本文選題：商標(biāo)侵權(quán) + 混淆理論�。� 參考：《中國(guó)社會(huì)科學(xué)院研究生院》2012年碩士論文

【摘要】：在被稱(chēng)為“注意力經(jīng)濟(jì)”的當(dāng)今時(shí)代，網(wǎng)上獲得關(guān)注的多少可能關(guān)系著一個(gè)網(wǎng)站的生死成敗。作為當(dāng)今網(wǎng)民離不開(kāi)的工具，搜索引擎為各網(wǎng)站提供了展現(xiàn)在網(wǎng)民面前的機(jī)會(huì)，但是由于搜索結(jié)果眾多，一些按照搜索排序靠后的網(wǎng)站可能就無(wú)人問(wèn)津。搜索引擎服務(wù)商發(fā)現(xiàn)了這個(gè)商機(jī)，開(kāi)展競(jìng)價(jià)排名服務(wù)，向客戶出售搜索引擎關(guān)鍵詞，將客戶的網(wǎng)頁(yè)鏈接在搜索結(jié)果頁(yè)面中優(yōu)先展示出來(lái)。這種新的商務(wù)模式便利了客戶的商業(yè)推廣，但同時(shí)也產(chǎn)生了各種糾紛，其中格外引人注目的是在競(jìng)價(jià)排名過(guò)程中使用他人商標(biāo)涉及到的侵權(quán)問(wèn)題。競(jìng)價(jià)排名的客戶使用他人的商標(biāo)作為關(guān)鍵詞，使網(wǎng)絡(luò)用戶在搜索該商標(biāo)時(shí)，競(jìng)價(jià)排名客戶的網(wǎng)站鏈接優(yōu)先出現(xiàn)在搜索結(jié)果上方，并且會(huì)有廣告詞對(duì)該網(wǎng)站進(jìn)行宣傳。這樣搜索者可能會(huì)誤以為該鏈接是商標(biāo)權(quán)人自己的網(wǎng)站，或者與商標(biāo)權(quán)人有某種關(guān)聯(lián)關(guān)系；即使不產(chǎn)生這種誤認(rèn)，也是不正當(dāng)?shù)乩昧怂松虡?biāo)所蘊(yùn)含的商譽(yù)來(lái)進(jìn)行宣傳。 國(guó)內(nèi)已經(jīng)發(fā)生了數(shù)起因搜索引擎競(jìng)價(jià)排名而起的商標(biāo)侵權(quán)案件，在法院的判決中，對(duì)于競(jìng)價(jià)排名服務(wù)的性質(zhì)、是否會(huì)造成混淆、是構(gòu)成商標(biāo)侵權(quán)還是不正當(dāng)競(jìng)爭(zhēng)、搜索引擎服務(wù)商是否具有審核競(jìng)價(jià)排名關(guān)鍵詞的義務(wù)等有不同的認(rèn)定，并未形成統(tǒng)一的認(rèn)識(shí)。 筆者考察了商標(biāo)法的理論和國(guó)內(nèi)外關(guān)于這類(lèi)案件的判決，認(rèn)為競(jìng)價(jià)排名服務(wù)雖然是搜索引擎服務(wù)商所提供，但不同于一般的自然搜索，它人為改變了搜索結(jié)果的排序以達(dá)到宣傳推廣客戶的目的，因此屬于廣告，對(duì)于搜索引擎服務(wù)商因此應(yīng)該賦予廣告發(fā)布者的責(zé)任。對(duì)于在關(guān)鍵詞中使用他人商標(biāo)，可以分為三種情況，第一種是只有在關(guān)鍵詞設(shè)鏈時(shí)使用商標(biāo)，在搜索結(jié)果頁(yè)面和客戶自己的網(wǎng)站上都沒(méi)有使用他人商標(biāo)；第二種是在關(guān)鍵詞設(shè)鏈和搜索結(jié)果頁(yè)面上都使用了他人的商標(biāo)，但客戶自己的網(wǎng)站上沒(méi)有使用他人商標(biāo)；第三種是不僅關(guān)鍵詞設(shè)鏈時(shí)使用了商標(biāo)，而且在搜索結(jié)果頁(yè)面和客戶自己的網(wǎng)站上都使用了該商標(biāo)。筆者認(rèn)為，對(duì)于第三種情況，可以較容易地利用傳統(tǒng)的商標(biāo)混淆理論解決，而對(duì)于第二種和第一種情況，可能會(huì)導(dǎo)致贊助混淆，從而構(gòu)成商標(biāo)侵權(quán)；也可能不會(huì)導(dǎo)致任何混淆，這時(shí)雖不構(gòu)成商標(biāo)侵權(quán)，但可能會(huì)構(gòu)成不正當(dāng)競(jìng)爭(zhēng)。對(duì)于搜索引擎服務(wù)商，由于他們的廣告發(fā)布者的地位，而且由于其技術(shù)條件可以對(duì)競(jìng)價(jià)排名客戶提交的關(guān)鍵詞進(jìn)行審核，因此應(yīng)負(fù)擔(dān)起審查義務(wù)，怠于履行審查義務(wù)的，，應(yīng)當(dāng)承擔(dān)輔助侵權(quán)的責(zé)任。
[Abstract]:In an age known as the attention economy, the amount of online attention may matter whether a website dies or dies. As a tool that Internet users can not do without, search engine provides the opportunity for each website to display in front of the netizens, but because of the numerous search results, some websites ranked by the search order may be ignored. The search engine service provider found this opportunity, launched the bidding ranking service, sold the search engine keyword to the customer, and gave priority to display the customer's web link in the search results page. This new business model facilitates the business promotion of customers, but it also produces various disputes, especially the infringement of using other people's trademarks in the process of bidding ranking. When searching for the trademark, the website link of the bidding ranking customer will appear first above the search result, and there will be advertisement words to publicize the website. In this way, the searcher may mistakenly assume that the link is the trademark owner's own website, or has some connection with the trademark owner; even if this misconception does not occur, it may improperly use the goodwill contained in another person's trademark to publicize it. There have been a number of trademark infringement cases caused by search engine bidding ranking in China. In the judgment of the court, whether the nature of the bidding ranking service will cause confusion, whether it constitutes trademark infringement or unfair competition, Whether search engine service provider has the obligation to examine the keywords of bidding ranking has different recognition, and has not formed a unified understanding. The author examines the theory of trademark law and the judgments of this kind of cases at home and abroad, and thinks that although the bidding ranking service is provided by the search engine service provider, it is different from the general natural search service. It artificially changes the order of search results to achieve the purpose of promoting customers, so it belongs to the advertisement, so the search engine service provider should give the advertisement publisher the responsibility. For the use of other people's trademarks in key words, can be divided into three situations, the first is only when the keyword chain use trademarks, search results page and the customer's own website does not use other people's trademarks; The second is the use of someone else's trademark on the keyword chain and the search results page, but not on the client's own website; the third is the use of a trademark not only when the keyword is chained, but not on the customer's own website. The logo is also used on the search results page and on the client's own website. In my opinion, for the third case, it is easier to use the traditional trademark confusion theory to solve the problem, while for the second case and the first case, it may lead to sponsorship confusion, thus constituting trademark infringement, or it may not lead to any confusion. This time does not constitute trademark infringement, but may constitute unfair competition. For search engine service providers, because of their status as publishers of advertisements, and because their technical conditions allow them to examine the keywords submitted by bidding ranking customers, they should bear the obligation to review and be lazy to fulfill their obligations. Shall bear the responsibility for auxiliary infringement.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：中國(guó)社會(huì)科學(xué)院研究生院
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2012
【分類(lèi)號(hào)】：D923.43

