商标财产论

发布时间：2018-04-25 12:39

本文选题：商标权 + 商标功能论　；参考：《华东政法大学》2014年博士论文

【摘要】：商标权被传统地归类为私权和知识产权，但商标权具有区别于典型知识产权的特征。商标权的本质困扰着商标法研究者和裁判者，商标救济的真正基础究竟是保护商人的财产利益还是保护消费者免受混淆误认之虞？本文提出了商标财产本质论，认为商标法是权利授予法，发动商标救济的动因是商标权的支配力，保护商人的财产利益是商标救济的真正基础，消费者的利益在商标法中不具有独立性，应当根据支配性原理解释和重构商标侵权规则。全文共有五章，第一章引出商标法体系定位的困惑，第二章从历史角度论证商标财产论，第三章从规则适用角度研究商标财产论，第四章构建新型（内涵）的商标财产论，第五章研究商标财产本质论的运用。本文第一章是商标法的体系论，是对商标法的体系定位进行研究，着重对商标法与反不正当竞争法之间的关系进行阐述。商标法与反不正当竞争法既有联系又有区别，商标法的体系定位成为困扰研究者的问题，彰显商标权本质研究之必要。两者之间的差异对决定商标法的归属更具意义，体现了商标法的个性化特征，是商标财产论研究的序曲。就联系而言，商标法和反不正当竞争法均源自欺诈侵权之诉；在我国，仿冒之诉与商标侵权共同组建了商业标识保护体系，两者在构成要件上具有多个相同的联结点；商标法和反不正当竞争法还具有相同的救济请求权。就差异而言，商标法和反不正当竞争法具有不同的保护客体，前者的私法特征浓厚，商誉是商标权的客体，商标侵权之诉的核心在于制止贸易被转移对商人所造成的损害，商标保护的目标在于保护商人的财产利益。商标法不为消费者提供专门保护，商标法不存在消费者协会或其他公立机构的诉权问题。就不法行为的构成要件而言，商标法中的“竞争关系”和“竞争行为”均具有区别于反不正当竞争法的内涵。就类型化程度而言，商标侵权行为的类型采法定主义，具有封闭性，而不正当竞争行为则呈现出开放性的特点。第二章是商标财产论的历史论，是在商标法的早期和晚近发展历史中梳理出商标权的本质。第一节透过商标法的早期发展历史梳理商标权成为一种财产权的过程和原因。十九世纪后半叶，商人对商业利益的保护诉求、古典自然法思潮、英国司法运动的倡导以及商标立法运动等因素相互呼应，使商标权的类型化障碍通过中央注册登记制度的引入而得到解决，商标权作为一种财产权的观点广为接受。第二节通过考察近现代商标法的发展史，发现商标财产论的基础地位。商标功能对商标权扩张的拉动作用不能稀释商标权本质的认识，质量保证功能、广告功能和投资功能实质上都是商标财产论的直观运用、体现了商标权作为一种财产权的逻辑，而最具争议的识别功能的扩张，一旦结合商标法早期发展过程中早已解决的混淆可能性的地位，也不难理解识别功能发展的背后仍然是权利人财产权控制范围的扩张，仍然是在商标财产论的框架之中。第三章主要从规则适用角度界分商标财产论和商标功能论，可以称为商标财产论的规则论。代表功利主义哲学的商标功能论，将商标法作为反不正当竞争法的一环，将商标作为实施仿冒行为的工具，以商标功能是否受损（消费者是否受到混淆）为商标侵权标准，以行为的不正当性作为发动救济的源泉。依照商标财产论，发动商标救济机制的动因是商标权的支配力，保护商人的财产利益是商标救济的基础，商标权（支配权）受到侵害是商标侵权认定的标准，消费者混淆可能性则是判断财产损害即将发生的事实证据。以法哲学基础作为商标本质论的论证标准，在于检讨商标财产论与商标功能论在法哲学上的正当性。体现商标财产论的自然法哲学对商标权类型化的贡献功不可没，，在商标法的发展早期阶段为商标权的正当性提供了道德基础，而体现商标功能论的功利主义哲学对现代商标法规则的建构和解释则越来越有说服力。以保护对象作为论证标准，商标权是商标法框架中的一种权利，也是反不正当竞争法框架中的一种财产法益，但究其本质而言，商标权是一种财产权利，其所调整的是商人对商标中商誉的支配关系。以构成要件为论证标准，未注册商标的保护存在地域性权利现象，注册商标的保护则不支持远方市场的使用，在商标的“相同使用”情形，依照商标权的支配力可直接认定成立商标侵权，至于是否发生混淆可能性则在所不论。论文第四章是对商标财产论的重构，旨在调和商标财产论和商标功能论之间的矛盾。第一节沿着传统民法的研究路径，构造商标权的支配法律关系。文章认为，商标权的客体是承载在商标中的商誉，商标权人可对其商誉直接支配，商标权内容的实现无需第三人协助。商标权是一种支配权，具有占有、使用、收益和处分权能，遵循“所有权权能分离理论”，在此意义上，商标权是一种类似所有权的完全物权，商标权人可基于其意志创设“类定限物权”，被许可人的独占许可权就是一种类定限物权。商标权的支配性，意味着在缺乏可适用的规则时，原则可类推适用传统物权法规则。共有人对商标权的处分，如转让和放弃商标权，应取得全体共有人的同意；每一共有人均可提起商标侵权之诉，无需经其他共有人同意。就善意取得而言，登记簿上商标权属的稳定性并不高，难以保障商标权的交易安全，不足以产生商标权属的公信力，商标权不能适用善意取得。如何解释竞争性特征在商标财产论中的地位，是第二节需要解决的问题。在商标法体系内部，贯穿在商标法原理和规则中的“中等消费者”、“混淆可能性”、“商品或服务相同或类似”、“商品或服务知名度”等市场因素，与传统财产权没有直接关系，而与市场竞争相关，商标权具有竞争功能，商标法以确保商品的自由流通和市场的有序竞争为目标之一。竞争功能影响着商标权规则的建构和商标权本质的判断。传统财产法的研究思路无法解释商标法的全部规则，商标法兼具有动态资源利用法的特性。贯穿在商标法中的“中等消费者”、“混淆可能性”、“商品或服务相同或类似”等市场因素构成对商标支配权的限制，统一于商标财产论中。商标权竞争功能的限制主要有三个方面：商标使用的限制，即商标使用对注册商标权行使及效力的限制；竞争关系的限制，即商标禁止权的“射程”仅限定在相同或类似的商品或服务上；竞争秩序的限制，即商标权的外围边界由商标功能来划定，商标功能是竞争秩序的体现，损害商标功能实质上是对竞争秩序的损害。