论商标共存的认定与规制
发布时间：2018-08-25 12:35
【摘要】：新《商标法》在很大程度上对先用权、无效宣告和撤销权做出了更进一步的规定,而“商标共存”问题却悬而未决。由于我国在商标法律保护上过于强调权利冲突而忽视了权利共存,过去很长一段时间我国行政机关和司法机关都对商标专用权给予全面保护,甚至认为一个已注册商标可以排除所有在后注册的近似商标申请,一旦从物理属性上判断为相同或近似,两个商标同时出现在市场中就一定会给消费者造成混淆,并以此为由驳回商标申请或者认定商标侵权。这种观点在鳄鱼商标案之后已经有所缓和。商标权人也在积极寻求实现商标共存的有效途径,为的是避免诉讼与侵权,而商标共存协议就能实现这一目的。而由于我国曾一度认为近似即侵权,直到2010年最高院通过“鳄鱼”案以不构成混淆性近似为由判定两商标合法共存。其实在国外市场商标共存已是非常普遍的现象,在美国、英国和日本等国家和地区都有比较完善的商标共存制度。但由于我国对商标共存的立法不完善,现实中行政机关和司法机关在商标审查时对共存协议态度不明确,而目前的市场经济实际情况是商标共存的事实和需求越来越广泛,导致在司法实践中,无论是商标授权阶段还是商标确权阶段,不同机关面对各种繁杂的案件无法依照一个统一的指导原则进行判断和分析,甚至同一个案件在不同机关手中会得出完全不同的结论。这不利于市场的有效发展,关键问题还是没有对商标共存给出直接的法律规定或者可以参考的认定标准,同时也未厘清商标共存与商标混淆、商标侵权之间的关系,也说明建立商标共存制度任重而道远。无论是新旧《中华人民共和国商标法》、《中华人民共和国商标法实施条例》或者相关司法解释、商标审查与审理标准中并没有直接规定商标共存的法条,或者任何可以直接在执法或司法程序中可以参考或援引的规定。因此,在商标授权或者确权过程中,一旦出现商标相同或者近似的情形,一般我国商标局会驳回申请并且不予公告;或者他人会以保护在先权利和防止恶意抢注的原则和精神,在初审公告期内提出异议;或者针对已经成功注册的商标,以在先权利人的身份,请求商标评审委员会宣告该注册商标无效。2014年10月14日,最高人民法院发布的司法解释第二十条对商标共存协议做出了一定的规定,说明人民法院在审查商标能否共存时会参考双方当事人的共存协议,以此判断商标共存会否导致混淆或者误认。近两年的司法实践中,尤其是良子商标案之后,已经有部分法院对于商标共存采取积极、支持的态度,例如北京市高级人民法院审结的“UGG”商标案。如果商标权人自己都认为共存不会对其产生不良影响的话,除非有其他证据能够充分证明存在混淆可能性,否则法院就应该尊重当事人的自主处分权,如果损害消费者利益不会受到较大不必要的损害,商标共存就应该得到充分尊重。相比之下,境外对于商标共存的立法还是比较完善的,例如美国《兰哈姆法》第二条第四款规定并存注册的必要条件;《协调成员国商标立法1988年12月21日欧洲共同体理事会第一号指令》第九条关于“因容忍导致权利的丧失”规定,德国现行的《商标和其他标志保护法》中也有类似规定。英国现行的《商标法》第七条则规定了善意地同时使用。日本《商标法》第32条规定了“在先使用的商标的使用权”,以及我国台湾地区商标法第30条第三款对善意使用的规定,都直接或间接地对商标共存情况做出了规定与制约。混淆理论应是商标共存的理论前提,可以把商标共存看成是商标不构成侵权时的一种合法状态,因此在认定商标共存时应符合公平的法律价值。本文旨在对于商标共存的认定与规制提出若干建议,在认定因素方面提出了几个关键的因素,包括商标的实际使用情况、市场格局、主观意图、商标共存协议以及相关消费者认知,并且提出在逻辑层面上,各个认定因素会相互影响,例如主观意图的认定是可以由其他几个因素加以体现和推导而出;具体到实际的商标共存认定中,依据不同商标共存情形,上述几个认定因素之间也存在着内在联系并相互影响,认定方法和考虑程度也有所不同。在立法层面上,本文对《商标法》、《商标法实施条例》以及《商标审查标准》也给出了若干修改建议,包括提供商标注册要求和审查标准,将某些滥竽充数的商标申请排除在外,例如某些显著性较低的商标,因为这类商标较易发生商标共存现象,若要提高显著性就只有通过商标的商业性使用才能获得,但这些都是不确定的因素,也可能正因为其显著性较低,导致在实际的商业使用中较难再加强其显著性,也可能较难累积商誉;明确商标审查时的混淆可能性判断,建议将《商标法》第三十条修改为:“申请注册的商标,凡不符合本法有关规定或者同他人在同一种商品或者类似商品上已经注册的或者初步审定的商标相同或者近似,容易导致混淆的,由商标局驳回申请,不予公告”;引入证据辅助制度,可以在《商标法》以及《商标法实施条例》的“第二章商标注册的申请”中增加一条关于提交能够证明商标使用情况文件的规定,具体可以这样表述:“申请商标注册的,对于已经使用的商标,申请人应当在申请时提交商标实际使用的证明文件;对于未使用的商标,公告期满无异议的,申请人应当提交商标在公告期届满前已经实际使用商标的证明文件或者未来三年申请人对该商标的使用计划书。待商标局审查前述相关使用证明或文件后,对商标予以核准注册,并予公告。”同时在公告系统中可以公告商标局审查并认可的商标最初使用时间,可作为他人商标检索和申请时的参考和提示,提高申请注册商标的质量,避免因商标先用权问题产生的纠纷,同时也将注册制度与使用行为结合起来,降低商标在先使用人与在后注册之间的商标共存争议;完善在先商标使用人无效宣告请求的适用,可以在新《商标法》第四十五条中关于第三十二条的情形另规定一款:“在先权利人或者利害关系人依据本法第三十二条的规定,自商标注册之日起满五年后请求宣告注册商标无效的,应充分说明其未在商标注册之日起五年内提出请求的理由。若无法证明属于恶意注册的,则应提供相关文件证明注册商标容易导致混淆或者有其他不良影响。未按照本条的要求提供真实有效文件材料的,不予受理无效宣告申请”;以及商标共存协议体系的建立,商标共存协议体现了引证商标权利人的真实意思表示,是其基于市场实际审慎做出的排除混淆可能性的判断,应当予以充分的考虑和尊重。本文由五章内容构成:第一章阐述了商标共存的基本概念,对于商标共存的含义,介绍了商标共存产生的主要原因,探讨了商标共存在我国存在的正当性,为下文商标共存的进一步分类讨论做了有力铺垫,指出研究商标共存的必要性。第二章主要分析了我国商标共存的现状,从立法和司法实践两个方面切入主题,旨在引出我国立法层面的不完善以及司法标准不一的问题。进一步对于商标共存的境内外立法进行了比较分析,通过分析美国、欧洲以及亚洲若干国家与商标共存相关的立法,分析我国在商标共存方面立法的不足,指出执法司法实务中因此产生的问题和现状。第三章是本文的核心章节,在以混淆理论为前提的情况下,逐个分析商标共存的认定因素,并在此基础上将各个因素融入到具体情形中加以适用,整理出若干分析商标共存案件的逻辑思路。第四章是对上述内容的深化,以理论结合实践,针对我国商标共存的立法和司法给出若干建议,希望能对之后商标共存体系的发展给出一点启示。
