本文選題：商標(biāo)持續(xù)性侵權(quán) + 法律責(zé)任�。� 參考：《湘潭大學(xué)》2017年碩士論文

【摘要】：劈波斬浪30多年,我國(guó)經(jīng)濟(jì)社會(huì)迅速發(fā)展,商標(biāo)在企業(yè)中的作用與地位也日益重要。隨之而來(lái)的商標(biāo)侵權(quán)案件也不斷增多。商標(biāo)的核心是使用。商標(biāo)通過(guò)實(shí)際不斷的使用發(fā)揮著識(shí)別商品來(lái)源的功能,同時(shí)也累積著商家的商譽(yù)。這使得商標(biāo)使用具有持續(xù)性,商標(biāo)侵權(quán)也具有持續(xù)性。為了解決商標(biāo)持續(xù)性侵權(quán)的法律責(zé)任分擔(dān)問(wèn)題,最高人民法院于2002年出臺(tái)了《最高人民法院關(guān)于審理商標(biāo)民事糾紛案件適用法律若干問(wèn)題的解釋》,(以下簡(jiǎn)稱(chēng)《解釋》)。雖然在《解釋》的第十八條里規(guī)定了商標(biāo)持續(xù)性侵權(quán)法律責(zé)任的分配。但仍存在一些不合理與不完善之處。文章通過(guò)對(duì)司法實(shí)踐中商標(biāo)持續(xù)性侵權(quán)典型案例進(jìn)行分析,發(fā)現(xiàn)《解釋》在司法實(shí)踐適用中產(chǎn)生了兩個(gè)問(wèn)題:一是商標(biāo)權(quán)利人懈怠行使權(quán)利;二是商標(biāo)權(quán)利人謀求不正當(dāng)高額賠償。針對(duì)以上出現(xiàn)的新問(wèn)題,應(yīng)根據(jù)不同案件的類(lèi)型有條件地合理限制商標(biāo)使用人的停止侵害責(zé)任,并且應(yīng)該進(jìn)行不完全侵權(quán)損害賠償。因?yàn)閺男刨?lài)?yán)嬖瓌t和效率原則的角度看,商標(biāo)使用人的繼續(xù)使用商標(biāo)能夠有效維護(hù)市場(chǎng)經(jīng)濟(jì)的交易秩序和節(jié)約社會(huì)資源實(shí)現(xiàn)經(jīng)濟(jì)效益的最大化。從法的公平原則和財(cái)產(chǎn)權(quán)勞動(dòng)理論角度看,不完全侵權(quán)損害賠償,能公平分擔(dān)責(zé)任,勞有所得,從而實(shí)現(xiàn)法的公平與正義。因此,商標(biāo)使用人繼續(xù)使用爭(zhēng)議商標(biāo)以及不完全侵權(quán)損害賠償都具有一定的正當(dāng)性。所以,在具體解決商標(biāo)持續(xù)性侵權(quán)責(zé)任承擔(dān)問(wèn)題時(shí),限制停止侵害責(zé)任應(yīng)當(dāng)充分考慮雙方商譽(yù)的差異、社會(huì)公共利益及侵權(quán)人的主觀善意等因素,針對(duì)不同的案件類(lèi)型確定限制停止侵害責(zé)任的具體條件。不完全侵權(quán)損害賠償?shù)倪m用,則應(yīng)當(dāng)考慮故意侵權(quán)與過(guò)失侵權(quán)、善意侵權(quán)的差異來(lái)確定具體的區(qū)別適用條件。由于限制停止侵害責(zé)任是更多的保護(hù)了商標(biāo)侵權(quán)人的利益,為達(dá)到利益平衡的狀態(tài),還需要合理地適用不停止侵權(quán)替代補(bǔ)償。
[Abstract]:With the rapid development of economy and society in China, the role and status of trademark in enterprises is becoming more and more important. The following trademark infringement cases are also increasing. The core of a trademark is its use. Trademark through the actual continuous use of the function of identifying the source of goods, but also accumulated the goodwill of the business. This makes the trademark use has the continuity, the trademark infringement also has the continuity. In order to solve the problem of legal liability sharing in trademark infringement, in 2002, the Supreme people's Court issued the interpretation of several issues concerning the applicable Law of the Supreme people's Court on handling Trademark Civil dispute cases (hereinafter referred to as "interpretation"). Although Article 18 of the interpretation provides for the distribution of continuing liability for trademark infringement. However, there are still some unreasonable and imperfect places. Based on the analysis of typical cases of trademark persistent infringement in judicial practice, this paper finds that interpretation has produced two problems in the judicial practice: first, the trademark obligee slacked off to exercise his right; Second, trademark owners seek improper and high compensation. In view of the above new problems, we should restrict the liability of trademark users to stop infringement according to the types of different cases, and should compensate for incomplete infringement damages. From the perspective of the principle of trust benefit and the principle of efficiency, the continued use of trademark by trademark users can effectively maintain the order of market economy and save social resources to maximize economic benefits. From the angle of the principle of justice of law and the labor theory of property right, the incomplete tort damages can share the responsibility fairly and the labor has income, so as to realize the fairness and justice of law. Therefore, trademark users continue to use the disputed trademark and incomplete tort damages have a certain legitimacy. Therefore, when we specifically solve the problem of bearing the liability for continuing infringement of trademarks, we should take into account the differences of goodwill, the social public interest and the subjective goodwill of the infringers in order to limit the liability to stop infringement. According to different types of cases to determine the specific conditions for limitation of liability for infringement. The application of incomplete tort damages should consider the differences between intentional tort and negligence tort and bona fide tort to determine the specific conditions of application. As the limitation of stop infringement liability is more to protect the interests of trademark infringers, in order to achieve a balance of interests, it is also necessary to reasonably apply the compensation instead of non-stop infringement.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：湘潭大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類(lèi)號(hào)】：D923.43

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前4條

1 高恩勝;;淺析洛克財(cái)產(chǎn)權(quán)勞動(dòng)理論[J];人民論壇;2013年14期

2 曹新明;;知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)侵權(quán)懲罰性賠償責(zé)任探析——兼論我國(guó)知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)領(lǐng)域三部法律的修訂[J];知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán);2013年04期

3 李揚(yáng);許清;;知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)人停止侵害請(qǐng)求權(quán)的限制[J];法學(xué)家;2012年06期

4 肖尤丹;謝祥;;知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)效率價(jià)值的理論淵源[J];重慶理工大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué));2010年01期

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前4條

1 陳聞曄;論專(zhuān)利停止侵權(quán)救濟(jì)的限制[D];華東政法大學(xué);2015年

2 韓鵬;知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)侵權(quán)損害賠償確定的司法路徑分析[D];吉林大學(xué);2014年

3 王洵;論知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)停止侵權(quán)救濟(jì)的限制[D];北京化工大學(xué);2010年

4 劉友華;論知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)權(quán)利沖突及其協(xié)調(diào)[D];湘潭大學(xué);2003年

，

本文編號(hào)：1857959