發(fā)布時(shí)間：2018-06-22 20:46

  本文選題：商標(biāo)標(biāo)識(shí) + 關(guān)鍵詞廣告��； 參考：《西南政法大學(xué)》2013年碩士論文

【摘要】：基于搜索引擎的關(guān)鍵詞廣告是網(wǎng)絡(luò)廣告的一種形式，其獨(dú)有的優(yōu)勢(shì)為企業(yè)帶來(lái)了巨大的品牌效益，但也由此引發(fā)了一系列法律問(wèn)題，尤其是關(guān)鍵詞廣告案件中搜索引擎商和廣告主行為的定性問(wèn)題，在國(guó)內(nèi)外法院和學(xué)者之間存在著不同的意見(jiàn)。本文主要以商標(biāo)使用行為的學(xué)理界定作為基礎(chǔ)，探討搜索引擎商和廣告主行為的定性問(wèn)題，即其行為是否屬于商標(biāo)使用行為。全文分六個(gè)部分。 引言部分介紹了關(guān)鍵詞廣告案件產(chǎn)生的背景以及所引發(fā)的性質(zhì)認(rèn)定問(wèn)題，并總結(jié)國(guó)內(nèi)外相關(guān)研究現(xiàn)狀。 第一部分提出本文所討論的問(wèn)題，介紹關(guān)鍵詞廣告的基本原理，并總結(jié)對(duì)搜索引擎商和廣告主行為定性的不同觀點(diǎn)。 第二部分主要探討商標(biāo)使用行為在學(xué)理上的界定，美國(guó)認(rèn)為商標(biāo)使用行為包括兩個(gè)要素：在商業(yè)中使用和在商品或服務(wù)上使用。歐盟認(rèn)為商標(biāo)使用行為包括三個(gè)要素：在商業(yè)交易中使用、在商品或服務(wù)上使用以及第三方的使用可能對(duì)商標(biāo)的功能產(chǎn)生不利的影響。我國(guó)也從使用的性質(zhì)、方式和目的方面對(duì)商標(biāo)使用行為提出了三點(diǎn)要求。通過(guò)小結(jié)比較其不同之處，確定本文所認(rèn)為的商標(biāo)使用行為的三個(gè)核心要素。 第三部分主要分析搜索引擎商行為的性質(zhì)，通過(guò)借鑒美國(guó)法院的判決理由和歐洲法院對(duì)“路易威登”案的意見(jiàn)得出本文所持的觀點(diǎn)，即由于搜索引擎商的三種行為并不符合商標(biāo)使用行為的要素，，所以并不屬于商標(biāo)使用行為。 第四部分對(duì)廣告主的行為進(jìn)行定性，通過(guò)討論“路易威登”案中對(duì)廣告主的判決以及我國(guó)法院和學(xué)者的觀點(diǎn)，本文認(rèn)為，廣告主行為的定性主要看廣告主通過(guò)使用是否起到了標(biāo)識(shí)來(lái)源和生產(chǎn)者的作用，而這一點(diǎn)的判斷則主要看消費(fèi)者實(shí)際上是如何理解由關(guān)鍵詞引出的結(jié)果頁(yè)面。 結(jié)語(yǔ)部分對(duì)本文的主要觀點(diǎn)進(jìn)行了總結(jié)。
[Abstract]:Keyword advertisement based on search engine is a form of network advertisement. Its unique advantages bring great brand benefits to enterprises, but also lead to a series of legal problems. In particular, there are different opinions between the courts and scholars at home and abroad on the qualitative nature of the behavior of search engines and advertisers in keyword advertising cases. Based on the theoretical definition of trademark use behavior, this paper discusses the qualitative issues of the behaviors of search engines and advertisers, that is, whether their behavior belongs to trademark use behavior. The full text is divided into six parts. The introduction introduces the background of keyword advertising cases and the nature of the problem, and summarizes the domestic and foreign related research status. The first part puts forward the problems discussed in this paper, introduces the basic principles of keyword advertising, and summarizes the different views on the qualitative nature of the behavior of search engines and advertisers. The second part mainly discusses the theoretical definition of trademark use behavior. The United States believes that trademark use behavior includes two elements: use in business and use in goods or services. The EU believes that trademark use includes three elements: use in commercial transactions, use of goods or services, and use of third parties may adversely affect the function of the trademark. China also puts forward three requirements on trademark use from the aspects of nature, mode and purpose of use. By comparing the differences, three core elements of trademark use behavior are determined. The third part mainly analyzes the nature of the search engine firm, draws the views of this article by referring to the judgment reasons of the American court and the opinion of the European Court of Justice in Louis Vuitton case. That is, because the three behaviors of search engine do not accord with the elements of trademark use, they do not belong to trademark use. The fourth part of the qualitative analysis of the behavior of advertisers, through the discussion of the "Louis Vuitton" judgment of advertisers, as well as the views of our courts and scholars, this paper holds that, The qualitative analysis of the behavior of advertisers mainly depends on whether the advertisers play the role of identification sources and producers through the use, and the judgment of this point mainly depends on how consumers actually understand the result pages derived from keywords. The conclusion summarizes the main points of this paper.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：西南政法大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2013
【分類號(hào)】：D923.43

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前7條

1 芮松艷;;侵犯注冊(cè)商標(biāo)專用權(quán)行為的構(gòu)成要件[J];中華商標(biāo);2011年01期

2 鄧宏光;周園;;網(wǎng)絡(luò)商標(biāo)侵權(quán)的新近發(fā)展[J];重慶社會(huì)科學(xué);2008年05期

3 鄧宏光;易健雄;;競(jìng)價(jià)排名的關(guān)鍵詞何以侵害商標(biāo)權(quán)——兼評(píng)我國(guó)競(jìng)價(jià)排名商標(biāo)侵權(quán)案[J];電子知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán);2008年08期

4 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

5 蔡曉東;;互聯(lián)網(wǎng)關(guān)鍵詞檢索和網(wǎng)絡(luò)廣告商標(biāo)侵權(quán)探微——以美國(guó)司法實(shí)踐為視角[J];遼寧師范大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2012年03期

6 王宇飛;雷艷珍;曹新明;;“關(guān)鍵詞檢索”中的商標(biāo)侵權(quán)問(wèn)題[J];天津師范大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2012年04期

7 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

本文編號(hào)：2054179