[Abstract]:The new Trademark Law, to a great extent, further stipulates the right of prior use, the right of invalidation and revocation, but the problem of "trademark coexistence" is still pending. Because of the over-emphasis on the conflict of rights and the neglect of the coexistence of rights in the legal protection of trademarks, the administrative organs and judicial organs in China have for a long time in the past on trademarks. The exclusive right to use a registered trademark gives full protection and even holds that a registered trademark can exclude all similar trademark applications that have been registered. Once it is judged that the two trademarks are identical or similar in physical attributes, the appearance of the two trademarks in the market at the same time will certainly confuse consumers, and on this basis, the trademark application or trademark infringement will be rejected. Trademark owners are also actively seeking effective ways to achieve trademark coexistence in order to avoid litigation and infringement, and trademark coexistence agreements can achieve this goal. In fact, the coexistence of trademarks in foreign markets is a very common phenomenon. In the United States, Britain, Japan and other countries and regions, there is a relatively perfect system of trademark coexistence. The attitude of agreement is not clear, but the actual situation of market economy is that the fact and demand of trademark coexistence are more and more extensive, which leads to the fact that different organs can not judge and analyze various complicated cases according to a unified guiding principle, even the same in judicial practice, whether in the stage of trademark authorization or in the stage of trademark confirmation. This is not conducive to the effective development of the market, the key problem is that there is no direct legal provisions or reference standards for the coexistence of trademarks, and the relationship between trademark coexistence and confusion, trademark infringement and the establishment of trademark coexistence system are not clarified. Whether it is the Trademark Law of the People's Republic of China, the Implementing Regulations of the Trademark Law of the People's Republic of China or the relevant judicial interpretations, there is no law directly stipulating the coexistence of trademarks in the standards of trademark examination and adjudication, or any provision that can be referred to or invoked directly in the law enforcement or judicial proceedings. In the process of trademark authorization or confirmation, if the same or similar trademark situation occurs, the Trademark Office of China will generally reject the application and refuse to make a public announcement; or other people will raise objections within the period of the announcement of the preliminary trial to protect the prior rights and prevent malicious preemption; or for trademarks that have been successfully registered, in order to have a prior right. On October 14, 2014, Article 20 of the Judicial Interpretation issued by the Supreme People's Court stipulates certain provisions on the trademark coexistence agreement, indicating that when examining whether a trademark can coexist, the People's Court will refer to the coexistence agreement of both parties in order to judge the trademark coexistence. In recent two years'judicial practice, especially after the Liangzi Trademark Case, some courts have taken a positive and supportive attitude towards the coexistence of trademarks, such as the UGG Trademark Case concluded by the Beijing Higher People's Court. If there is no other evidence to prove the possibility of confusion, the court should respect the