京津“泥人张”不正当竞争案分析

发布时间：2018-04-08 15:51

本文选题：知名商品　切入点：相近似　出处：《兰州大学》2013年硕士论文

【摘要】：近些年来,随着经济的发展,一些老字号的逐渐的市场化和商业化,在推动了诸多老字号自身发展壮大的同时,一些知名商品特有名称引起的知识产权的纠纷也深刻影响着这些老字号的发展。特别是一些未经注册的知名商品特有名称,被仿冒、假冒的现象更是层出不穷,严重地破坏了市场经济秩序。虽然《反不正当竞争法》和《商标法》规定了保护知名商品特有名称、包装和装潢,却不能满足司法实践中对于侵权的确认和处罚,更不能有效的预防侵权行为的发生,于是就出现了诸多的案件旷日持久地诉讼和争议,使得知名商品特有名称的权利人维权艰难。本文以京津“泥人张”商标争议案为例,以一审、二审和最高人民法院的裁判内容为切入点,结合《反不正当竞争法》和《商标法》来分析本案存在的几个争议焦点,并对这些问题进一步思考并且提出一些建议。首先,通对过案情和审判结果的回顾,对司法实践中北京“泥人张”的行为是否构成不正当竞争提出不同观点。其次,笔者从知名商品特有名称的认定、相同或相近似使用的认定和是否造成公众混淆等问题展开论述,论证北京“泥人张”的行为是否构成不正当竞争。最后通过对案件的分析引出思考,对我国知名商品认定中存在的问题和法律保护的范围和力度的不足进行探讨,提出完善我国知名商品特有名称保护的建议。由于知名商品特有名称的不正当竞争行为具有标准模糊、不易认定的特点,笔者希望通过本文对司法实践中存在的一些问题提供一定帮助,从而维护正常市场经济秩序,保护知名商品的权利人的合法权益。
[Abstract]:In recent years, with the development of the economy, the gradual marketization and commercialization of some old brands have promoted the development of many old brands themselves at the same time.The intellectual property disputes caused by the special names of some famous commodities also deeply affect the development of these old brands.In particular, some unregistered special names of well-known commodities are copied and counterfeited, which seriously destroy the order of the market economy.Although the Anti-unfair Competition Law and the Trademark Law provide for the protection of the specific names, packaging and decoration of well-known commodities, they cannot satisfy the recognition and punishment of infringement in judicial practice, let alone effectively prevent the occurrence of infringement.As a result, there are many cases of protracted litigation and controversy, which makes it difficult for the right holders of the special names of well-known commodities to defend their rights.Taking the case of "clay man Zhang" trademark dispute in Beijing and Tianjin as an example, taking the contents of the first instance, the second instance and the Supreme people's Court as the starting point, and combining with the Anti-unfair Competition Law and the Trademark Law, this paper analyzes several controversial points in this case.And to these questions further ponder and put forward some suggestions.First of all, after reviewing the facts of the case and the outcome of the trial, Tong puts forward different views on whether Beijing's "muddy Zhang" behavior constitutes unfair competition in judicial practice.Secondly, the author discusses the identification of the unique name of well-known commodities, the identification of the same or similar use and whether it causes public confusion, and proves whether the behavior of "clay man Zhang" in Beijing constitutes unfair competition.At last, through the analysis of the case, the author discusses the problems existing in the cognizance of well-known commodities in our country and the insufficiency of the scope and intensity of legal protection, and puts forward some suggestions to perfect the protection of the special names of well-known commodities in our country.Because the unfair competition behavior of the special name of well-known commodity has the characteristics of vague standard and difficult to identify, the author hopes to provide some help to some problems in judicial practice through this article, so as to maintain the order of normal market economy.To protect the legitimate rights and interests of the right holders of well-known commodities.
【学位授予单位】：兰州大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2013
【分类号】：D922.294;D923.43

【参考文献】