欧盟商标侵权的判断标准研究
发布时间：2018-08-29 08:10
【摘要】：2013年修订的《商标法》第57条第2项明确引入了混淆可能性,从而使得我国《商标法》上的商标侵权判断标准发生了根本改变。我国《商标法》上的商标侵权判断标准由“商标相同或近似+商品相同或类似”标准改变为“商标相同+商品相同”与“商标和商品一方不相同但近似或者类似+混淆可能性”两种标准。鉴于我国《商标法》上的商标侵权标准的法律规定与《欧洲共同体商标条例》第9条第1款的表述如出一辙,研究欧盟商标法上实际运行着的商标侵权判断标准对于我国《商标法》第57条第1项和第2项的规定具有相当的借鉴意义。在欧盟,商标和商品均相同的情况,直接认定为商标侵权,不考虑混淆可能性。而在商标和商品有一方不相同而近似或者类似的情况下,尚需要混淆可能性才能够构成商标侵权,也就是说,在这种情况下欧盟商标侵权的判断标准是“相似性+混淆可能性”。在欧盟商标侵权判断标准中,相似性与混淆可能性的关系可以解释为以前者为基准,后者为限定条件的关系。在对相似性进行认定时,欧盟商标法和欧洲法院是不将混淆可能性作为因素进行认定的,只对其进行客观认定。《欧共体商标条例》立法理由第7条第3句话一直被我们翻译后理解为相似性的认定必须通过混淆可能性,而那句话传达的正确意思仅仅只是相似性与混淆可能性相关而已。之前错误的理解一直以来阻碍了相似性认定的客观性论证。在相似性的具体认定中,评价原则为整体评价原则。商标相似性认定是对听觉、视觉、意义等方面的因素进行互补性的认定,显著性部分在听觉、视觉、意义因素的认定过程中扮演着重要角色。商品类似性认定则包含商品或服务的性质、最终用户和使用方法以及它们是否构成竞争或相互补充等要素。必须结合个案将所有与之有关的因素考虑在内。对于混淆可能性的认定而言,评价原则与相似性认定一致为整体评价原则,认定因素主要包括商标相似性,商品或者服务的类似性,商标声誉及显著性三大类。混淆可能性是介于实际混淆和可能混淆之间的混淆,也就是限制性解释的混淆。条文中出现的联想可能性,则可理解为理想可能性是达到混淆可能性的一种途径。联想可能性不能取代混淆可能性作为侵权判断标准。严格意义上的联想是不能判定商标侵权的。我国2013年版商标法引入混淆可能性,混淆可能性是商标相似性认定后的限制性条件,商标相似性认定是商标侵权判断的基础。二者共同构成商标和商品一方不相同但近似或者类似情况下的侵权判断标准。混淆可能性的具体认定因素需要重新归类。相似性和混淆可能性之间的关系可以借鉴欧盟在以后的司法解释中做出规定。我国商标侵权判断标准需注重整体评价原则的正确和规范使用,在运用整体评价原则时把握各影响因素之间的协调和补充作用。在司法实践操作中相似性认定需客观。
[Abstract]:The second item of Article 57 of the Trademark Law revised in 2013 clearly introduces the possibility of confusion, which makes the judgment standard of trademark infringement in the Trademark Law of China fundamentally changed. In view of the fact that the legal provisions of the trademark infringement standard in China's Trademark Law are the same as those in Article 9, paragraph 1, of the Trademark Ordinance of the European Community, this paper studies the trademark infringement judgment standard in practice in the EU Trademark Law for China. The provisions of Items 1 and 2 of Article 57 of the Trademark Law are of considerable referential significance. In the European Union, trademarks and commodities are identical and are directly identified as trademark infringement without considering the possibility of confusion. In the case of trademarks and commodities with one party being different, similar or similar, the possibility of confusion is still needed to constitute trademark infringement. In this case, the criterion of EU trademark infringement is "similarity + confusion possibility". In EU trademark infringement criterion, the relationship between similarity and confusion possibility can be interpreted as the relationship between the former as the criterion and the latter as the restrictive condition. The third sentence of Article 7 of the EC Trademark Ordinance has always been interpreted by us to mean that identification of similarity must pass through confusion possibility, and the correct meaning conveyed by that sentence is only before similarity is related to confusion possibility. The wrong understanding has always hindered the objective demonstration of similarity determination. In the concrete determination of similarity, the evaluation principle is the overall evaluation principle. The identification of commodity similarity includes the nature of goods or services, end-users and usage methods, and whether they constitute competition or complementarity. All relevant factors must be taken into account in the context of a case. For the identification of confusion possibility, the evaluation principle and the identification of similarity are consistent as the overall evaluation source. The confusion possibility is the confusion between the actual confusion and the possible confusion, that is, the confusion of restrictive interpretation. The associative possibility appearing in the clause can be understood as the possibility of achieving confusion. Associative possibility can not replace confusion possibility as a criterion for judging trademark infringement. Strictly speaking, association can not judge trademark infringement. Both of them constitute the judgment criteria of trademark and commodity infringement under different but similar or similar circumstances. The specific factors determining the possibility of confusion need to be reclassified. Correct and standardized use of the principle of body evaluation, grasp the coordination and complementary role of various factors in the application of the principle of overall evaluation.