parties'right to dispose of the trademark independently. If the interests of consumers are not harmed more unnecessarily, the coexistence of trademarks should be fully respected. Article 2, paragraph 4, of the Lanham Act stipulates the necessary conditions for the coexistence of registration; Article 9, Directive No. 1 of the Council of the European Communities of 21 December 1988 on the Coordination of Trademark Legislation of Member States, stipulates that "loss of rights due to tolerance", and similar provisions are found in the existing Trademark and Other Marks Protection Act of Germany. Article 7 of the Trademark Law of Japan stipulates the right to the use of a trademark used in good faith. Article 32 of the Trademark Law of Japan stipulates the right to the use of a trademark used in advance, and Article 30, paragraph 3, of the Trademark Law of Taiwan of China stipulates and restricts the coexistence of trademarks directly or indirectly. On the premise, the coexistence of trademarks can be regarded as a legal state when trademarks do not constitute infringement, so the coexistence of trademarks should conform to fair legal value. Market pattern, subjective intention, trademark coexistence agreement and related consumer cognition, and put forward that each factor of identification will affect each other logically, for example, the determination of subjective intention can be reflected and derived by several other factors; specific to the actual identification of trademark coexistence, according to the coexistence of different trademarks. On the legislative level, this paper also gives some suggestions on the revision of Trademark Law, Regulations for the Implementation of Trademark Law and Trademark Examination Standards, including the provision of trademark registration requirements and examination standards, and the overuse of certain items. Trademark applications are excluded, for example, certain trademarks with lower saliency, because such trademarks are more prone to trademark coexistence and can only be obtained through the commercial use of trademarks, but these are uncertain factors, and may be precisely because of their lower saliency, leading to more difficult in actual commercial use. It may also be difficult to accumulate goodwill if its saliency is strengthened, and it is suggested that Article 30 of the Trademark Law be amended to read: "Where a trademark which has not been registered in accordance with the relevant provisions of this Law or has been registered in the same commodity or similar commodity with another person or has been preliminarily approved, the trademark which has been registered in the same commodity or similar commodity is the same or the trademark which has been preliminarily registered The Trademark Office shall reject the application and not make a public announcement if the application is similar to that of the trademark office, and the supplementary evidence system may be introduced into the "Application for Trademark Registration in Chapter II" of the Trademark Law and the "Regulations for the Implementation of the Trademark Law". A provision concerning the submission of documents proving the use of trademarks may be formulated as follows: "Application for trademarks" Where the trademark has been registered, the applicant shall submit the