商标与其他商业标识共存判定标准研究

发布时间：2018-10-24 21:28

【摘要】：最高人民法院在《审理商标授权确权若干问题的意见》中提到,对于那些已经使用较长时间且已经具有较高声誉及相关公众群体的商标,应充分的尊重客观市场情况,维护市场已形成的稳定秩序。我国涉及到商业标识冲突的案件不在少数,但是由于商标是众多商业标识中最具有排他效力的标识,一直受到《商标法》严格的保护,因此无论是商标与商标之间的权利冲突,还是商标与其他商业标识之间的冲突,在司法审判当中,判定共存的标准并不明晰。我国目前的混淆可能性标准与近似标准存在一定混乱之处,而商业标识共存除了需要以混淆可能性标准加以判定外,还需要考虑知名度情况、当事人主观情况以及历史与现实市场格局等。但是目前我国在判定知名度、主观意图、市场格局以及其他具体标准方面没有明确的规定,从时间到空间,划分的标准都很模糊,使得案例的审理个案性过强。而关于签订有共存协议的案件,我国虽然承认其合同性质,但实践中对待共存协议的效力问题态度并不明朗,对于共存协议的审查、约定内容等细节问题更是无法可依。确立其标准有利于确立混淆可能性在商标法律制度中的地位及适用的灵活度,其内容的完善和细化也是司法实践中能够准确合理判定商业标识共存的关键。商标与其他商业标识共存尽管在我国实践中的承认度有所提高,但是由于我国的混淆可能性判定标准在适用方面不够完善,加之在判定商业标识共存时大多需要考量除混淆可能性以外的众多因素,使得商业标识在我国的判定中依然存在些许问题。我国虽然将共存协议界定为合同,也肯定了其合法性,但是对共存协议内容的审核以及效力的判断仍然存在空白。我国司法实践中关于共存协议的司法判例也是比较少。针对我国在实践当中所考量的标准,本文着重探讨了在判定商业标识共存时的混淆可能性标准、知名度的标准、主观意图标准以及对于共存协议等考量标准。笔者认为应该明确我国混淆可能性的相关判定标准,引入对商标使用的时间及地域等判定因素。以混淆可能性作为商标与其他商业标识能否共存的最终检验标准,将商业标识构成要素上的近似、使用的时间和地域、已经形成的市场格局、当事人主观意图以及当事人之前签署的共存协议等作为是否有可能造成相关消费者混淆的具体考量因素。关于共促协议的效力问题,可以考虑结合我国的实际情况,并参考国外相关案件中对于共存协议的阐述,合理看待共存协议,对于不涉及重大公共利益的共存协议,持以更为宽容的态度。共存协议在当事人平等自愿的基础上达成合同性约定,在不严重侵害社会公共利益的前提下,根据合同自由原则,应确保其有效性,鼓励意思自治,允许商标与其他商业标识共存,互相影响,获得更大的经济利益。通过共存协议和平、无冲突地使用近似标识,有利于市场公平竞争,实现互利共赢。本文共分四个部分。第一章概述,主要介绍了本文所写商业标识的概念以及冲突,在冲突的前提下,引出商标与商业标识的共存,从法律经济学角度、公平正义原理的角度分析了商业标识共存的法理基础。第二章是对于我国目前实践中商标与其他商业标识冲突后的裁判情况及案件梳理,立足于我国现实,实事求是地分析了我国商标与其他商业标识共存的原因、类型;运用归纳、列举的方法简要介绍了我国商业标识共存的现状,并通过现状的分析归纳出其中存在的不足。第三章主要介绍了国外商标与其他商业标识共存的情况,包括立法方面的规定以及判例的梳理,并讨论国外的经验和思路是否值得我国的借鉴参考。第四章主要分析了我国目前在判定商业标识共存的过程中考量的因素以及内容的完善,并在借鉴国外立法经验的基础上,运用分析比较的方法论述了司法判定中的标准及内容。本文旨在借鉴、吸取国外立法与判例经验教训的基础上,归纳以及分析我国商标与其他商业标识共存判定标准的不足,探寻我国的在此方面的完善途径。结合我国商标与其他商业标识共存的现状,明确我国判定标准的内容,完善法定共存和约定共存所适用的条件,为我国商标与其他商业标识共存的判定标准提出自己的建议。
[Abstract]:In the opinion of the Supreme People's Court in a number of questions concerning the right to authorize trademark authorization, the Supreme People's Court mentioned that for those trademarks which have been used for a long time and have a higher reputation and relevant public groups, the objective market situation should be fully respected and the stable order formed by the market should be maintained. The number of cases involving commercial identification conflicts in our country has been limited, but since the trademark is the most exclusive identification of the number of commercial logos, it has always been protected by the <0.05> strict protection, and hence the rights conflicts between the trade mark and the trade mark, It is also the conflict between the trade mark and other business identities. In judicial trials, it is not clear that the standard of coexistence is not clear. At present, there is a certain confusion between the possibility criterion of confusion and the approximate standard, and the coexistence of commercial identification needs to consider the popularity situation, the subjective situation of the parties, the history and the real market pattern, besides the need to judge the possibility criterion of confusion. But at present, our country has no definite stipulations in judging the popularity, the subjective intention, the market pattern and other specific standards. However, in the case of signing a coexistence agreement, although the nature of the contract is recognized, the attitude towards the validity of the coexistence agreement in practice is not clear, and the details such as the review of the coexistence agreement and the agreed contents can't be relied upon. The establishment of the standard is conducive to establishing the position of confusion possibility in the trademark legal system and the flexibility of application, and the perfection and refinement of its content is also the key to be able to accurately and reasonably determine the co-existence of business identity in judicial practice. While the coexistence of trademarks and other commercial identities has improved in the practice of our country, it is not perfect in the application of the criteria for judging the possibility of confusion in our country, and many factors besides the possibility of confusion need to be taken into account in determining the co-existence of the business identity, so that the commercial identification still has some problems in the