【学位授予单位】：湘潭大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2015
【分类号】：D923.43
本文编号：2210700
[Abstract]:The second item of Article 57 of the Trademark Law revised in 2013 clearly introduces the possibility of confusion, which makes the judgment standard of trademark infringement in the Trademark Law of China fundamentally changed. In view of the fact that the legal provisions of the trademark infringement standard in China's Trademark Law are the same as those in Article 9, paragraph 1, of the Trademark Ordinance of the European Community, this paper studies the trademark infringement judgment standard in practice in the EU Trademark Law for China. The provisions of Items 1 and 2 of Article 57 of the Trademark Law are of considerable referential significance. In the European Union, trademarks and commodities are identical and are directly identified as trademark infringement without considering the possibility of confusion. In the case of trademarks and commodities with one party being different, similar or similar, the possibility of confusion is still needed to constitute trademark infringement. In this case, the criterion of EU trademark infringement is "similarity + confusion possibility". In EU trademark infringement criterion, the relationship between similarity and confusion possibility can be interpreted as the relationship between the former as the criterion and the latter as the restrictive condition. The third sentence of Article 7 of the EC Trademark Ordinance has always been interpreted by us to mean that identification of similarity must pass through confusion possibility, and the correct meaning conveyed by that sentence is only before similarity is related to confusion possibility. The wrong understanding has always hindered the objective demonstration of similarity determination. In the concrete determination of similarity, the evaluation principle is the overall evaluation principle. The identification of commodity similarity includes the nature of goods or services, end-users and usage methods, and whether they constitute competition or complementarity. All relevant factors must be taken into account in the context of a case. For the identification of confusion possibility, the evaluation principle and the identification of similarity are consistent as the overall evaluation source. The confusion possibility is the confusion between the actual confusion and the possible confusion, that is, the confusion of restrictive interpretation. The associative possibility appearing in the clause can be understood as the possibility of achieving confusion. Associative possibility can not replace confusion possibility as a criterion for judging trademark infringement. Strictly speaking, association can not judge trademark infringement. Both of them constitute the judgment criteria of trademark and commodity infringement under different but similar or similar circumstances. The specific factors determining the possibility of confusion need to be reclassified. Correct and standardized use of the principle of body evaluation, grasp the coordination and complementary role of various factors in the application of the principle of overall evaluation.
【学位授予单位】：湘潭大学
【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10条
1 王太平;卢结华;;欧盟商标法上侵犯商标权的判断标准[J];知识产权;2014年11期
2 王太平;;商标侵权的判断标准:相似性与混淆可能性之关系[J];法学研究;2014年06期
3 孙红优;马千里;;反思“混淆”[J];科技与法律;2013年03期
4 刘庆辉;;我国商标近似、商品类似的判定:标准、问题及出路[J];知识产权;2013年04期
5 苏平;胡海容;李庆;;论商标侵权中“商标使用”的判断标准[J];法律适用;2013年01期
6 董新中;;“混淆可能性”:商标侵权判断之标准[J];太原师范学院学报(社会科学版);2012年05期
7 邓宏光;;论商标侵权的判断标准——兼论《中华人民共和国商标法》第52条的修改[J];法商研究;2010年01期
8 彭学龙;;商标混淆类型分析与我国商标侵权制度的完善[J];法学;2008年05期
9 彭学龙;;论“混淆可能性”——兼评《中华人民共和国商标法修改草稿》(征求意见稿)[J];法律科学(西北政法学院学报);2008年01期
10 朱工宇;;美国《商标淡化修正法案》述评[J];时代法学;2007年06期
相关硕士学位论文 前2条
1 董静驰;比较广告中商标侵权的认定研究[D];南京理工大学;2007年
2 陈丽;商标侵权行为的判定研究[D];西南政法大学;2006年
，本文编号：2210700
本文链接：https://www.wllwen.com/falvlunwen/minfalunwen/2210700.html
