【摘要】：網(wǎng)絡(luò)技術(shù)的高速發(fā)展和進(jìn)步使人類社會步入了真正的信息時代。在商品經(jīng)濟(jì)與互聯(lián)網(wǎng)技術(shù)快速融合的過程中,商標(biāo)以其自身的識別和推介功能在網(wǎng)絡(luò)環(huán)境中的重要性迅速凸顯。然而,互聯(lián)網(wǎng)即時快捷地傳送信息和全球化資源共享的特性也日益削弱了商標(biāo)權(quán)的地域性,出現(xiàn)了網(wǎng)絡(luò)環(huán)境下的一系列商標(biāo)侵權(quán)行為的新類型。但在過去的一段時間里,人們對網(wǎng)絡(luò)商標(biāo)侵權(quán)的認(rèn)識往往局限于域名。隨著搜索引擎技術(shù)逐漸代替域名輸入成為查找網(wǎng)站的主流手段時,搜索引擎服務(wù)商商標(biāo)侵權(quán)也開始進(jìn)入人們的視野。與傳統(tǒng)的商標(biāo)侵權(quán)相比,網(wǎng)絡(luò)商標(biāo)侵權(quán)具有更高的技術(shù)性、復(fù)雜性和更強的隱蔽性,商標(biāo)權(quán)人難以對虛擬網(wǎng)絡(luò)空間內(nèi)的每個商標(biāo)侵權(quán)人逐一提起訴訟,往往轉(zhuǎn)向搜索引擎服務(wù)商尋求救濟(jì)。有關(guān)搜索引擎服務(wù)商的法律糾紛層出不窮,但由于法律的滯后性和修改的復(fù)雜性,僅僅依靠傳統(tǒng)的商標(biāo)法律和侵權(quán)理論已無法解決這些糾紛了。面對立法上的空白,如何明確搜索引擎服務(wù)商的侵權(quán)責(zé)任,成為擺在我國法學(xué)工作者面前的一大難題。 在此情況下,本文旨在通過對搜索引擎服務(wù)商商標(biāo)侵權(quán)責(zé)任的研究,加深對搜索引擎服務(wù)商商標(biāo)侵權(quán)行為的認(rèn)識,為進(jìn)一步完善相關(guān)法律責(zé)任制度提供理論支撐。本文正文共分四章： 第一章是對搜索引擎服務(wù)商商標(biāo)侵權(quán)的現(xiàn)狀的描述,首先分析了搜索引擎服務(wù)商與其他網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)商的不同,理清搜索引擎技術(shù)的工作原理,明確搜索引擎服務(wù)商在網(wǎng)絡(luò)商標(biāo)侵權(quán)中的法律地位。其次,列舉國內(nèi)外的典型案例概括出搜索引擎服務(wù)商商標(biāo)侵權(quán)主要的三種形式,確立研究對象。 第二章是全文的理論基礎(chǔ),在傳統(tǒng)的商標(biāo)侵權(quán)理論的基礎(chǔ)上進(jìn)行創(chuàng)新,明晰“商業(yè)性使用”的認(rèn)定因素,在“消費者混淆”條件中引入美國的“初始利益混淆”理論,同時警惕馳名商標(biāo)的淡化。 第三章是本文重點,是對搜索引擎服務(wù)商商標(biāo)侵權(quán)責(zé)任的證成過程。首先,明確其在商標(biāo)侵權(quán)責(zé)任中僅承擔(dān)幫助侵權(quán)責(zé)任；其次,從有關(guān)立法和司法實踐中得出,歸責(zé)原則遵循過錯責(zé)任較為適宜；再次,采用我國的侵權(quán)責(zé)任四要件的通說,對搜索引擎服務(wù)商商標(biāo)侵權(quán)責(zé)任的構(gòu)成進(jìn)一步分解；最后,對比中美兩國立法上對責(zé)任的限制,梳理我國《侵權(quán)責(zé)任法》第36條的立法價值,明確搜索引擎服務(wù)商商標(biāo)侵權(quán)責(zé)任不宜在“避風(fēng)港”規(guī)則下免責(zé)。 第四章嘗試完善我國搜索引擎服務(wù)商商標(biāo)侵權(quán)責(zé)任制度,對現(xiàn)有立法缺陷進(jìn)行思考,提出立法建議：完善商標(biāo)法,將網(wǎng)絡(luò)商標(biāo)侵權(quán)納入《商標(biāo)法》的調(diào)整范圍,增加“消費者混淆”理論、“馳名商標(biāo)淡化”理論及“合理使用”的規(guī)定,明確搜索引擎服務(wù)商商標(biāo)侵權(quán)責(zé)任的認(rèn)定標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。工商行政管理機(jī)關(guān)加強行政執(zhí)法,人民法院規(guī)范司法保護(hù)。同時,搜索引擎服務(wù)商完善行業(yè)協(xié)會建設(shè),積極自律,加強自我保護(hù)。
[Abstract]:With the rapid development and progress of network technology, human society has entered a real information age. In the process of rapid integration of commodity economy and Internet technology, trademark becomes more and more important in the network environment because of its own function of identification and recommendation. However, the rapid transmission of information and the sharing of global resources on the Internet have increasingly weakened the regional nature of trademark rights, resulting in a series of new types of trademark infringement under the network environment. However, in the past, people's understanding of online trademark infringement is often limited to domain names. With search engine technology gradually replacing domain name input as a mainstream means to find websites, trademark infringement by search engine service providers has also begun to enter the field of vision. Compared with the traditional trademark infringement, the network trademark infringement has higher technology, complexity and stronger concealment. It is difficult for the trademark owner to file a lawsuit against each trademark infringer one by one in the virtual network space. Often turn to search engine service provider to seek remedy. Legal disputes about search engine service providers emerge in endlessly, but because of the lag of law and the complexity of revision, it is impossible to solve these disputes only by relying on traditional trademark law and tort theory. Facing the blank in legislation, how to make clear the tort liability of search engine service provider has become a big problem in front of our country's legal workers. In this case, the purpose of this paper is to deepen the understanding of trademark infringement by search engine service providers through the study of trademark tort liability, and to provide theoretical support for the further improvement of relevant legal liability system. The text of this paper is divided into four chapters: the first chapter describes the current situation of trademark infringement by search engine service providers. Firstly, it analyzes the differences between search engine service providers and other network service providers, and clarifies the working principle of search engine technology. Make clear the legal status of search engine service provider in network trademark infringement. Secondly, enumerates the domestic and foreign typical cases to summarize the search engine service provider trademark infringement main three forms, establishes the research object. The second chapter is the theoretical basis of the full text, on the basis of the traditional trademark infringement theory innovation, clear "commercial use" identification factors, in the "consumer confusion" conditions in the introduction of the United States "initial interest confusion" theory. At the same time guard against the dilution of well-known trademarks. The third chapter is the focal point of this paper, which is the certification process of trademark infringement liability of search engine service provider. First, it is clear that it only undertakes the liability of helping tort in trademark tort liability; secondly, from the relevant legislation and judicial practice, it is more appropriate to follow the principle of liability for fault; thirdly, adopt the four elements of tort liability in our country. The composition of trademark tort liability of search engine service provider is further decomposed. Finally, the legislative value of Article 36 of our country's Tort liability Law is combed by contrasting the limitation of liability in legislation between China and the United States. Clear search engine service trademark tort liability should not be in the "safe haven" rules under the exemption. The fourth chapter tries to perfect the trademark tort liability system of search engine service provider in our country, thinks about the existing legislative defect, and puts forward some legislative suggestions: perfect trademark law, bring the network trademark infringement into the adjustment scope of trademark law, The theory of "consumer confusion", the theory of "well-known trademark desalination" and the stipulation of "reasonable use" are added to clarify the criteria for the determination of trademark tort liability of search engine service providers. The administrative organs for industry and commerce shall strengthen administrative law enforcement and the people's courts shall regulate judicial protection. At the same time, search engine service providers improve the construction of industry associations, positive self-discipline, strengthen self-protection.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：復(fù)旦大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2012
【分類號】：D923.43

