美国苹果公司诉深圳唯冠iPad商标侵权案例分析

发布时间：2018-02-21 05:29

本文关键词： 商标权侵权 iPad 美国苹果公司深圳唯冠公司　出处：《湖南大学》2014年硕士论文　论文类型：学位论文

【摘要】：2011年12月7日深圳市中级人民法院一审判决驳回美国苹果公司要求向唯冠科技（深圳）有限公司索要iPad商标权的诉讼请求。二审以双方已经达成六千万美元的和解结案。商标侵权是一种出现频率非常高的侵权行为，以往多是我国企业模仿山寨外国驰名商标与品牌，但此案却是美国苹果公司侵犯了深圳唯冠的iPad商标所有权，在知识产权领域引起了不小的轰动。关于本案，存在着三个争议焦点，一是在此次交易中台湾唯冠能否构成表见代理以处分深圳唯冠的商标权；二是深圳唯冠申请iPad禁售令被驳回是否符合法律规定；三是iPad商标与商誉的关系。通过具体分析可以发现，虽然一审判决深圳唯冠公司拥有iPad商标在我国大陆的专用权，但iPad商标价值主要由苹果公司创造这是不争的事实。在不同地域不同主体所有的在相同或相似商品上相同的商标的情形下商标权利人与商标价值创造人不一致并可能产生利益冲突。这要求我们用利益平衡原则解决冲突。同时深圳唯冠申请禁售iPad商品被驳回虽然符合我国法律规定，但是在侵权行为发生存在很大可能性时，仅因为诉讼的长期性导致权利人必须承受更多的侵权后果。这是对权利人的不公平的体现，因此，权利人的维权时机选择与事先调查非常重要，深圳唯冠选在苹果公司新iPad上市之际，将苹果公司推上被告席申请禁售，达到了其欲取得的经济赔偿额度。
[Abstract]:In December 7th 2011, the Shenzhen Intermediate people's Court ruled against Apple's request for iPad trademark rights from Proview Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. The two sides have reached a $60 million settlement. Trademark infringement is a kind of infringing act with high frequency. In the past, most enterprises in our country imitated famous foreign trademarks and brands, but the case was a case in which Apple Company of the United States infringed the iPad trademark ownership of Proview Shenzhen. It has caused quite a stir in the field of intellectual property. There are three controversial points about this case. One is whether Proview of Taiwan can form an apparent agent to dispose of the trademark right of Proview Shenzhen in this transaction; Second, whether Shenzhen Proview's application for iPad prohibition was rejected in accordance with the law; third, the relationship between the iPad trademark and goodwill. Through specific analysis, it can be found that although Shenzhen Proview held the exclusive right to use the iPad trademark in the mainland of China in the first instance, But it is an indisputable fact that the value of the iPad trademark is mainly created by Apple. In the case of the same trademark in the same or similar goods owned by different subjects in different regions, the owner of the trademark is not in agreement with the creator of the trademark value. Conflict of interest may arise. This requires us to use the principle of balance of interests to resolve the conflict. Meanwhile, Proview Shenzhen's application for a ban on the sale of iPad goods has been rejected, although in accordance with the provisions of Chinese law, However, when there is a great possibility of infringement, only because of the long-term nature of the lawsuit, the obligee must bear more tort consequences. This is an unfair manifestation to the right holder, so, The timing and prior investigation of the rights holders are very important. Proview Shenzhen has pushed Apple into the dock to apply for a ban on its new iPad, reaching the amount of financial compensation it wants.
【学位授予单位】：湖南大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2014
【分类号】：D920.5;D923.43

【参考文献】