“旧瓶新用”的商标侵权问题研究

发布时间：2018-04-22 16:27

本文选题：旧瓶新用 + 商标使用　；参考：《华东政法大学》2015年硕士论文

【摘要】：所谓“旧瓶新用”指的是一些商家为了节约经济成本,对其他商家所生产的并已经推入市场的啤酒、饮料、墨水、液化气、香水等产品的容器进行回收,然后装入自己公司生产的产品并重新推入市场的现象。“旧瓶新用”原本是我国司空见惯的现象,同时对旧瓶的回收利用似乎也符合国家政策和行业惯例的倡导,但是近年来却在国内引发了一系列的商标侵权案,尤其以啤酒回收利用侵权案最为典型。最近的“上海百威啤酒案”和“重庆啤酒案”案更是将其推送了风口浪尖之境。两个法院在基本相同的案情下做出了大相径庭的判决。事实上,从国内外的司法实践来看,除了啤酒瓶回收利用产生了商标侵权纠纷外,商家在对其他产品的容器回收利用,例如醋和酱油包装容器、液化气钢瓶、牛奶瓶、护发素容器也产生了类似的侵权纠纷。此类“旧瓶新用”的案件虽然具体案情各不相同,但是争议焦点基本一致,即被告回收利用瓶身带有原告特定商标的旧瓶,对其填充自己生产的产品,同时在该瓶上贴上自己的商标或者说明标签的行为是否构成商标侵权。司法实践和学术界对于此类问题争议不断,莫衷一是。其主要争议点集中在:“旧瓶新用”是否构成商标使用、“旧瓶新用”是否可能造成消费者混淆、“旧瓶新用”是否可以适用商标权用尽原则以及其他考虑因素如国家政策、行业惯例对此类侵权案件的适用。随着我国“旧瓶新用”侵权案件的日益突显,以上观点的分歧,直接影响到了“旧瓶新用”案件的侵权判定和法律适用,故有必要进一步加以辨析和研究。要解决第一个问题,即“旧瓶新用”是否构成商标使用,就必须首先明晰何为商标使用以及如何界定商标使用行为。我国新《商标法》第48条虽然对商标使用进行了规定,但是由于该规定较为简单和抽象,由此带来了两个问题:首先,商标使用在商标侵权中的地位如何?其是否属于商标侵权判断的逻辑前提?其次,如何对第48条的“商业活动”和“用于识别商品来源”进行理解?本文通过分析论证认为商标使用属于商标侵权的逻辑前提,商标使用和混淆可能性是商标侵权判断中相互独立的两个判断要素。同时本文通过商标法的基本原理分析和相关案例的索引,归纳出商标使用的两个构成要件:(1)商标使用是一种获取经济优势的商业行为;(2)商标使用是意图在特定商标和特定商品或服务之间建立经济联系的行为。如果商家回收利用旧瓶时没有将烙在瓶上的商标予以遮盖,符合上述两个构成要件,因此可以构成商标使用行为。解决完第一个问题之后,便面临第二个问题,即“旧瓶新用”是否可能造成消费者的混淆。由于商家“旧瓶新用”的行为属于在相同产品上使用相同商标的行为(以下简称为“双相同情形”),因此要判断商家“旧瓶新用”的行为是否会产生混淆可能性,就必须解决以下问题,即双相同情形下的商标侵权判断中是否应该考虑混淆可能性。对于这一问题,理论界和实务界产生了两种截然相反的观点:第一种观点认为,在双相同情形下,混淆可能性属于推定的混淆,在相反证据的情形下可以被推翻;第二种观点认为,在双相同情形下,混淆可能性属于绝对的推定,不能被推翻。本文通过《商标法》的本质属性和功能、立法意图以及欧盟和我国的司法实践等多角度对这一问题进行论证分析,最终认为在双相同情形下仍应该坚持混淆理论,混淆可能性在相反证据的情形下可以被推翻。而后本文通过对国内外相关“旧瓶新用”案件的分析,总结出了“旧瓶新用”案件中判断混淆可能性可供考虑的七大因素。法院应该根据具体案情,结合这七要素进行综合考量。针对第三个问题,即“旧瓶新用”是否适用商标权用尽原则,在理论界产生了相关争议。本文通过商标权用尽的基本原理和内涵分析,同时结合国内外的相关司法实践,总结出了商标权用尽原则的两个构成要件:(1)再销售的商品来源应合法;(2)再销售商品应具有同一性。此处的同一性指的是在再销售的商品质量没有发生改变或损坏。由于回收利用商再将产品推入市场之前,会在旧瓶上重新填充自己的产品,已经使得产品的内容发生实质性的改变,并不具有同一性,因此“旧瓶新用”并不适用商标权用尽原则。有些法院在处理“旧瓶新用”案件时,还会将行业惯例、国家政策以及竞争秩序作为侵权判断的考量因素。本文认为:首先,法院在将行业惯例作为裁判依据的前提是行业惯例必须不得与现行法冲突、不得违背公序良俗,因此当法律明文规定的商标权与行业惯例冲突时,法院不应将行业惯例作为断案依据。其次,对于回收利用政策而言,也不应该与现行法冲突,当其与商标权人的商标权冲突时,应该优先保护商标权。最后,通过对商标法的立法来源和基本原理并结合欧盟相关案例进行分析后认为,当法院对混淆可能性的判断较难抉择时,可适时将竞争秩序作为其侵权界定的考量因素。现行司法实践和理论界之所以对“旧瓶新用”的案件产生诸多争议,一方面的原因在于我国现行司法实践对商标侵权的判断标准不一以及缺乏处理类似案件的实践经验;另一方面的原因在于,虽然我国《再生资源回收管理办法》、《关于实施啤酒强制性国家标准若干问题的通知》等国家法规或政策鼓励对旧瓶进行回收利用,但是对于回收利用商相关责任和义务并未予以明确规定。法律和监管的缺失导致旧瓶回收利用市场乱象丛生。因而为了更有利地解决“旧瓶新用”的侵权纠纷,除了在司法实践中,按照前文的建议,统一对此类商标侵权案件的判断标准,也应该在相关立法方面进行完善。从当前立法方面来看,国外对回收利用旧瓶的行为采用两种立法模式:一种模式是单独立法的模式;另一种是在刑法的商标侵权部分中对此类行为进行专门规制的模式。出于我国基本国情和立法先例的考虑,本文认为最佳做法是出台专门针对旧瓶回收利用的行政法规,对回收利用商的相关责任和义务进行具体规定。
[Abstract]:The so-called "new use of the old bottle" refers to the recovery of the containers of beer, beverages, inks, liquefied gas, perfume and other products made by other merchants in order to save the cost of the economy, and then to reload the products produced by their own companies and reenter the market. "The new use of the old bottle" was originally the CSI in our country. At the same time, the recovery and utilization of the old bottle also seems to be in line with the national policy and industry practice, but in recent years there has been a series of trademark infringement cases in China, especially in the case of beer recycling and utilization, the latest "Shanghai Budweiser Beer Case" and "Chongqing Beer Case" case is to push it to the wind. The two courts have made a different verdict in the same case. In fact, from domestic and foreign judicial practice, in addition to the trademark infringement disputes arising from the recovery and utilization of beer bottles, businesses are reusing containers for other products, such as vinegar and soy packaging containers, liquefied gas cylinders, milk bottles, and hair care. There are similar cases of tort. The case of this kind of "new bottle" is different, but the focus of the dispute is basically the same, that is, the defendant reclaims the