certificate of the actual use of the trademark at the time of application; if there is no objection to the expiration of the period of announcement for the unused trademark, the applicant shall submit the certificate of the actual use of the trademark before the expiration of the period of announcement or the application plan for the use of the trademark for the next three years. After the Trademark Office has examined the above-mentioned relevant certificates or documents of use, it shall approve and register the trademark and make a public announcement. "At the same time, it may announce the initial use time of the trademark examined and approved by the Trademark Office in the public announcement system, which may be used as a reference and suggestion for other people's trademark retrieval and application, so as to improve the quality of the registered trademark and avoid the prior use of the trademark The disputes arising from the issue of the right to use may be reduced by combining the registration system with the use of the trademark, so as to reduce the disputes between the first user and the later registrant of the trademark. If the prior obligee or interested party, in accordance with the provisions of Article 32 of this Law, requests to declare a registered trademark invalid after five years from the date of registration of the trademark, he or she shall fully explain the reasons why he or she has not made the request within five years from the date of registration of the trademark. If it is unable to prove malicious registration, he or she shall provide relevant documents to prove the content of the registered trademark. It is liable to cause confusion or other adverse effects. Where authentic and valid documents and materials are not provided in accordance with the requirements of this Article, the application for invalidation shall not be accepted; and the establishment of the system of trademark coexistence agreement, which embodies the true intention of the holder of the quoted trademark, is a prudent removal of confusion based on the actual market conditions. This paper consists of five chapters: Chapter one expounds the basic concept of trademark coexistence, the meaning of trademark coexistence, introduces the main causes of trademark coexistence, discusses the legitimacy of trademark coexistence in China, and makes a further discussion on the classification of trademark coexistence. Chapter 2 mainly analyzes the present situation of trademark coexistence in China, starting from the two aspects of legislation and judicial practice, aiming at eliciting the imperfection of legislation and the problems of different judicial standards. The third chapter is the core chapter of this paper. On the premise of confusion theory, it analyzes the factors that determine the coexistence of trademarks one by one. On the basis of this, the author puts various factors into the specific situation and applies them, and sorts out some logical ideas to analyze the trademark coexistence cases. The fourth chapter is the deepening of the above-mentioned contents, combining theory with practice, and gives some suggestions for the legislation and judicature of trademark coexistence in China, hoping to give some suggestions for the development of trademark coexistence system in the future. Point out.
