商标善意共存研究
发布时间：2018-08-19 16:32
【摘要】：本文所研究的商标善意共存是指不同市场主体在相同或类似的商品或服务上使用相同或相近似的商标合法行为。商标善意共存在世界上大多数国家中得到普遍认可,我国的商标善意共存制度规制较晚,传统商标法考虑较多是商标因素和商品因素,“近似即侵权”成为商标侵权的判断标准,随着经济发展,司法实践的新问题不断涌现,这种传统的侵权判断标准已经不能适合实际需要,近似不一定侵权的观点得到广泛的认可,立法和司法实践中逐步承认商标善意共存现象。本文第一部分,商标善意的一般性分析,包括商标善意共存的概念,构成要件,类型与商标善意共存的利益平衡理论分析。商标善意共存构成要件概括为：商标相同或近似；使用在相同或近似的商品或服务上；主观上是善意的;具有合法性。商标善意共存的合法性原因概括来说包括：不具有混淆可能性；协议共存；享有先用权；注册商标经过无效宣告期,这些合法性原因导致了商标善意共存。本文的第二部分,主要研究国外的立法和司法实践,美国和英国直接立法规定商标并行注册制度,近似商标满足一定的条件也可以同时被注册。不同于美国和英国,德国和日本商标法间接规定了商标善意共存制度。各国立法有所不同,但是商标善意共存在世界大多数国家已经被认可。本文的第三部分,对我国商标善意共存的立法与司法实践研究,我国商标法中并没有商标善意共存的明确表述,司法实践中,一律按照“近似即侵权”的做法很难做出公平正义的判决,我国法律在逐渐地承认商标善意共存。2002年司法解释和2014年新《商标法》为商标善意共存提供了法律基础。2002年,《最高人民法院关于审理商标民事纠纷案件适用法律若干问题的解释》对相关公众,商标相同,商标近似,类似商品,类似服务,商品与服务类似等法律概念分别进行解释,同时确定了商标近似的认定原则。商标近似,商品类似均指混淆性近似,商标近似不会构成消费者误认的,则具有共存的可能性,从而指导对法院对相同或近似商标侵权纠纷案件的判决。2014年实施的新《商标法》中,在相同商品上使用相同商标的情况被推定为构成混淆可能性,直接认定为商标侵权。在类似商品上使用相同或近似商标或者在相同商品上使用近似商标的情况,必须在容易导致消费者混淆的情况下,才能认定为侵权,混淆可能性作为商标侵权的判断标准。同时也明确规定了商标先用权是相同或近似商标侵权的正当抗辩理由。司法实践中,存在大量的商标共存案例,同时也存在着前后两种截然不同的判决,在具体个案中,法院应该严格依据法律,理解立法的目的和法律条文的真正含义,立足于案件事实,才能做出公平合理的判决。本文的第四部分,笔者希望提出一些完善商标善意共存制度建议,主要从完善商标先用权制度,完善商标共存协议立法和添加区别标识这三个方面进行努力。我国现行法律中商标先用权制度立法模糊,对于未注册商标立法中应该从先用商标实际使用要求,在先使用的商标具有一定的影响力,商标在先使用权人的主观善意,在先使用的商标的原有范围进行规定。在司法实践中,只有不损害消费者利益的商标协议才能认定为合法有效的,商标共存协议中必须包括防止市场混淆性的措施。同时应该建立起商标共存协议的备案制度,规范管理。就添加区别标识而言,其作用是防止市场混淆,稳固商标善意共存,在商标善意共存制度可以被广泛地运用。
[Abstract]:The goodwill coexistence of trademarks studied in this paper refers to the same or similar trademark legal acts used by different market subjects in the same or similar goods or services. With the development of economy and the emergence of new problems in judicial practice, the traditional judgment standard of infringement can no longer meet the actual needs, and the viewpoint of approximate infringement is widely accepted. In legislation and judicial practice, trademark bona fide co-existence is gradually recognized. The first part of this paper, the general analysis of trademark goodwill, including the concept of trademark goodwill coexistence, constitutive requirements, types and trademark goodwill coexistence benefit balance theory analysis. The legitimacy of trademark bona fide coexistence includes: there is no possibility of confusion; agreement coexistence; enjoyment of the right of first use; registered trademark after invalidation period, these legitimacy reasons lead to the coexistence of trademark bona fide. The second part of this paper mainly studies foreign legislation and judicial practice, the United States and the United Kingdom straight. Unlike the United States and Britain, Germany and Japan, trademark laws indirectly stipulate the system of trademark bona fide coexistence. On the legislation and judicial practice of trademark bona fide coexistence in our country, there is no explicit expression of trademark bona fide coexistence in our country's trademark law. In judicial practice, it is difficult to make a fair and just judgment according to the "approximate infringement" approach. Our country's law is gradually recognizing trademark bona fide coexistence. Law > provides a legal basis for the coexistence of trademarks in good faith. In 2002, the Supreme People's Court's Interpretation of Several Questions Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Trademark Civil Disputes explained the legal concepts of the relevant public, such as the same trademark, similar trademark, similar commodity, similar service, similar commodity and service, and determined the similarity of trademarks. Principle of determination. Trademark approximation and commodity approximation refer to confusion approximation. If trademark approximation does not constitute mistaken recognition by consumers, it has the possibility of coexistence, thus guiding the court's judgment in cases of similar or similar trademark infringement disputes. In the new Trademark Law implemented in 2014, the use of the same trademark in the same commodity is presumed to be constructed. In the case of similar goods using the same or similar trademark or using similar trademark in the same goods, it must be easily confused by consumers before it can be identified as infringement. The possibility of confusion is the criterion for judging trademark infringement. In judicial practice, there are a large number of trademark coexistence cases, but there are also two distinct judgments. In specific cases, the court should strictly follow the law, understand the purpose of legislation and the true meaning of legal provisions, based on the facts of the case, to make public. In the fourth part of this paper, the author hopes to put forward some suggestions to improve the system of trademark bona fide coexistence, mainly from the perfection of the system of trademark preemption, the perfection of the legislation of trademark coexistence agreement and the addition of distinctive marks. The law should stipulate the original scope of the pre-used trademark according to the actual use requirements of the pre-used trademark, the pre-used trademark has certain influence, and the subjective goodwill of the pre-user, and the pre-used trademark. It is necessary to include measures to prevent confusion in the market and to establish a record system for trademark coexistence agreements and standardize management.
