论商标法44条“其他不正当手段”条款的适用

发布时间：2018-01-23 06:39

本文关键词： 其他不正当手段法律适用公共利益法学解释方法　出处：《华东政法大学》2015年硕士论文　论文类型：学位论文

【摘要】：“其他不正当手段”条款来源于《商标法》44条1款,具体是指“虚构、隐瞒事实真相或者伪造申请书件及有关文件进行注册,比如伪造营业执照、涂改经营范围、编造有关虚假申请事项等”。作为商标禁止注册的事由之一,在商标的审查实务之中被频繁适用。然而,从大量商标行政确权案件中可以明确发现,很长时期内商标评审委员会和人民法院之间甚至人民法院内部对这一条款的适用标准亦未能达成共识。该条款的适用分歧表现在实体和程序的两个方面,分别是:实体方面,集中于它是指绝对事由还是相对事由;程序方面,该条款是否只能适用于“注册商标的无效宣告”,而不能适用于商标的异议程序(具体是指“不予注册”程序)?围绕该条款的这两个问题的争论和分歧不仅给商标审查和审判实务造成了重大影响,亦使得人们在商标注册或使用时对应当如何正确适用“其他不正当手段”条款产生困惑。本文旨在从实体和程序上对“其他不正当手段”条款的适用制度进行深入分析、解读和探讨。笔者通过对国内司法实践中相关典型案例进行分析和归纳,对商标评审委员会和人民法院在适用“其他不正当手段”条款时采用的不同标准加以总结。指出我国在司法实践、理论研究以及立法中对“其他不正当手段”条款的认识存在不足,并对其原因加以分析,总结得到相应适用规则。围绕“其他不正当手段”条款目前存在的相关问题,本文分为三章进行具体研究分析:第一章是“其他不正当手段”条款有关争议和分歧的现状介绍。第一,将该条款目前在行政和司法实践中的适用现状进行梳理,总结出双方在该问题上所持的观点变化:在实体问题上,行政机关之前坚持的观点是该条款可囊括私权和公权两方面,而司法机关的观点倾向于认定该条款只可用于公权的规制,最高法院于2010年发布了司法解释指导意见,认定该条款规制的行为“属于欺骗手段以外的扰乱商标注册秩序、损害公共利益、不正当占用公共资源或者以其他方式谋取不正当利益的手段”,为该问题定性,并相继在2011年“蜡笔小新”系列案和2013年的“海棠湾”案件中明确认定“具有大批量、规模性抢注他人商标并转卖牟利”、“没有合理理由大量注册囤积其他商标、并无真实使用意图的行为”的行为,属于“不正当占用公共资源、扰乱商标注册管理秩序及公共秩序,极大地浪费行政审查资源及司法资源,损害公共利益”的行为,构成41条1款所指“其他不正当手段”所包含之情形,并且该司法解释得到行政机关认可;在程序问题上,围绕该条款的适用现状争议是行政机关认为不仅可适用于已注册商标的无效宣告程序,也可适用于未注册商标的异议程序,具体是指商标不予注册复审程序,而司法机关在此问题上的做法显得不太稳定,各级法院做法并不一致,有的案件适用,有的则不适用。第二,就实体问题,将目前理论研究中学者主张的三种观点详细列举出,对理论界存在的各种观点予以归纳和总结,并分析了所持观点背后的法律依据,为后文深入分析该问题做好背景介绍。第三,就程序问题的观点分歧进行梳理,指出目前就程序问题存在争议的关键因素是对法律的效率和公平价值的取舍。第二章是从实体问题角度对“其他不正当手段”条款中存在争议的问题进行辨析,并给出自己的观点。在本章中,笔者从商标法的制度本源出发,结合民法的基本解释方法,对其他不正当手段条款的性质及内涵加以辨析。第一,基于现有的法理基础,具体说是法律解释规则中的体系解释方法,笔者认为“不正当手段”条款的适用范围应仅限于禁止商标注册的绝对事由,即对公共利益予以保护;第二,通过商标法法理,得出该条款所保护的“公共利益”实质上是市场主体在市场中能够自由竞争的市场秩序;第三,通过该条款作为兜底条款,其特殊性在于在赋予司法机关一定程度的自由裁量权的基础上,但并不是所有的有关于自由竞争的公共利益都能用该款保护,只有那些尚未成熟到被法条明文规定类型化的公共利益才属于该条款所保护的利益范畴。第三章是围绕该条款有关的程序问题的界定。基于现有司法实务现状,我国商标确权案件时间冗长,这造成商标权人的相关利益长期处在不能确定状态,笔者认为对该条款适用程序的解释不应当持扩大观点,即不能用于异议程序(不予注册案件),而应当限定于已经注册完成的案件中。第一,通过对商标法中的异议程序现状介绍,得出关于该条款能否适用于不予注册案件的争议产生是由于商标法未给出确定的不予注册事由;第二,从商标法的立法宗旨应当首先着眼于商标权作为私权所应得到的保护,而不是商标行政部门作为管理者的管理职能的发挥出发,以及商标法的效率和公平的利益平衡理论,得出不应扩大解释法律的观点,并就商标法的完善提出立法建议,法律明确规定不予注册的事由将会有利于法律的统一性和权威性。第四章在分析和评价我国立法现状的基础上,从商标审查和审判实务的不同角色特点入手,分别进行思考和辨析,进而提出明确不正当手段条款的实体和程序的具体适用标准。
[Abstract]:"Other unfair means" provisions from the "trademark law >44 paragraph 1, specifically refers to" fiction, conceal the truth or falsification of application documents and other relevant documents such as business license registration, forged, altered business scope, fabricated the false application matters. "One of the reasons as the trademark registration is prohibited. In the frequent application of trademark review practices. However, from a large number of trademark administrative jurisdiction in the case can be found between a very long period of time the Trademark Appraisal Committee and the people's court or the people's court within on the terms of the applicable standard also failed to reach a consensus. The terms of the applicable differences in two aspects of entity and procedure. Are concentrated in the entity aspect, it refers to the absolute or relative subject matter; the procedure, the clause is only applicable to the" invalidation "registered trademark, and is not suitable for Trademark objection procedure (specifically refers to "not registered" program)? On the two issues of the terms of the debate and differences not only caused a significant impact to the Trademark Review and adjudication practice, but also makes people in the trademark registration or use of how to correctly apply the terms of other unfair means "confused in this paper. In order to analyze application system in terms of" other improper means "from entity and procedure, interpretation and discussion. The author analyzed and summarized the relevant domestic typical case in the judicial practice of different standards by the Trademark Review and Adjudication Committee and the people's court for" other unfair means "provisions of the summary. It is pointed out that China's judicial practice, theoretical research and legislation on the" other unfair means "provisions of the shortcomings, and the reasons are analyzed, summed up The application of the rules. Related problems around the "other unfair means" clause, this article is divided into three chapters: the first chapter is the analysis of "the situation related disputes and differences in terms of other unfair means. First, the present situation of application in terms of administrative and judicial practice in the current review summed up the change of the view, held on the issue: in the substantive issues, the administrative organ before insisted the provisions include two aspects of private rights and public rights, and judicial organs tend to the view that the clause can only be used for public regulation, in 2010 the Supreme Court issued a judicial interpretation guidance that the provisions of regulation behavior" means