【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
[Abstract]:The new Trademark Law, to a great extent, further stipulates the right of prior use, the right of invalidation and revocation, but the problem of "trademark coexistence" is still pending. Because of the over-emphasis on the conflict of rights and the neglect of the coexistence of rights in the legal protection of trademarks, the administrative organs and judicial organs in China have for a long time in the past on trademarks. The exclusive right to use a registered trademark gives full protection and even holds that a registered trademark can exclude all similar trademark applications that have been registered. Once it is judged that the two trademarks are identical or similar in physical attributes, the appearance of the two trademarks in the market at the same time will certainly confuse consumers, and on this basis, the trademark application or trademark infringement will be rejected. Trademark owners are also actively seeking effective ways to achieve trademark coexistence in order to avoid litigation and infringement, and trademark coexistence agreements can achieve this goal. In fact, the coexistence of trademarks in foreign markets is a very common phenomenon. In the United States, Britain, Japan and other countries and regions, there is a relatively perfect system of trademark coexistence. The attitude of agreement is not clear, but the actual situation of market economy is that the fact and demand of trademark coexistence are more and more extensive, which leads to the fact that different organs can not judge and analyze various complicated cases according to a unified guiding principle, even the same in judicial practice, whether in the stage of trademark authorization or in the stage of trademark confirmation. This is not conducive to the effective development of the market, the key problem is that there is no direct legal provisions or reference standards for the coexistence of trademarks, and the relationship between trademark coexistence and confusion, trademark infringement and the establishment of trademark coexistence system are not clarified. Whether it is the Trademark Law of the People's Republic of China, the Implementing Regulations of the Trademark Law of the People's Republic of China or the relevant judicial interpretations, there is no law directly stipulating the coexistence of trademarks in the standards of trademark examination and adjudication, or any provision that can be referred to or invoked directly in the law enforcement or judicial proceedings. In the process of trademark authorization or confirmation, if the same or similar trademark situation occurs, the Trademark Office of China will generally reject the application and refuse to make a public announcement; or other people will raise objections within the period of the announcement of the preliminary trial to protect the prior rights and prevent malicious preemption; or for trademarks that have been successfully registered, in order to have a prior right. On October 14, 2014, Article 20 of the Judicial Interpretation issued by the Supreme People's Court stipulates certain provisions on the trademark coexistence agreement, indicating that when examining whether a trademark can coexist, the People's Court will refer to the coexistence agreement of both parties in order to judge the trademark coexistence. In recent two years'judicial practice, especially after the Liangzi Trademark Case, some courts have taken a positive and supportive attitude towards the coexistence of trademarks, such as the UGG Trademark Case concluded by the Beijing Higher People's Court. If there is no other evidence to prove the possibility of confusion, the court should respect the parties'right to dispose of the trademark independently. If the interests of consumers are not harmed more unnecessarily, the coexistence of trademarks should be fully respected. Article 2, paragraph 4, of the Lanham Act stipulates the necessary conditions for the coexistence of registration; Article 9, Directive No. 1 of the Council of the European Communities of 21 December 1988 on the Coordination of Trademark Legislation of Member States, stipulates that "loss of rights due to tolerance", and similar provisions are found in the existing Trademark and Other Marks Protection Act of Germany. Article 7 of the Trademark Law of Japan stipulates the right to the use of a trademark used in good faith. Article 32 of the Trademark Law of Japan stipulates the right to the use of a trademark used in advance, and Article 30, paragraph 3, of the Trademark Law of Taiwan of China stipulates and restricts the coexistence of trademarks directly or indirectly. On the premise, the coexistence of trademarks can be regarded as a legal state when trademarks do not constitute infringement, so the coexistence of trademarks should conform to fair legal value. Market pattern, subjective intention, trademark coexistence agreement and related consumer cognition, and put forward that each factor of identification will affect each other logically, for example, the determination of subjective intention can be reflected and derived by several other factors; specific