect infringement of trademark should be established. The concept of trademark indirect infringement originates from the American law, and the Inwood case establishes the identification standard for the indirect infringement of trademark. The current law of the country belongs to the Trademark Law of indirect infringement of trademark, which is the "trademark law > fifty-seventh" sixth items. According to the provisions of this provision, the constituent elements of the indirect infringement of the trademark can be summed up as: the existence of the trademark direct tort; the objective implementation of the help behavior and the subjective fault. In judicial practice, it is difficult to identify the subjective fault of the search engine business, The premise of determining the subjective fault is to clear the duty of attention of the search engine merchants. The duty of attention of the search engine merchants should come from the provisions of the law. The keyword advertising service belongs to the nature of the commercial advertisement. So the search engine business, as the publisher of the advertisement, should have a censorship obligation on the content of the advertisement. But the special search engine technology is special. In nature, we should not ask the search engine to undertake strict censorship obligations, and should give appropriate review obligations according to their ability to pay attention. In particular, we divide the keyword advertising service into two stages and give different censorship obligations to the search engine merchants and advertisers. The subjective fault of the engine business can be judged in different periods according to the duty of paying attention to its duty of attention. In the stage of the search engine business should take the initiative to examine the obligation, to judge whether the obligation is the standard to judge its fault; in the stage where the search engine does not take the initiative to examine the obligation, then "the standard of red flag" and "pass" The search engine business that constitutes an indirect infringement of a trademark should bear joint liability with the advertiser, and the joint and several liability is not genuine joint and several liability.

【學(xué)位授予單位】：山西大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類號(hào)】：D923.43

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 陳存款;;幫助侵權(quán)涵攝下的搜索引擎競(jìng)價(jià)排名[J];學(xué)術(shù)探索;2016年10期

2 張建文;廖磊;;競(jìng)價(jià)排名服務(wù)商審查義務(wù)研究[J];甘肅政法學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2016年05期

3 陽東輝;;論互聯(lián)網(wǎng)關(guān)鍵詞廣告的商標(biāo)侵權(quán)認(rèn)定規(guī)則[J];政治與法律;2016年09期

4 彭斌慧;;搜索引擎競(jìng)價(jià)排名中的商標(biāo)侵權(quán)行為及其認(rèn)定[J];法制博覽;2015年23期

5 杜穎;;搜索引擎服務(wù)提供商關(guān)鍵詞廣告商標(biāo)侵權(quán)責(zé)任之認(rèn)定[J];法學(xué);2015年06期

6 杜穎;;搜索鏈接服務(wù)提供者商標(biāo)侵權(quán)責(zé)任認(rèn)定的司法動(dòng)向[J];人民司法;2015年02期

7 周多;李夏祈;;網(wǎng)絡(luò)競(jìng)價(jià)排名中的商標(biāo)侵權(quán)及不正當(dāng)競(jìng)爭(zhēng)問題研究[J];北京政法職業(yè)學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2013年04期

8 謝雪凱;;商標(biāo)間接侵權(quán)之制度辨明及其獨(dú)立地位——寫在中國(guó)《商標(biāo)法》第三次修訂稿頒布之初[J];云南社會(huì)科學(xué);2013年06期

9 宋亞輝;;競(jìng)價(jià)排名服務(wù)中的網(wǎng)絡(luò)關(guān)鍵詞審查義務(wù)研究[J];法學(xué)家;2013年04期

10 祝建軍;;競(jìng)價(jià)排名商標(biāo)案裁判方法的反思——從兩起百度案談起[J];知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán);2013年03期

相關(guān)重要報(bào)紙文章 前1條

1 吳學(xué)安;;付費(fèi)網(wǎng)絡(luò)搜索應(yīng)納入廣告法規(guī)制體系[N];民主與法制時(shí)報(bào);2016年

，

本文編號(hào)：1796680