搜索引擎營(yíng)銷中的商標(biāo)侵權(quán)問題研究
發(fā)布時(shí)間：2019-04-08 16:00
【摘要】：在搜索引擎環(huán)境下將商標(biāo)作為關(guān)鍵詞是否構(gòu)成“商標(biāo)的商業(yè)性使用”是認(rèn)定商標(biāo)侵權(quán)與否的前提條件。如果該使用形式無法認(rèn)定為商標(biāo)的商業(yè)性使用則其后的初始利益混淆理論便無從適用。值得注意的是：商標(biāo)的商業(yè)性使用必須同時(shí)滿足“商標(biāo)性使用”和“在商業(yè)領(lǐng)域使用”。競(jìng)價(jià)排名服務(wù)是傳統(tǒng)廣告在網(wǎng)絡(luò)環(huán)境下的一種衍生，將注冊(cè)商標(biāo)作為關(guān)鍵詞出現(xiàn)在廣告條目中進(jìn)行商業(yè)宣傳，被消費(fèi)者看到的那一刻即不構(gòu)成內(nèi)部使用，且滿足“商標(biāo)的商業(yè)性使用”這一條件。 關(guān)于侵權(quán)認(rèn)定，商標(biāo)的核心功能是產(chǎn)源識(shí)別功能，而混淆則破壞了該功能，因此“混淆的可能性”是我國(guó)司法實(shí)踐中商標(biāo)侵權(quán)的認(rèn)定標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，但是由于搜索引擎營(yíng)銷中的商標(biāo)侵權(quán)形式的特殊性，不能完全適用傳統(tǒng)混淆理論，因?yàn)闈撛谙M(fèi)者的混淆是發(fā)生在購(gòu)買前階段，并且行為人是通過借用他人商標(biāo)的商譽(yù)來誤導(dǎo)消費(fèi)者關(guān)注自身商品或服務(wù)。借鑒歐美相關(guān)案例，筆者認(rèn)為將“初始利益混淆”作為認(rèn)定搜索引擎商標(biāo)侵權(quán)的判斷標(biāo)準(zhǔn)是一種國(guó)際趨勢(shì)，它改變了傳統(tǒng)判定規(guī)則，在搜索引擎環(huán)境下的運(yùn)用會(huì)使得對(duì)該類商標(biāo)侵權(quán)的認(rèn)定更加高效和統(tǒng)一，但是，目前我們?cè)谒痉▽?shí)踐中應(yīng)該對(duì)初始利益混淆進(jìn)行合理地規(guī)制和謹(jǐn)慎地適用，力求當(dāng)事人之間的利益平衡。 關(guān)于侵權(quán)責(zé)任認(rèn)定，由于競(jìng)價(jià)排名客戶（廣告主）通過競(jìng)價(jià)排名服務(wù)能夠自主選擇關(guān)鍵詞，投放時(shí)間，地點(diǎn)等因素，并且廣告利益完全由廣告主自身所得，因此廣告主作為侵權(quán)行為人應(yīng)承擔(dān)直接侵權(quán)責(zé)任。對(duì)于競(jìng)價(jià)排名服務(wù)商，在搜索引擎環(huán)境下，間接侵權(quán)附屬于直接侵權(quán)而存在，，廣告主承擔(dān)的是直接侵權(quán)責(zé)任，搜索引擎商在有“主觀過錯(cuò)”及未履行“審查義務(wù)”的前提下構(gòu)成間接侵權(quán)。
[Abstract]:Under the environment of search engine, whether using trademark as key word constitutes "commercial use of trademark" is the precondition to confirm trademark infringement or not. If the form of use cannot be recognized as a commercial use of a trademark, the subsequent theory of initial benefit confusion cannot be applied. It should be noted that the commercial use of trademarks must meet both Trademark use and Commercial use. Bidding ranking service is a derivative of traditional advertising in the network environment, the registered trademark appears as a keyword in the advertising items for commercial promotion, and the moment that consumers see it does not constitute internal use. And the condition of "commercial use of trademark" is satisfied. Regarding the infringement determination, the core function of trademark is to identify the origin of the product, and confusion destroys this function. Therefore, "the possibility of confusion" is the identification standard of trademark infringement in the judicial practice of our country. However, due to the particularity of trademark infringement forms in search engine marketing, the traditional confusion theory cannot be fully applied, because the confusion of potential consumers occurs in the pre-purchase stage. And the doer misleads consumers to pay attention to their own goods or services by borrowing the goodwill of others' trademarks. Referring to the relevant cases in Europe and the United States, the author thinks that it is an international trend to take "initial benefit confusion" as the judgment standard for determining trademark infringement of search engines, and it has changed the traditional judgment rules. The application in search engine environment will make the identification of this kind of trademark infringement more efficient and uniform, but at present, we should regulate and apply cautiously to the confusion of initial interests in judicial practice. Strive for a balance of interests between the parties. With regard to the determination of tort liability, because bidding ranking customers (advertisers) are able to select key words, put in time, place and other factors on their own through bidding ranking service, and advertising benefits are entirely derived by the advertisers themselves, Therefore, advertisers as tortfeasors should bear direct liability for tort. In the environment of search engine, indirect infringement is attached to the direct infringement and exists in the bidding ranking service provider, and the advertisers bear the direct tort liability. Under the premise of "subjective fault" and failure to fulfill the obligation of examination, the search engine operator constitutes indirect tort.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：上海大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2013