to the actual identification of trademark coexistence, according to the coexistence of different trademarks. On the legislative level, this paper also gives some suggestions on the revision of Trademark Law, Regulations for the Implementation of Trademark Law and Trademark Examination Standards, including the provision of trademark registration requirements and examination standards, and the overuse of certain items. Trademark applications are excluded, for example, certain trademarks with lower saliency, because such trademarks are more prone to trademark coexistence and can only be obtained through the commercial use of trademarks, but these are uncertain factors, and may be precisely because of their lower saliency, leading to more difficult in actual commercial use. It may also be difficult to accumulate goodwill if its saliency is strengthened, and it is suggested that Article 30 of the Trademark Law be amended to read: "Where a trademark which has not been registered in accordance with the relevant provisions of this Law or has been registered in the same commodity or similar commodity with another person or has been preliminarily approved, the trademark which has been registered in the same commodity or similar commodity is the same or the trademark which has been preliminarily registered The Trademark Office shall reject the application and not make a public announcement if the application is similar to that of the trademark office, and the supplementary evidence system may be introduced into the "Application for Trademark Registration in Chapter II" of the Trademark Law and the "Regulations for the Implementation of the Trademark Law". A provision concerning the submission of documents proving the use of trademarks may be formulated as follows: "Application for trademarks" Where the trademark has been registered, the applicant shall submit the certificate of the actual use of the trademark at the time of application; if there is no objection to the expiration of the period of announcement for the unused trademark, the applicant shall submit the certificate of the actual use of the trademark before the expiration of the period of announcement or the application plan for the use of the trademark for the next three years. After the Trademark Office has examined the above-mentioned relevant certificates or documents of use, it shall approve and register the trademark and make a public announcement. "At the same time, it may announce the initial use time of the trademark examined and approved by the Trademark Office in the public announcement system, which may be used as a reference and suggestion for other people's trademark retrieval and application, so as to improve the quality of the registered trademark and avoid the prior use of the trademark The disputes arising from the issue of the right to use may be reduced by combining the registration system with the use of the trademark, so as to reduce the disputes between the first user and the later registrant of the trademark. If the prior obligee or interested party, in accordance with the provisions of Article 32 of this Law, requests to declare a registered trademark invalid after five years from the date of registration of the trademark, he or she shall fully explain the reasons why he or she has not made the request within five years from the date of registration of the trademark. If it is unable to prove malicious registration, he or she shall provide relevant documents to prove the content of the registered trademark. It is liable to cause confusion or other adverse effects. Where authentic and valid documents and materials are not provided in accordance with the requirements of this Article, the application for invalidation shall not be accepted; and the establishment of the system of trademark coexistence agreement, which embodies the true intention of the holder of the quoted trademark, is a prudent removal of confusion based on the actual market conditions. This paper consists of five chapters: Chapter one expounds the basic concept of trademark coexistence, the meaning of trademark coexistence, introduces the main causes of trademark coexistence, discusses the legitimacy of trademark coexistence in China, and makes a further discussion on the classification of trademark coexistence. Chapter 2 mainly analyzes the present situation of trademark coexistence in China, starting from the two aspects of legislation and judicial practice, aiming at eliciting the imperfection of legislation and the problems of different judicial standards. The third chapter is the core chapter of this paper. On the premise of confusion theory, it analyzes the factors that determine the coexistence of trademarks one by one. On the basis of this, the author puts various factors into the specific situation and applies them, and sorts out some logical ideas to analyze the trademark coexistence cases. The fourth chapter is the deepening of the above-mentioned contents, combining theory with practice, and gives some suggestions for the legislation and judicature of trademark coexistence in China, hoping to give some suggestions for the development of trademark coexistence system in the future. Point out.
