本文選題：馳名商標(biāo)　切入點(diǎn)：淡化理論　出處：《上海師范大學(xué)》2013年碩士論文

【摘要】：論文的開頭是導(dǎo)論，主要介紹了論文選題來源和意義，馳名商標(biāo)反淡化理論及其制度的研究現(xiàn)狀，，論文的研究思路、方法以及創(chuàng)新點(diǎn)。 本論文正文分為三大部分。 第一部分，筆者從比較成熟的美國(guó)歐盟商標(biāo)反淡化的基本理論制度和立法實(shí)踐等方面入手，介紹了美歐反淡化理論及制度的基本內(nèi)容，對(duì)一些淡化理論的主要爭(zhēng)議提出了自己的觀點(diǎn)。美歐的反淡化制度經(jīng)歷了將近一百年的歷程，才基本確定了目前比較成熟的反淡化制度。該部分由四個(gè)小節(jié)構(gòu)成，第一小節(jié)筆者簡(jiǎn)述了美國(guó)淡化制度的沿革，第二小節(jié)筆者從淡化行為的概念、類型、構(gòu)成要件、性質(zhì)、例外、救濟(jì)等方面全方位地論述了美國(guó)反淡化制度的基本內(nèi)容，并對(duì)一些理論爭(zhēng)議問題提出了自己的觀點(diǎn)。筆者認(rèn)為，退化不屬于淡化行為類型，第三小節(jié)，筆者簡(jiǎn)要論述了歐盟反淡化制度的沿革及基本內(nèi)容。第四小節(jié)，筆者論述了美歐在反淡化制度上的趨同趨勢(shì)。 第二部分，筆者介紹了淡化理論在我國(guó)的立法及司法實(shí)踐現(xiàn)狀，分析了存在的問題及原因，并對(duì)相關(guān)問題進(jìn)行了論證。該部分主要由兩個(gè)小節(jié)構(gòu)成。第一小節(jié)闡述了我國(guó)立法及司法解釋層面上有關(guān)反淡化條文及其存在的問題。第二小節(jié)，闡述了我國(guó)司法實(shí)踐中法官對(duì)淡化理論的積極探索與運(yùn)用及其存在的問題。雖然我國(guó)現(xiàn)行立法制度并未明確采用淡化理論，但是司法實(shí)踐中法官卻在積極探索運(yùn)用淡化理論進(jìn)行案件裁判，但由于我國(guó)《商標(biāo)法》第十三條本身仍未突破傳統(tǒng)混淆理論，這導(dǎo)致司法實(shí)踐中法官基本都以混淆的可能作為淡化侵權(quán)的前提。2009年最高院關(guān)于馳名商標(biāo)的審判的一個(gè)司法解釋突破了混淆理論將商標(biāo)法十三條解釋為我國(guó)的反淡化條款。但是這一解釋仍然存在很多問題，其指導(dǎo)實(shí)踐的效果仍待進(jìn)一步考察。 第三部分，在前三部分的基礎(chǔ)上，筆者在分析了全球化制度博弈的基本背景后，提出了一些完善我國(guó)馳名商標(biāo)反淡化制度的應(yīng)遵循的原則及具體建議。筆者認(rèn)為我國(guó)馳名商標(biāo)反淡化的完善應(yīng)遵循的三個(gè)原則是：商標(biāo)區(qū)別功能和商譽(yù)表彰功能并重原則、公眾利益保護(hù)原則和法制統(tǒng)一原則。在這三個(gè)原則指導(dǎo)下，筆者提出了以下完善反淡化制度的具體建議：增加聯(lián)合商標(biāo)防御商標(biāo)制度、通過修改商標(biāo)法第十三條將淡化侵權(quán)的判斷基礎(chǔ)確定為聯(lián)想的可能、在商標(biāo)法中增加商標(biāo)合理使用免責(zé)制度、通過司法解釋明確淡化認(rèn)定的構(gòu)成要件、馳名商標(biāo)的相關(guān)公眾認(rèn)定標(biāo)準(zhǔn)不宜變?yōu)橐话愎�、通過司法解釋將馳名商標(biāo)的非功能性的外觀設(shè)計(jì)裝潢、廣告語(yǔ)納入反淡化保護(hù)范圍、通過司法解釋對(duì)不同顯著類型的馳名商標(biāo)以不同的保護(hù)、通過雙邊談判的方式解決外國(guó)未注冊(cè)馳名商標(biāo)在我國(guó)的反淡化保護(hù)問題、明確商標(biāo)侵權(quán)的法定賠償應(yīng)以行為人存在主觀過錯(cuò)為前提。
[Abstract]:The beginning of the paper is an introduction, which mainly introduces the origin and significance of the topic, the research status of well-known trademark anti-desalination theory and its system, the research ideas, methods and innovations of the paper. The text of this paper is divided into three parts. In the first part, the author introduces the basic theory and system of anti-desalination in the United States and Europe, starting with the basic theory system and legislative practice of anti-desalination in the European Union of the United States and the United States. This paper puts forward its own views on the main disputes of some desalination theories. The anti-desalination system in the United States and Europe has gone through nearly a hundred years before it has basically determined the relatively mature anti-desalination system at present. This part consists of four subsections. The first section briefly describes the evolution of the American desalination system. The second section discusses the basic contents of the anti-desalination system in the United States from the following aspects: the concept, type, constitution, nature, exception, relief and so on. In the third section, the author briefly discusses the evolution and basic contents of the anti-desalination system in EU. The author discusses the trend of anti-desalination in the United States and Europe. In the second part, the author introduces the current situation of legislation and judicial practice of desalination theory in China, and analyzes the existing problems and reasons. This part mainly consists of two sections. The first section expounds the anti-desalination provisions and their existing problems at the level of legislative and judicial interpretation in China. This paper expounds the active exploration and application of the theory of desalination by judges in our country's judicial practice and its existing problems, although the current legislative system of our country has not explicitly adopted the theory of desalination. However, in judicial practice, judges are actively exploring the use of desalination theory to adjudicate cases. However, since Article 13 of the Trademark Law in China itself has not broken through the traditional theory of confusion, This has led to the fact that in judicial practice the possibility of confusion is taken as the premise of desalination of infringement. In 2009, a judicial interpretation of well-known trademark trial by the Supreme Court broke through the confusion theory and interpreted the thirteen articles of Trademark Law as the counter of our country. Dilution of the clause. But there are still many problems with this interpretation, The effect of guiding practice remains to be further investigated. The third part, on the basis of the first three parts, after analyzing the basic background of the globalization institutional game, This paper puts forward some principles and specific suggestions for perfecting the anti-dilution system of well-known trademarks in China. The author thinks that the three principles to be followed in the improvement of anti-desalination of well-known trademarks in our country are: the distinguishing function of trademark and the commending function of goodwill. Under the guidance of these three principles, the author puts forward the following specific suggestions to improve the anti-desalination system: to increase the joint trademark defense trademark system, By amending Article 13 of the Trademark Law, the judgment basis of desalination of infringement is determined as the possibility of association, and the system of reasonable use of exemption for trademark is added to the Trademark Law, and the constituent elements of the determination are clearly desalinated through judicial interpretation. The standard of public recognition of well-known trademark should not be changed into the general public. Through judicial interpretation, the non-functional design decoration of well-known trademark and advertising language should be brought into the scope of anti-desalination protection. Through judicial interpretation to different types of well-known trademark protection, through bilateral negotiations to solve the foreign non-registered well-known trademark anti-dilution protection in China, Legal compensation for trademark infringement should be based on subjective fault of the perpetrator.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：上海師范大學(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 孫立凡;;未注冊(cè)馳名商標(biāo)的司法保護(hù)[J];中華商標(biāo);2008年07期