bottle of the bottle with a specific trademark of the plaintiff, fills it with the product produced by the defendant, and attaches its own trademark or label on the bottle. There is no agreement between the judicial practice and the academic circles on such issues. The main controversial points are as follows: whether the "old bottle new use" constitutes the use of the trademark, the new use of the old bottle may cause the confusion of consumers, the "new use of the old bottle" can apply the principle of exhaustion of trademark rights and other considerations. Such as the application of national policy and industry practice to such cases of tort. With the increasing prominence of the "new used bottle" cases in China, the differences of the above views directly affect the infringement judgment and the application of the law in the case of the new use of the old bottle, so it is necessary to further analyze and study it. "If the trademark is used, it is necessary to clarify the use of the trademark and how to define the use of the trademark. China's new < Trademark Law > forty-eighth stipulates the use of the trademark, but because it is simple and abstract, it brings two questions: first, how is the status of trademark use in trademark infringement? Whether it belongs to the logical premise of trademark infringement judgment? Secondly, how to understand the forty-eighth "commercial activities" and "used to identify the source of the goods"? Through the analysis and demonstration, this paper argues that trademark use belongs to the logical premise of trademark infringement, and the possibility of trademark use and confusion is the two independent judgment factor in the judgment of the trademark infringement. At the same time, through the analysis of the basic principles of the trademark law and the index of the related cases, this paper sums up the two components of the use of a trademark: (1) the use of a trademark is a commercial act to obtain economic advantages; (2) the use of a trademark is intended to establish an economic connection between a specific trademark and a particular commodity or service. When the bottle is not covered with the trademark on the bottle, it conforms to the above two components, so it can form the use of the trademark. After the first question, second questions are faced, that is, whether the "new bottle of the old bottle" may cause the confusion of the consumers. With the act of the same trademark (hereinafter referred to as "the same situation"), it is necessary to solve the following problems to determine whether the behavior of the business "new used bottle" will produce confusion, that is, whether the possibility of confusion should be taken into consideration in the trademark infringement judgment under the same situation. The two opposite view: the first view is that in the same case, the possibility of confusion belongs to the presumption of confusion and can be overthrown in the case of opposite evidence; the second view holds that, in the same case, the possibility of confusion belongs to the absolute presumption and cannot be overthrown. This article passes the essential attribute and function of the trademark law. The legislative intention and the European Union and the judicial practice of our country are discussed and analyzed. Finally, it is believed that the confusion theory should be persisted under the same circumstances, and the possibility of confusion can be overthrown in the case of the opposite evidence. The court should consider the seven factors that can be considered in the case of the new use of the old bottle. The court should consider the seven elements according to the specific