【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】
相关期刊论文 前10条
1 石传柏,李曙明;北方十省市商标办案协作会在郑召开[J];中华商标;2000年01期
2 李琛 ,孙维国;商标固有的显著性对其扩大保护的影响——关于两“醒目”商标异议案裁定结果不同的一种解释[J];知识产权;2003年05期
3 左旭初;我国第一部商标法规诞生始末[J];中华商标;2004年04期
4 王翔;赵泓任;;从商标功能的演变看商标保护理论的发展[J];中国工商管理研究;2006年07期
5 安青虎;;品牌与商标[J];知识产权;2006年04期
6 邱平荣;张晓云;;新农村建设中农产品商标保障策略探究[J];重庆科技学院学报(社会科学版);2007年05期
7 谷昕;;浅议中药商标保护问题及对策[J];经营管理者;2011年22期
8 周新艳;;试看中国企业海外商标保护需求[J];电子知识产权;2011年11期
9 唐永春;国际商标保护简述[J];国际贸易问题;1986年02期
10 谢元元;著名商标保护的研究[J];福建论坛(经济社会版);1996年06期
相关会议论文 前10条
1 吴凯;;药品商标保护的最新进展[A];中国药学会医药知识产权研究专业委员会2013年学术年会会议资料[C];2013年
2 瞿东亮;;如何运用商标保护战略防范商标侵权的风险和提高维权的力度[A];2009中华全国律师协会知识产权专业委员会年会暨中国律师知识产权高层论坛论文集（下）[C];2009年
3 孔德丽;;关于闲置商标的几点看法[A];哈尔滨市工商行政管理学会第四届会员代表大会会刊暨2001年度获奖优秀理论文章调研成果汇编[C];2003年
4 蔡叶菁;;商标共存问题研究——原理、比较与建构[A];探索社会主义司法规律与完善民商事法律制度研究——全国法院第23届学术讨论会获奖论文集（下）[C];2011年
5 刘佳婕;;论在先使用商标的保护[A];2013年中华全国专利代理人协会年会暨第四届知识产权论坛论文汇编第四部分[C];2013年
6 路洋;;试论商标的显著性特征[A];当代法学论坛（2008年第1辑）[C];2008年
7 刘远山;夏余杨;;论我国商标侵权及其民事和行政法律制裁[A];当代法学论坛（2007年第1辑）[C];2007年
8 姜斐斐;;论商标的淡化及其法律规制[A];2009中华全国律师协会知识产权专业委员会年会暨中国律师知识产权高层论坛论文集（上）[C];2009年
9 赵立春;;巧选商品项目,合理保护商标[A];2014年中华全国专利代理人协会年会第五届知识产权论坛论文（第二部分）[C];2014年
10 李静冰;;缺乏内在显著性的著名商标是否受反淡化法的保护——2002年国际商标协会第124届年会模拟法庭辩论综述[A];入世后知识产权法律服务实务研讨会暨全国律协知识产权专业委员会2002年年会论文汇编[C];2002年
相关重要报纸文章 前10条
1 刘红霞;论商标价值的构成[N];中国工商报;2002年
2 于梦;中部六省商标保护协作网将建[N];中国知识产权报;2007年
3 记者 王英;我市新增知名商标57件[N];苏州日报;2009年
4 李南玲 李 萍;“商标短视病”缠身中国企业[N];中国企业报;2005年
5 记者 姜龙;我市去年查办商标案件109起[N];大庆日报;2010年
6 记者 甘晓妹 通讯员 苗青;17个商标和企业将被重点保护[N];徐州日报;2010年
7 集佳知识产权代理有限公司 周新艳;中国企业海外商标保护需求特点[N];国际商报;2011年
8 本报记者 李春 实习生 许梦迪;构筑起企业商标保护“防火墙”[N];中国工商报;2012年
9 陈希荣 牟文秋;包装图案及商标的定位与设计[N];中国包装报;2005年
10 陈奇伟 刘晓军;商标与知识经济时代[N];中国工商报;2001年
相关博士学位论文 前10条
1 李小武;商标反淡化研究[D];中国社会科学院研究生院;2010年
2 叶强;我国商标侵权治理的制度因素研究[D];南京航空航天大学;2009年
3 黄晖;商标权利范围的比较研究[D];中国社会科学院研究生院;2000年
4 徐聪颖;论商标的符号表彰功能[D];西南政法大学;2011年
5 魏森;论商标的淡化[D];对外经济贸易大学;2007年
6 金YТ，
本文编号：2202903
本文链接：https://www.wllwen.com/falvlunwen/minfalunwen/2202903.html