【分類號(hào)】：D923.43
本文編號(hào)：2454716
[Abstract]:Under the environment of search engine, whether using trademark as key word constitutes "commercial use of trademark" is the precondition to confirm trademark infringement or not. If the form of use cannot be recognized as a commercial use of a trademark, the subsequent theory of initial benefit confusion cannot be applied. It should be noted that the commercial use of trademarks must meet both Trademark use and Commercial use. Bidding ranking service is a derivative of traditional advertising in the network environment, the registered trademark appears as a keyword in the advertising items for commercial promotion, and the moment that consumers see it does not constitute internal use. And the condition of "commercial use of trademark" is satisfied. Regarding the infringement determination, the core function of trademark is to identify the origin of the product, and confusion destroys this function. Therefore, "the possibility of confusion" is the identification standard of trademark infringement in the judicial practice of our country. However, due to the particularity of trademark infringement forms in search engine marketing, the traditional confusion theory cannot be fully applied, because the confusion of potential consumers occurs in the pre-purchase stage. And the doer misleads consumers to pay attention to their own goods or services by borrowing the goodwill of others' trademarks. Referring to the relevant cases in Europe and the United States, the author thinks that it is an international trend to take "initial benefit confusion" as the judgment standard for determining trademark infringement of search engines, and it has changed the traditional judgment rules. The application in search engine environment will make the identification of this kind of trademark infringement more efficient and uniform, but at present, we should regulate and apply cautiously to the confusion of initial interests in judicial practice. Strive for a balance of interests between the parties. With regard to the determination of tort liability, because bidding ranking customers (advertisers) are able to select key words, put in time, place and other factors on their own through bidding ranking service, and advertising benefits are entirely derived by the advertisers themselves, Therefore, advertisers as tortfeasors should bear direct liability for tort. In the environment of search engine, indirect infringement is attached to the direct infringement and exists in the bidding ranking service provider, and the advertisers bear the direct tort liability. Under the premise of "subjective fault" and failure to fulfill the obligation of examination, the search engine operator constitutes indirect tort.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：上海大學(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10條
1 林婉瓊;;關(guān)鍵詞廣告商標(biāo)侵權(quán)問題再探[J];研究生法學(xué);2010年05期
2 鄧宏光;;商標(biāo)混淆理論的擴(kuò)張[J];電子知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán);2007年10期
3 陳曉俊;;競(jìng)價(jià)排名商標(biāo)侵權(quán)認(rèn)定的新思路——商標(biāo)間接侵權(quán)原則的應(yīng)用[J];電子知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán);2009年04期
4 許春明;;知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)基本特征在網(wǎng)絡(luò)環(huán)境下的嬗變[J];中國(guó)發(fā)明與專利;2008年03期
5 張德芬;韓萌;;商標(biāo)售前混淆理論的發(fā)展及其適用規(guī)則[J];公民與法(法學(xué));2011年04期
6 鄧宏光;;網(wǎng)絡(luò)廣告商標(biāo)侵權(quán)問題初探[J];科技與法律;2009年06期
7 孫佳慧;;搜索引擎競(jìng)價(jià)排名間接侵害商標(biāo)權(quán)問題認(rèn)定[J];黑龍江省政法管理干部學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2010年08期
8 胡洪;;法律視角下的競(jìng)價(jià)排名業(yè)務(wù)——從搜索引擎服務(wù)商角度出發(fā)[J];網(wǎng)絡(luò)法律評(píng)論;2010年01期
9 陶鑫良;網(wǎng)絡(luò)時(shí)代知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)保護(hù)的利益平衡思考[J];知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán);1999年06期
10 鄧宏光;;商標(biāo)混淆理論之新發(fā)展:初始興趣混淆[J];知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán);2007年03期
本文編號(hào)：2454716
本文鏈接：http://sikaile.net/kejilunwen/sousuoyinqinglunwen/2454716.html
最近更新
教材專著