to cheat the outside disturb the trademark registration order, damage the public interests, illegal occupation of public resources or otherwise seek improper interests The means, for the problem of qualitative, and have been in 2011 "crayon" series of case and the 2013 "Haitang bay" case "has clearly identified in large quantities, the scale of the registered trademarks of others and selling for profit", "no reasonable grounds for a large number of registered hoarding other trademarks, there is no real intention to use the behavior of" behavior that belongs to the "unfair occupation of public resources, disrupting the order of the trademark registration and management of public order, a great waste of resources and the administrative review of judicial resources, damage to the public interest", 41 paragraph 1 refers to "other improper means" contained, and the judicial interpretation in the administrative department for approval; the program on the issue of disputes around the status of this clause is not only applicable to the administrative organs that have been declared invalid trademark registration procedures, can also apply to the unregistered trademark objection procedure, specific Refers to a trademark shall not be registered and review procedures, judicial organs on this issue is not very stable, at all levels of court practices are not the same, some cases apply, but some are not applicable. Second, on the substantive issues, the three views at present scholars in the theoretical study of the claims of the detailed list, to sum up to the various theory of existence, and analyzes the legal basis of the views behind, for the further analysis of the problem of good background. Third, sort out views of procedural issues, pointed out that the key factor is the procedure problems in dispute is the efficiency and the fair value of the law. The second chapter is the choice of analysis from the perspective of controversial substantive issues "other unfair means" in terms of the problem, and give your own opinion. In this chapter, the author from the trademark law system is a combination of the source. The basic interpretation method, the nature and connotation of other unfair means in terms of the analysis. First, based on the existing legal basis, in particular legal interpretation rules in the system of interpretation methods, the author thinks that "scope clause unfair means" should be limited to the absolute prohibition for trademark registration, which is to be protected on the public interest; second, the trademark law jurisprudence, the provisions of protection of the "public interest" in essence is the main market in the market to free competition in the market order; third, through the terms as a fallback provision, its particularity lies in the basis at the discretion given to the judiciary to some extent on the however, not all of the free competition of public interest can use the protection, only those who have not yet mature enough to be the law expressly provides the type of public interest is the terms of insurance The category of interest protection. The third chapter is about the definition of terms relating to the procedure problems. The existing judicial practice based on the situation of long time trademark rights cases in China, which caused the interests of trademark owners in uncertain state, the author thinks that the application program of the interpretation of terms should not be to expand, which can not be used objection procedure (not registered cases), and shall limit the completed registered cases. First, through the introduction of current situation of objection procedure in the trademark law, draw on the terms can be applied to the case of the dispute is not registered as trademark law did not give the reason will not be registered; second, from the legislative purpose of trademark law should first focus protection on trademark rights as private rights should be, rather than the trademark administrative departments play as the management function of the trademark law, and The efficiency and fairness of the theory of balance of interests, it should not be extended to explain the point of view of the law, and put forward legislative suggestions on perfecting the trademark law, the law clearly stipulates the unity and authority of the registration shall not be subject will be conducive to law. In the fourth chapter, analysis and evaluation of China's legislative status on, starting from different roles the characteristics of trademark examination and trial practice, were thinking and analysis, and puts forward the specific applicable standards clearly unfair means in terms of entity and procedure.

【学位授予单位】：华东政法大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2015
【分类号】：D923.43

【参考文献】