第五章阐述商标财产论的运用，第一节依据这一理论对商标权基本问题进行回应，第二节研究这一理论对商标法具体规则的解释和建构意义。商标法规则的解释和建构应遵循所有人中心主义。就保护目标而言，商标法的立法目的是保护商人的利益，消费者的混淆可能性是证明商标权人贸易被转移（损害即将发生，即传统民法上的“危险”）的事实证据，混淆可能性的认定在性质上是一种事实判断。“混淆标准”并未在商标法中树立一个与“所有人中心主义”相对立的“消费者中心主义”，不具有独立性，也不应称为侵权认定的“标准”。商标法上的支配关系体现为商标权人与商誉之间的“一一对应的联系”。就商标权归属的争论而言，商人对商标权的享有乃基于法律的授权，所授予的商标权是一种支配性质的权利，商标权的积极和消极权能均源自于支配力。支配属性是商标权的本质属性，商标法的真正归属是知识产权法，而不是反不正当竞争法。商标法以保护商人利益为最终目的，间接地保护消费者不受混淆误认的公共利益，这种间接保护可以理解为一种“反射利益”。现代商标法的保护目的呈现多元化的发展趋势，但并未脱离商标权的本质，是否应启动商标救济机制，仍需回归构成要件的分析。就商标侵权规则而言，首先，商标权的保护范围可划分为专属区域和延伸区域，两个区域均属财产利益的区域，是商标权的支配范围。其次，落入商标权专属区域的行为，即在相同商品或服务上使用相同商标的行为，构成商标侵权，至于商标未使用或者存在实际混淆的市场调查报告等因素，则在所不问。是否落入延伸区域的行为则根据商标使用行为、混淆可能性或淡化可能性进行认定；混淆或淡化可能性是损害发生的表征，并非商标侵权的要件，存在混淆或淡化可能性则表明存在侵犯商标权的危险，依支配权对危险排除的原理可请求消除危险。最后，对商标支配权的侵犯是指商标权人不能圆满自由地支配承载在商标中的商誉，使商标权人的支配利益“外溢”，商标法应以商标显著性受到损害为侵权判定标准，对显著性不同的商标掌握不同的认定尺度（淡化可能性或混淆可能性）。商标权所控制的行为是商标使用行为，应以商标使用行为作为界分商标直接侵权和间接侵权的标准。
[Abstract]:Trademark rights are traditionally classified as private rights and intellectual property rights, but trademark rights are different from typical intellectual property rights. The essence of trademark rights perplexes the researchers and judges of trademark law. The real basis for trademark relief is to protect the property interests of merchants or protect consumers from confusion and misrecognition. This paper puts forward trademark wealth. On the basis of the theory of nature, the trademark law is the right granting law. The motivation of the trademark relief is the dominating force of the trademark right. The protection of the property interests of the merchants is the real foundation of the trademark remedy. The interests of the consumers are not independent in the trademark law. The trademark infringement rules should be explained and reconstructed according to the dominant principle. The full text has five chapters, the first chapter It leads to the confusion of the positioning of the trademark law system. The second chapter demonstrates the theory of trademark property from the historical point of view. The third chapter studies the theory of trademark property from the angle of the application of rules, the fourth chapter constructs a new (connotation) theory of trademark property, and the fifth chapter studies the application of the essence of trademark property.
