本文選題：競(jìng)價(jià)排名 + 直接侵權(quán)��； 參考：《浙江大學(xué)》2013年碩士論文

【摘要】：互聯(lián)網(wǎng)使得信息極大豐富,搜索引擎因而成為互聯(lián)網(wǎng)信息檢索的重要工具。競(jìng)價(jià)排名作為搜索服務(wù)提供商的新興商業(yè)模式,保證了搜索引擎的可持續(xù)發(fā)展,并為商事主體推廣宣傳商品和服務(wù)提供了極優(yōu)的選擇。然而,使用他人注冊(cè)商標(biāo)并將其作為搜索關(guān)鍵詞的行為導(dǎo)致競(jìng)價(jià)排名深陷商標(biāo)侵權(quán)糾紛。本文全文分為引言、正文和結(jié)語(yǔ)三部分,正文分為六章。 第一章分析競(jìng)價(jià)排名的操作模式,對(duì)競(jìng)價(jià)排名服務(wù)推廣鏈接得以生成的來(lái)源作細(xì)分,引出將商標(biāo)作為關(guān)鍵詞所產(chǎn)生的糾紛。區(qū)分出競(jìng)價(jià)排名所涉及的利益相關(guān)人包括搜索服務(wù)提供商與競(jìng)價(jià)排名服務(wù)購(gòu)買(mǎi)商。 第二章分析國(guó)內(nèi)外的立法與司法在判定競(jìng)價(jià)排名服務(wù)購(gòu)買(mǎi)商是否構(gòu)成商標(biāo)直接侵權(quán)時(shí)所依據(jù)的各個(gè)判定要件,包括“在商業(yè)中使用”判定與消費(fèi)者混淆判定。另外通過(guò)分析商標(biāo)直接侵權(quán)抗辯理由的方式對(duì)比較廣告做了研究。 第三章提出認(rèn)定競(jìng)價(jià)排名商標(biāo)直接侵權(quán)的法律事實(shí)應(yīng)當(dāng)是搜索結(jié)果中的推廣鏈接；應(yīng)當(dāng)堅(jiān)持以“混淆之虞”標(biāo)準(zhǔn)作為競(jìng)價(jià)排名服務(wù)購(gòu)買(mǎi)商直接侵權(quán)的基本認(rèn)定標(biāo)準(zhǔn),同時(shí)以“商標(biāo)顯著性受到損害之虞”標(biāo)準(zhǔn)作為該標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的必要補(bǔ)充；所謂的商標(biāo)侵權(quán)“初始興趣混淆”實(shí)質(zhì)仍然是最基本的“混淆之虞”,它僅是一種表明推廣鏈接存在混淆的事實(shí)狀態(tài),不應(yīng)當(dāng)被用于作為認(rèn)定競(jìng)價(jià)排名商標(biāo)侵權(quán)的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)；可基于比較廣告在競(jìng)價(jià)排名中建立對(duì)商標(biāo)的競(jìng)爭(zhēng)性使用,同時(shí)鑒于我國(guó)禁止明確性比較廣告,提出企業(yè)如何在我國(guó)進(jìn)行風(fēng)險(xiǎn)規(guī)避。 第四章從國(guó)內(nèi)的立法與司法兩個(gè)角度出發(fā),討論認(rèn)為搜索服務(wù)提供商承擔(dān)商標(biāo)幫助侵權(quán)責(zé)任的判定依據(jù),是基于其是否履行事先審查義務(wù)或者注意義務(wù)。競(jìng)價(jià)排名屬于應(yīng)履行事先審查義務(wù)的廣告服務(wù),但行政機(jī)關(guān)無(wú)法對(duì)此進(jìn)行切實(shí)監(jiān)管,從而導(dǎo)致行政不作為。另外,其注意義務(wù)應(yīng)當(dāng)包括作為和不作為兩個(gè)方面。 第五章基于司法判例與客觀實(shí)際情況,認(rèn)為免除搜索服務(wù)提供商事先審查義務(wù)具有必要性與合理性。其注意義務(wù)的內(nèi)容應(yīng)當(dāng)采取理性積極式進(jìn)路,同時(shí)提出了在競(jìng)價(jià)排名服務(wù)中如何建立搜索服務(wù)提供商豁免規(guī)則的建議。 第六章分析認(rèn)為調(diào)整反不正當(dāng)競(jìng)爭(zhēng)的法律與商標(biāo)法在立法基礎(chǔ)及適用上的關(guān)系應(yīng)當(dāng)屬于一般法與特別法,特別法優(yōu)先于一般法適用。
[Abstract]:The Internet makes the information extremely rich, therefore the search engine becomes the Internet information retrieval important tool. As a new business model of search service provider, bidding ranking ensures the sustainable development of search engine, and provides an excellent choice for commercial subjects to promote goods and services. However, the use of a trademark as a search term results in a trademark infringement dispute. This paper is divided into three parts: introduction, text and conclusion, and the text is divided into six chapters. The first chapter analyzes the operation mode of bidding ranking, subdivides the source of the promotion link of bidding ranking service, and leads to the disputes caused by trademark as the key word. The stakeholders involved in distinguishing the bidding ranking include search service providers and bidding ranking service buyers. The second chapter analyzes the domestic and foreign legislation and judicature in determining whether the bidding ranking service purchasers constitute direct trademark infringement, including the "use in