2 李國(guó)慶;;從商標(biāo)戰(zhàn)略實(shí)施看著名商標(biāo)制度[J];中華商標(biāo);2011年06期

3 鄧宏光;;美國(guó)聯(lián)邦商標(biāo)反淡化法的制定與修正[J];電子知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán);2007年02期

4 孫學(xué)亮;許可;;馳名商標(biāo)淡化:美國(guó)的理論與實(shí)踐[J];電子知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán);2007年02期

5 李友根;;“淡化理論”在商標(biāo)案件裁判中的影響分析——對(duì)100份馳名商標(biāo)案件判決書的整理與研究[J];法商研究;2008年03期

6 王思鋒;;透析馳名商標(biāo)法律保護(hù)困境——兼論經(jīng)濟(jì)法的介入[J];河北法學(xué);2011年05期

7 湯艷春;;馳名商標(biāo)淡化制度的利益平衡分析[J];南昌教育學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2011年05期

8 顏梅林;;比較借鑒視角下我國(guó)馳名商標(biāo)認(rèn)定標(biāo)準(zhǔn)研究——兼談《商標(biāo)法》第14條之修改[J];樂山師范學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2012年02期

9 張明勝;徐輝鴻;;論不正當(dāng)競(jìng)爭(zhēng)行為的主體[J];南京工業(yè)大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2006年02期

10 李明德;;中日馳名商標(biāo)保護(hù)比較研究[J];環(huán)球法律評(píng)論;2007年05期

相關(guān)博士學(xué)位論文 前1條

1 李小武;商標(biāo)反淡化研究[D];中國(guó)社會(huì)科學(xué)院研究生院;2010年

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前4條

1 常菁;馳名商標(biāo)反淡化法律問題研究[D];吉林大學(xué);2011年

2 韓婧;論美國(guó)商標(biāo)反淡化制度及其對(duì)中國(guó)的借鑒意義[D];蘇州大學(xué);2005年

3 王偉奇;論馳名商標(biāo)的反淡化保護(hù)[D];山東大學(xué);2010年

4 劉文軍;中德馳名商標(biāo)認(rèn)定標(biāo)準(zhǔn)比較研究[D];中國(guó)政法大學(xué);2010年

本文編號(hào)：1691955