The first chapter of this article is the system theory of trademark law. It is a study of the system orientation of the trademark law. It emphasizes the relationship between the trademark law and the anti unfair competition law. The trademark law and the anti unfair competition law have both connections and differences. The system orientation of the Trademark Law becomes a problem that puzzles the researchers and highlights the necessity of the study of the essence of the trademark right. The difference between them is more meaningful for deciding the ownership of trademark law, reflecting the individualized characteristics of trademark law, and is a prelude to the study of trademark property theory.
As far as contact is concerned, both trademark law and anti unfair competition law originate from the lawsuit of fraudulent tort; in our country, the commercial logo protection system has been formed by the counterfeiting and trademark infringement. Both of them have the same joint points on the constitutive requirements; the trademark law and the Anti Unfair Competition Law have the same right of request for relief. The standard law and the anti unfair competition law have different protection objects. The former has strong characteristics of private law, goodwill is the object of trademark rights. The core of the trademark infringement lawsuit is to prevent the damage caused by the trade transferred to the merchant. The purpose of the trademark protection is to protect the profit of the merchant's property. The trademark law does not provide special protection for the consumer. The standard law does not exist in the right to appeal of the consumer association or other public institutions. As for the constitutive requirements of the wrongful act, the "competitive relationship" and "competitive behavior" in the trademark law are different from the connotations of the anti unfair competition law. The proper competitive behavior is characterized by openness.
The second chapter is the historical theory of the theory of trademark property. It combs the essence of trademark right in the early and late development history of trademark law. The first section, through the early development history of the trademark law, combs the process and reason for the trademark right to become a kind of property right. In the second half of the nineteenth Century, the demand for the merchant's protection of business interests, the classical natural law trend of thought, The advocacy of the British judicial movement and the movement of the trademark legislation echoed each other so that the typization of trademark rights was solved through the introduction of the central registration system, and the view of trademark right as a property right was widely accepted.