business" judgment and consumer confusion. In addition, comparative advertising is studied by analyzing the defense of trademark direct infringement. The third chapter proposes that the legal fact of direct trademark infringement should be the promotion link in the search results, and should adhere to the criterion of "confusion risk" as the basic criterion of direct infringement of bidding ranking service purchasers. At the same time, it is necessary to supplement the criterion of "risk of harm to trademark significance"; the essence of the so-called "initial confusion of interest" in trademark infringement is still the most basic "danger of confusion". It is merely a factual state that indicates confusion in the promotion of links and should not be used as a criterion for determining trademark infringement in competitive ranking; competitive use of trademarks can be established in competitive rankings based on comparative advertising. At the same time, in view of the prohibition of explicit comparative advertising in our country, this paper puts forward how to avoid risks in our country. The fourth chapter from the domestic legislation and judicial two angles discusses that the search service provider to bear the trademark help tort judgment basis is based on whether they fulfill the obligation of prior review or duty of care. The bidding ranking is an advertising service which should fulfill the obligation of prior examination, but the administrative agency can not supervise it, which leads to the administrative omission. In addition, the duty of care should include two aspects: act and omission. The fifth chapter, based on the judicial case and objective reality, thinks that it is necessary and reasonable to exempt the search service provider from the obligation of prior examination. The content of its duty of care should adopt the rational and positive approach, at the same time, it puts forward some suggestions on how to establish the exemption rules of search service provider in the bidding ranking service. The sixth chapter analyzes the relationship between the adjustment of the law against unfair competition and the trademark law on the legislative basis and application should belong to the general law and special law, and the special law takes precedence over the general law.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：浙江大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2013
【分類號(hào)】：D923.43

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前6條

1 李自柱;;搜索引擎服務(wù)商提供關(guān)鍵詞競(jìng)價(jià)排名服務(wù)的侵權(quán)責(zé)任及法律基礎(chǔ)[J];電子知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán);2011年06期

2 郭芳;比較廣告的法律規(guī)制[J];經(jīng)濟(jì)師;2002年12期

3 李雨峰;;重塑侵害商標(biāo)權(quán)的認(rèn)定標(biāo)準(zhǔn)[J];現(xiàn)代法學(xué);2010年06期

4 謝蘭芳;;競(jìng)價(jià)排名的避風(fēng)港規(guī)則研究[J];中國(guó)版權(quán);2012年01期

5 鄧宏光;周園;;搜索引擎商何以侵害商標(biāo)權(quán)?——兼論“谷歌”案和“百度”案[J];知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán);2008年05期

6 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

，

本文編號(hào)：2020522