circumstances of the case. In view of the third questions, that is, whether the "old bottle new use" applies the principle of the exhaustion of the trademark right or not, has produced relevant arguments in the theoretical circle. Connotation analysis, and combined with the relevant judicial practice at home and abroad, summed up the two components of the principle of the exhaustion of trademark rights: (1) the re sale of commodity sources should be legal; (2) re sales of goods should have the same character. Before the product is pushed into the market, it will refill its own product on the old bottle, which has made the content of the product substantially changed and does not have the same character. Therefore, the "old bottle new use" does not apply the principle of exhaustion of trademark rights. Some courts will also take trade practice, national policy and competition order when dealing with the "new bottle" case. As the consideration factor for the judgment of tort, this article holds that, first, the court in the industry practice as the basis of the referee is the premise that the industry practice must not conflict with the current law, and may not violate the public order and good customs, therefore, when the trademark rights and trade practices clearly stipulated in the law conflict, the law academy should not be the basis of the case. Secondly, As far as the policy of recycling is concerned, it should not conflict with the current law. When it conflicts with the trademark rights of the trademark owners, it should be given priority to the protection of the trademark right. Finally, after the analysis of the legislative source and basic principles of the trademark law and the relevant EU cases, it is believed that when the court is difficult to decide on the possibility of confusion, it will be able to compete in a timely manner. The current judicial practice and theorists have caused many disputes over the case of "the new use of the old bottle" in the current judicial practice and theorists. One reason is that the current judicial practice in our country has different judgment standards for trademark infringement and the lack of practical experience in dealing with similar cases; on the other hand, the reason lies in the fact that, though, the reason is that although China's Reclaimed resource recovery management method, the notifications of several issues concerning the implementation of compulsory national standards for beer, and other national regulations or policies encourage the recycling of the old bottles, but the liability and obligations of the recyclers are not clearly defined. The lack of law and supervision leads to a mess of the recycling market. Therefore, in order to better solve the "new bottle of the new use" of the tort dispute, in addition to the judicial practice, in accordance with the previous suggestions, the unified judgment standards for such trademark infringement cases, should also be improved in the relevant legislation. From the current legislative aspect, the foreign use of the use of the old bottle of the use of two legislative patterns: a The model is the mode of separate legislation; the other is the mode of special regulation of this kind of act in the part of the trademark infringement of the criminal law. For the consideration of the basic national conditions and legislative precedents of our country, the best practice is to introduce the administrative regulations specially aimed at the recycling of the old bottles, and carry out the relevant responsibilities and obligations of the recycler. It is stipulated in the body.

【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

【相似文献】