【学位授予单位】：安徽大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2015
【分类号】：D923.43
本文编号：2192211
[Abstract]:The goodwill coexistence of trademarks studied in this paper refers to the same or similar trademark legal acts used by different market subjects in the same or similar goods or services. With the development of economy and the emergence of new problems in judicial practice, the traditional judgment standard of infringement can no longer meet the actual needs, and the viewpoint of approximate infringement is widely accepted. In legislation and judicial practice, trademark bona fide co-existence is gradually recognized. The first part of this paper, the general analysis of trademark goodwill, including the concept of trademark goodwill coexistence, constitutive requirements, types and trademark goodwill coexistence benefit balance theory analysis. The legitimacy of trademark bona fide coexistence includes: there is no possibility of confusion; agreement coexistence; enjoyment of the right of first use; registered trademark after invalidation period, these legitimacy reasons lead to the coexistence of trademark bona fide. The second part of this paper mainly studies foreign legislation and judicial practice, the United States and the United Kingdom straight. Unlike the United States and Britain, Germany and Japan, trademark laws indirectly stipulate the system of trademark bona fide coexistence. On the legislation and judicial practice of trademark bona fide coexistence in our country, there is no explicit expression of trademark bona fide coexistence in our country's trademark law. In judicial practice, it is difficult to make a fair and just judgment according to the "approximate infringement" approach. Our country's law is gradually recognizing trademark bona fide coexistence. Law > provides a legal basis for the coexistence of trademarks in good faith. In 2002, the Supreme People's Court's Interpretation of Several Questions Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Trademark Civil Disputes explained the legal concepts of the relevant public, such as the same trademark, similar trademark, similar commodity, similar service, similar commodity and service, and determined the similarity of trademarks. Principle of determination. Trademark approximation and commodity approximation refer to confusion approximation. If trademark approximation does not constitute mistaken recognition by consumers, it has the possibility of coexistence, thus guiding the court's judgment in cases of similar or similar trademark infringement disputes. In the new Trademark Law implemented in 2014, the use of the same trademark in the same commodity is presumed to be constructed. In the case of similar goods using the same or similar trademark or using similar trademark in the same goods, it must be easily confused by consumers before it can be identified as infringement. The possibility of confusion is the criterion for judging trademark infringement. In judicial practice, there are a large number of trademark coexistence cases, but there are also two distinct judgments. In specific cases, the court should strictly follow the law, understand the purpose of legislation and the true meaning of legal provisions, based on the facts of the case, to make public. In the fourth part of this paper, the author hopes to put forward some suggestions to improve the system of trademark bona fide coexistence, mainly from the perfection of the system of trademark preemption, the perfection of the legislation of trademark coexistence agreement and the addition of distinctive marks. The law should stipulate the original scope of the pre-used trademark according to the actual use requirements of the pre-used trademark, the pre-used trademark has certain influence, and the subjective goodwill of the pre-user, and the pre-used trademark. It is necessary to include measures to prevent confusion in the market and to establish a record system for trademark coexistence agreements and standardize management.
【学位授予单位】：安徽大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2015
【分类号】：D923.43
【参考文献】
相关期刊论文 前3条
1 黄淳;李震;;商标共存的合目的性——从“鳄鱼”商标案谈起[J];中国发展观察;2012年06期
2 陈武;;论近似商标共存制度[J];知识产权;2008年03期
3 刘维;;论商标善意共存原则——以鳄鱼商标案与百威商标案为线索[J];政治与法律;2012年10期
，本文编号：2192211
本文链接：https://www.wllwen.com/falvlunwen/minfalunwen/2192211.html
