本文選題：立法價(jià)值取向 + 公序良俗　； 參考：《中央民族大學(xué)》2017年碩士論文

【摘要】："其他不良影響"條款規(guī)定于現(xiàn)行商標(biāo)法第十條第一款第(八)項(xiàng),是指有害于社會(huì)主義道德風(fēng)尚或者有其他不良影響的標(biāo)志不得作為商標(biāo)使用。因?yàn)樵擁?xiàng)條款在實(shí)踐中存在較大的適用爭(zhēng)議,本文通過(guò)對(duì)其的多角度分析,以期形成理性的適用建議。本文共分為三章,在導(dǎo)論部分具體探究了該項(xiàng)條款的適用現(xiàn)狀與存在問(wèn)題,以此為基礎(chǔ),在第一章的論述中,從對(duì)該項(xiàng)條款的立法價(jià)值取向分析出其所遵循公序良俗原則及其具體內(nèi)涵,厘清了消費(fèi)者的穩(wěn)定認(rèn)知并不構(gòu)成該條款項(xiàng)的直接保護(hù)與考量的公共利益,僅是在對(duì)某一標(biāo)志以"不良影響"進(jìn)行規(guī)制之后所帶來(lái)的間接影響效果。繼而通過(guò)分析其的依據(jù)與意義夯實(shí)對(duì)該項(xiàng)條款的立法理解。在第二章中系統(tǒng)的對(duì)該項(xiàng)條款進(jìn)行了法律適用解讀,分別分析"其他不良影響"的內(nèi)涵與外延,明晰其輻射范圍是第十條第一款的兜底,總結(jié)出此類關(guān)系的法律特點(diǎn),并與實(shí)踐中較易造成混淆的侵犯他人在先權(quán)益與惡意注冊(cè)的行為作出區(qū)分。具體對(duì)在是否具有其他不良影響的判斷視角進(jìn)行羅列,不僅僅是對(duì)標(biāo)志構(gòu)成要素的考量,還要結(jié)合商品或服務(wù)、考量商標(biāo)申請(qǐng)主體及其主觀狀態(tài),在確定的具體公眾范圍內(nèi)能否造成不良影響,以及該不良影響的所屬種類與程度作出綜合判斷,從而能夠?qū)哂衅渌涣加绊懙纳虡?biāo)進(jìn)行充分說(shuō)理與舉證。第三章在上述論述的基礎(chǔ)上,以經(jīng)典個(gè)案為起點(diǎn),對(duì)"微信案"中微信商標(biāo)是否造成"其他不良影響"進(jìn)行具體的分析,得出其并不具有該特性,消費(fèi)者消費(fèi)秩序并不是該項(xiàng)條款所直接保護(hù)的因素。在"喬丹案"中,厘清對(duì)于搶注他人姓名視情節(jié)進(jìn)行不同否認(rèn)法律適用:第三十二條"在先權(quán)利"的證明難度最小,被侵權(quán)后最易受到保護(hù);第四十四條"大規(guī)模搶注"僅適用于惡意的搶注行為;第十條第一款第(八)項(xiàng)"其他不良影響"對(duì)于姓名知名度與構(gòu)成不良影響的證明難度最大;而第十條第一款第(七)項(xiàng)"具有欺騙性"實(shí)則可以當(dāng)做是對(duì)此種情形規(guī)制的兜底性規(guī)定。最后總結(jié)出在具體的適用中,要遵循審慎的原則,遵循審判一致性規(guī)定,但又要避免對(duì)案例的片面性理解,對(duì)該項(xiàng)條款作出準(zhǔn)確適用。
[Abstract]:The term "other adverse effects" stipulated in Article 10 (1) (8) of the current Trademark Law refers to the use of marks that are harmful to socialist moral conduct or have other adverse effects. Because there is a great dispute on the application of this clause in practice, this paper analyzes it from various angles in order to form rational suggestions for its application. This article is divided into three chapters, in the introduction part of the specific exploration of the application of the article and the existing problems, on the basis of this, in the first chapter of the discussion, From the analysis of the legislative value orientation of this clause, the principle of public order and good custom and its specific connotation are analyzed, and the public interest that the consumer's cognition of stability does not constitute the direct protection and consideration of this clause is clarified. It is only the indirect effect after the regulation of a mark with "bad effect". Then through the analysis of its basis and significance to consolidate the legislative understanding of this clause. In the second chapter, the author systematically interprets the legal application of the article, analyzes the connotation and extension of "other adverse effects", clarifies its radiation scope is the bottom of the first paragraph of Article 10, and summarizes the legal characteristics of this kind of relationship. It distinguishes it from other people's prior rights and malicious registration, which is easy to cause confusion in practice. Specifically, to list the judgment angle of whether there are other adverse effects, not only the consideration of the constituent elements of the mark, but also the consideration of the main body of the trademark application and its subjective state combined with the goods or services. It is possible to make a comprehensive judgment on whether the adverse effect can be caused within the specific public scope, and the kind and degree of the adverse effect, so that the trademark with other adverse effects can be fully reasoned and proved. The third chapter, on the basis of the above discussion, takes the classic case as the starting point, analyzes whether the WeChat trademark causes "other adverse effects" in WeChat case, and finds out that it does not have this characteristic. Consumer consumption order is not the direct protection of this clause. In Jordan case, it is clear that the law of disregarding the names of others according to the circumstances is applicable: article 32 is the least difficult to prove the "first right", the most vulnerable to be protected after being infringed; Article 44 "large-scale preemption" is only applicable to malicious act of preemption; Article 10 (1) (8) "other adverse effects" is the most difficult to prove the visibility of names and the adverse effects; Article 10 (1) (7) "deceptive" can be regarded as the regulation of this situation. Finally, it concludes that in the concrete application, we should follow the principle of prudence and the rule of trial consistency, but we should avoid the one-sidedness understanding of the case and make an accurate application of this clause.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：中央民族大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類號(hào)】：D923.43

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前5條

1 張yN晗;《商標(biāo)法》中的“不良影響”條款研究[D];華東政法大學(xué);2016年

2 林戈;論商標(biāo)法中的“不良影響”條款及其適用[D];華東政法大學(xué);2016年

3 馬敏;商標(biāo)法“不良影響”條款適用案例研究[D];華東政法大學(xué);2016年

4 秦?zé)?商標(biāo)法“不良影響”條款研究[D];中國(guó)政法大學(xué);2016年

5 閆苗苗;名人姓名遭搶注的法律規(guī)制研究[D];華東政法大學(xué);2013年

，

本文編號(hào)：2074948