The second section, through the investigation of the history of the development of the modern trademark law, finds the basic position of the theory of trademark property. The role of trademark function can not dilute the essence of trademark right, and the function of quality assurance, advertising function and investment function are the intuitionistic application of the trademark property theory, which embodies the trademark right as a kind of property. The logic of right, and the expansion of the most controversial recognition function, once combined with the position of the confusing possibility that has been solved in the process of the early development of the trademark law, it is not difficult to understand that behind the development of the recognition function is still the expansion of the scope of the property rights control of the rights holders, still in the framework of the theory of trademark property.
The third chapter mainly divides the trademark property theory and the trademark function theory from the angle of rule application. It can be called the rule theory of the trademark property theory. It represents the trademark function theory of utilitarianism philosophy. It takes the trademark law as a ring of anti unfair competition law, and takes the trademark as a tool for the implementation of the counterfeit behavior. In accordance with the trademark property theory, the motivation of launching trademark relief mechanism is the dominating force of trademark rights. The protection of the property interests of businessmen is the basis of trademark remedy, and the infringement of trademark right (Zhi Peiquan) is the standard of trademark infringement identification, and the confusion of consumers can be confused. Energy is the factual evidence to judge the imminent occurrence of property damage.
The standard of demonstration of the basis of legal philosophy as the essence of trademark is to review the legitimacy of trademark property theory and trademark function theory in legal philosophy. The contribution of natural law philosophy to the typization of trademark right is not impossible, and it provides moral basis for the justifiable of the right of commercial trademark in the early stage of the development of trademark law. The utilitarian philosophy of trademark functionalism is becoming more and more persuasive to the construction and interpretation of the rules of modern trademark law. As a proof standard, trademark right is a right in the framework of trademark law and a property legal benefit in the framework of anti unfair competition law, but the essence of it is a property right, which is the essence of the trademark right. The adjustment is the merchant's domination relation to the goodwill in the trademark. With the constitutive requirements as the proof standard, the protection of the unregistered trademark exists the regional rights phenomenon, the protection of the registered trademark does not support the use of the distant market. In the case of "the same use" of the trademark, the trademark infringement can be found directly in accordance with the domination force of the trademark right, as for The possibility of confusion is no matter what.
The fourth chapter of the paper is the reconstruction of the theory of trademark property, which aims to reconcile the contradiction between the theory of trademark property and the theory of trademark function. The first section, along the path of the traditional civil law, constructs the domination legal relationship of the trademark right. The article holds that the object of the trademark right is the goodwill carrying the trademark in the trademark, and the trademark owner can direct the trade reputation of the trademark and the trademark right. The realization of the content is not required by third people. The trademark right is a kind of dominating right, possessive, using, earning and disposing power, and following the theory of "separation of ownership power and energy". In this sense, trademark right is a kind of complete real right similar to ownership. The trademark owner can create the "class limit property right" based on its intention, and the Licensee's exclusive license Right is a kind of fixed property right. The domination of trademark means that in the absence of applicable rules, the principle can be analogous to the application of the traditional property law rules. A common owner should obtain the consent of all the common owners for the disposition of the trademark rights, such as the transfer or abandonment of the trademark right; each person can bring a lawsuit against the trademark infringement, without any other joint ownership. People agree. As far as bona fide acquisition is concerned, the stability of trademark ownership in the register is not high, it is difficult to guarantee the trade safety of trademark rights, not enough to produce the credibility of the trademark ownership, and the trademark right can not be applied in good faith.