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 陳曉峰;;初始興趣混淆分析在網(wǎng)絡(luò)環(huán)境下的適用——從消費(fèi)者權(quán)益保護(hù)的角度分析[J];中華商標(biāo);2011年08期

2 林婉瓊;;關(guān)鍵詞廣告商標(biāo)侵權(quán)問(wèn)題再探[J];研究生法學(xué);2010年05期

3 彭學(xué)龍;;論“混淆可能性”——兼評(píng)《中華人民共和國(guó)商標(biāo)法修改草稿》(征求意見(jiàn)稿)[J];法律科學(xué)(西北政法學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào));2008年01期

4 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

5 彭學(xué)龍;;商標(biāo)混淆類(lèi)型分析與我國(guó)商標(biāo)侵權(quán)制度的完善[J];法學(xué);2008年05期

6 凌輝;劉念學(xué);;試論商品來(lái)源的系統(tǒng)識(shí)別——“裕豐”與“華強(qiáng)裕豐”商標(biāo)糾紛引發(fā)的法律思考[J];法制與社會(huì);2009年11期

7 侯麗娟;;競(jìng)價(jià)排名——讓客戶主動(dòng)找到你[J];中國(guó)經(jīng)貿(mào);2006年04期

8 邵建東;;我國(guó)反不正當(dāng)競(jìng)爭(zhēng)法中的一般條款及其在司法實(shí)踐中的適用[J];南京大學(xué)法律評(píng)論;2003年01期

9 王欣妮;;基于搜索引擎的網(wǎng)絡(luò)廣告模式分析[J];情報(bào)探索;2010年04期

10 程艷;;初始興趣混淆原則在網(wǎng)絡(luò)商標(biāo)侵權(quán)中的適用[J];商場(chǎng)現(xiàn)代化;2008年31期

相關(guān)重要報(bào)紙文章 前1條

1 廣東省深圳市中級(jí)人民法院 祝建軍;[N];人民法院報(bào);2011年

本文編號(hào)：2100862