determination of our country. Although the coexistence agreement is defined as a contract, its validity is affirmed, but there is still a gap in the review and validity of the coexistence agreement. The judicial precedents of the coexistence agreement in our judicial practice are relatively few. In view of the standards considered by our country in practice, this paper discusses the criterion of confusion possibility, the standard of visibility, the standard of subjective intention and the criterion of the coexistence protocol. In the author's opinion, the relevant decision criteria for the possibility of confusion in our country should be clarified, and the factors such as the time and region for the use of the trademark should be introduced. a market pattern that has been formed in terms of the likelihood of confusion as the ultimate inspection criterion for the co-existence of the trade mark with other commercial logos, the approximation, the time and region used, the time and region used, The subjective intention of the parties and the coexistence agreements signed by the parties may serve as a specific consideration for the possibility of confusion between the relevant consumers. On the issue of the effectiveness of co-promotion agreement, we can take into consideration the actual situation of our country, and refer to the elaboration of the coexistence agreement in the foreign related cases, view the coexistence agreement reasonably, and take a more tolerant attitude towards the coexistence agreement that does not involve the major public interests. Under the premise of not serious infringement of the public interest, the coexistence agreement shall ensure its validity, encourage the autonomy of meaning, allow the trademark to coexist with other commercial logos and influence each other, according to the principle of freedom of contract. to gain greater economic benefits. By the coexistence protocol, the approximate identification can be used without conflict, thereby being beneficial to fair competition in the market and realizing mutual benefit and win-win. This paper is divided into four parts. The first chapter outlines the concept and conflict of the business identity written in this paper. On the premise of conflict, the coexistence of the trade mark and the commercial identity is led out, and the legal basis of the coexistence of business identity is analyzed from the angle of legal economics and the principle of fairness and justice. The second chapter is to analyze the reasons and types of the coexistence of trademarks and other commercial logos in our country based on our reality and seek truth from facts. This paper briefly introduces the present situation of co-existence of commercial logos in China, and sums up the deficiencies in the analysis of the present situation. The third chapter mainly introduces the coexistence of foreign trade marks and other commercial logos, including the legislative provisions and the carding of the case, and discusses whether foreign experiences and thoughts are worthy of reference in our country. The fourth chapter mainly analyzes the factors that China is considering in the process of judging the co-existence of business identity and the perfection of content, and discusses the standards and contents in judicial decision based on the reference of foreign legislation experience. On the basis of drawing lessons from foreign legislation and case lessons, this paper sums up and analyzes the deficiency of China's trademark and other business identity coexistence judging standards, and explores the perfect way of our country in this respect. In combination with the present situation of the coexistence of trademark and other commercial logos in our country, it is clear that the content of our decision-making standard, perfect the conditions applicable to the coexistence of legal coexistence and agreement, and put forward its own suggestions for the determination standard of the coexistence of trademark and other commercial logos in our country.
【学位授予单位】：华东政法大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2016
【分类号】：D923.43

【相似文献】