How to explain the position of competitive characteristics in the theory of trademark property is a problem to be solved in the second section. Within the system of trademark law, the "medium consumers", "confusion possibility", "the same or similar goods or services", "business or service popularity", and traditional property, run through the principles and rules of the trademark law. There is no direct relationship between rights and rights, which is related to market competition. Trademark rights have competitive functions. Trademark law is one of the objectives of ensuring the free circulation of goods and orderly competition in the market. The competition function affects the construction of the rules of trademark rights and the judgment of the essence of the trademark right. The standard method also has the characteristics of the dynamic resource utilization method.
In the trademark law, the market factors such as "medium consumers", "confusing possibility", "the same goods or services are the same or similar" constitute the restriction on the right of trademark. It is unified in the theory of trademark property. The limitation of trademark right competition function is mainly three aspects: the limitation of trademark use, that is, the use of trademark to the right of registered trademark and The limitation of effectiveness; the limitation of the competitive relationship, that is, the "range" of the trademark prohibition right is limited to the same or similar goods or services; the restriction of the competition order, that is, the periphery of the trademark right is delimited by the function of the trademark, the function of the trademark is the embodiment of the competition order, and the damage to the trademark function is essentially the damage to the competition order.
The fifth chapter expounds the application of the theory of trademark property. The first section responds to the basic issues of trademark rights according to this theory, and the second section studies the interpretation and construction significance of this theory to the specific rules of trademark law.
The interpretation and construction of the rules of the trademark law should follow the centralism of all people. For the purpose of protection, the legislative purpose of the trademark law is to protect the interests of the merchants. The confusion possibility of the consumer is the fact evidence that the trade of the trademark owner is transferred (damage to the forthcoming, that is, the "danger" in the traditional civil law), and the identification of the possibility of confusion is in nature. Quality is a kind of fact judgment. The "confusion standard" does not establish a "consumer centralism" which is opposed to the "all anthropocentrism" in the trademark law. It does not have independence and should not be called the "standard" for tort identification. The domination relationship in the trademark law is a "one-to-one correspondence" between the merchant and the goodwill. Department.
As far as the dispute on the ownership of the trademark right is concerned, the merchant's enjoyment of the trademark right is based on the authorization of the law. The trademark granted is a right to dominate the trademark. The positive and negative power of the trademark rights are derived from the dominating power. The dominant attribute is the essential attribute of the trademark right, and the real attribution of the trademark law is to the law of intellectual property, not the anti illegitimacy. Competition law. The trademark law is the ultimate purpose of protecting the interests of businessmen and indirectly protects the public interests of consumers without confusion and misrecognition. This indirect protection can be understood as a "reflection interest". The purpose of the protection of modern trademark law presents a diversified trend of development, but it does not break out of the essence of trademark rights and should start the trademark relief machine. The analysis of the constitutive requirements of regression is still needed.
As far as trademark infringement rules are concerned, first of all, the scope of the protection of trademark rights can be divided into exclusive area and extension area. The two regions belong to the area of property interests, which are the dominating scope of trademark rights. Secondly, the act of falling into the exclusive area of trademark right, that is, the use of the same trademark in the same commodity or service, constitutes a trademark infringement and as to the business. The factors such as unused or actually confused market investigation report are not asked. Whether or not the act of falling into the extended area is identified according to the use of the trademark, the possibility of confusion or the possibility of desalination, and the possibility of confusion or desalination is the token of the damage, not the requisites of trademark infringement, and the possibility of confusion or dilution. It shows that there is a danger of infringement of trademark right and the principle of domination on the principle of danger exclusion can be requested to eliminate the danger. Finally, the infringement of the trademark right means that the trademark owner can not control the reputation of the trademark in the trademark freely and freely, so that the dominating interests of the trademark owner are "spillover", and the trademark law should be infringed on the trademark saliency. The criteria for determining different trademarks (the possibility of desalination or the possibility of confusion). The behavior controlled by the trademark right is the use of the trademark, and the use of the trademark should be used as the standard for direct infringement and indirect infringement of the trademark.

【学位授予单位】：华东政法大学
【学位级别】：博士
【学位授予年份】：2014
【分类号】：D923.43

【相似文献】