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前7條

1 張敏;;論網(wǎng)絡(luò)中介服務(wù)提供商的版權(quán)侵權(quán)責(zé)任[J];法制與社會;2006年20期

2 楊明;;《侵權(quán)責(zé)任法》第36條釋義及其展開[J];華東政法大學(xué)學(xué)報;2010年03期

3 李亮;;網(wǎng)絡(luò)元標(biāo)記商標(biāo)侵權(quán)的司法認(rèn)定[J];人民司法;2007年19期

4 黃武雙;;論搜索引擎網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)提供商侵權(quán)責(zé)任的承擔(dān)——對現(xiàn)行主流觀點的質(zhì)疑[J];知識產(chǎn)權(quán);2007年05期

5 黃武雙;;搜索引擎服務(wù)商商標(biāo)侵權(quán)責(zé)任的法理基礎(chǔ)——兼評“大眾搬場”訴“百度網(wǎng)絡(luò)”商標(biāo)侵權(quán)案[J];知識產(chǎn)權(quán);2008年05期

6 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];知識產(chǎn)權(quán);2008年05期

7 李春芳;范淑賢;;論搜索引擎服務(wù)商的關(guān)鍵詞審查責(zé)任[J];知識產(chǎn)權(quán);2011年09期

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前5條

1 胡銀月;網(wǎng)絡(luò)商標(biāo)侵權(quán)研究[D];貴州大學(xué);2006年

2 喻n\;馳名商標(biāo)淡化理論研究[D];暨南大學(xué);2006年

3 楊瑾;競價排名法律問題探析[D];中國政法大學(xué);2009年

4 劉暢;搜索引擎網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)商的法律責(zé)任分析[D];復(fù)旦大學(xué);2010年

5 牛巍;網(wǎng)絡(luò)搜索引擎商競價排名誠信服務(wù)法律問題研究[D];中國科學(xué)技術(shù)大學(xué);2010年

，

本文編號：2171798