商标财产化研究

发布时间：2018-05-01 14:37

本文选题：商标财产化 + 假冒之诉　；参考：《西南政法大学》2014年博士论文

【摘要】：当前“商标财产化”一词已为广大学者采用，尤以批评者居多。有的学者认为，将商标作为一种财产，背离了商标法保护消费者之目的；有的学者认为，视商标为财产，将会割裂了商标与商品、服务之联系，对消费者构成欺诈；有的学者认为，商标财产化引起了商标权扩张，严重危害了社会公共利益。结合上述争议，本文以“商标财产化”为研究对象，通过考察商标法律制度的起源，全面阐释商标从“识别工具到私人财产”的发展历程。本文除了引言和结语外，尚有五章，凡十五万言。在第一章，笔者对英国假冒之诉进行考察，探讨财产语言在普通法商标案件中是如何生成的。假冒之诉的历史可回溯至1584年的“JG诉山姆福特案”，四位主审法官之一的安德森认为：被告在商品上使用原告标记的行为构成了对消费者的欺诈，应当承担普通法上的责任。虽然没有史料记载安德森的意见是否被采纳，后世法院纷纷引入“欺诈”作为判案基础。“欺诈”随后逐渐淡出假冒之诉，原因在于普通法院与衡平法院的管辖权冲突。在普通法院审理的假冒案件中，商标所有人可以得到损害赔偿，但无权申请禁令救济，无法制止假冒行为。衡平法院虽然可以颁布禁令，却无法管辖假冒案件，因为侵权人实施的是欺诈行为，而非侵害财产权。为了获得假冒案件的管辖权，衡平法院将商标解释为一种财产，这样它就有权对假冒案件进行管辖。在1838年，韦斯特布里法官开启了衡平法院以财产权为基础审理假冒案件的先河。但对于商标财产本质的认识，韦斯特布里法官也仅仅是模糊的提及了“侵害他人排他性的财产”，至于这是怎样的财产？并未细说。他的见解也没有获得同行们的一致认同。到了20世纪初期，帕克法官将“商誉”概念引入假冒之诉，并区分了商誉与其他财产的区别，即商誉是商标所有人在商业活动中产生的，它的存在依靠他人的感知。对于假冒之诉而言，商誉的引进为其确立了独立的保护对象，使其在商标成文立法日益昌盛的今日，仍保持了旺盛的生命力。而观察古今普通法对假冒案件的判决，商标只是作为识别工具存在，其本身并无任何财产价值。假冒之诉开启了商标保护的先河，现代商标制度从中得到启发，并确立其架构。在第二章中，笔者分析现代商标法是如何加入知识产权法大家庭，又怎样从假冒之诉中独立出来，将商标作为财产进行保护。从知识产权的发展史可以得知，当专利法、著作权法纷纷制定之时，商标法仍处于“拖沓而杂乱不堪”，从未被考虑可以纳入现代知识产权法的范畴之中。但在19世纪下半叶，由于诸多因素的推动，商标法成为了一个独立的现代知识产权法法域。首要的原因便是社会环境的变化。工业革命的开展，为市场的崛起提供了动力。市场活动的日益繁荣，商标在商业实践中得到越来越多的使用与价值认可。商人团体利用政治话语权向政府进行施压，要求进行商标立法保护他们的商标财产。1860年，，英国谢菲尔德商会的议案，则代表了当时商人对政府保护商标财产的强烈诉求。他们要求政府建立商标注册制度，并允许自由转让商标。这类型的呼吁为后来注册制度的建立埋下了伏笔。其次，将商标法纳入知识产权法最大的问题是，缺少理论的支撑。在19世纪，人们对财产的观念停留在布莱克斯通的理论上，即财产是对“物”的绝对控制。而根据当其时假冒之诉案件的判决，商标并非是什么物，它只是一种识别工具。商标案件的判决基础是“欺诈”，脱离了“欺诈”无任何侵权可言。后来，法院在司法实践中逐渐对布莱克斯通的理论感到困惑。他们发现，财产并非仅限于“物”，许多非物质的具有重大财产价值的利益也应该受到保护。学者们也逐渐意识到，财产权并非是人与物的关系，而是人与人之间的关系。并且在当其时之“自由与财产福音”的洛克理论的影响下，认识到“使用创造财产”，而这种财产就是商誉。商誉在化解了商标作为“物”的尴尬之同时，也符合了知识产权法客体之无形性特征，为商标立法扫除了理论障碍。其三、注册制度为商标财产保护之关键一环，如果商标获得注册，则自发出注册证的那一刻起，它就当然成为该注册证上列明者的财产了。不过，在使用取得商标权制度的国家中，注册的意义仅仅是对在先权利的确认，而非授权。在注册制度的保护下，商标也只是发挥着识别工具的作用，商标侵权仍是依消费者混淆之虞为判断标准。直至后来，反淡化立法的出现，法院关注的焦点已不是消费者是否混淆，而是将重心放在商标本身的财产价值。在商标财产化观念的影响下，法院在实践中不断加大了对商标权人的保护。在第三章，笔者探讨商标财产化的表现，阐明商标权人的利益如何在“财产”的庇护下得到加强。传统的混淆之虞，向来是以消费者购买商品或服务之时为判断基点。近年来，由于商标财产化的观念不断蔓延，特别是商标广告功能被强化之后，美国等国家已经将传统上关于混淆之虞的判断时间提前或挪后，不断扩大了商标权的保护范围。其次是商标的自由转让和许可。传统上认为，商标与其商誉具有不可分离的关系。除非企业与商誉一起连同转让，否则商标转让无效。而现代将商标视为一种财产，自由处分就成为应有之义。所以，TRIPS协定清晰地说明，无论是否连同所属企业，商标均可以单独转让。美国法院也放宽对转让的限制。联邦最高法院马丁法官说到，对商标单独转让的有效性不能一概认为无效，只要受让人制造的商品与让与人先前生产的产品具有相同品质且为相同种类。商标是否可以许可，之前在理论上也是存在障碍的。法院认为，商标只是识别工具。如果商标是由许可人拥有，但是商品确由被许可人提供，割裂了商标与商品之间的来源指示关系。法官后来意识到，商标不只是一种识别工具，还具有财产价值。只要被许可人的品质能够与许可人保持一致，不仅商标所有人能够获利，消费者利益也没受到损害。最后是商标商品化。商标商品化的提出，引起众多学者的反对。理由在于，商标只是识别的工具，传统商标法的首要目的是保护消费者，而对商标商品化的保护，无疑是赋予了商标权人对商标拥有一个无限扩展的权利。尽管出现这种反对的声音，美国国会和法院通过引入赞助或者关联混淆，逐渐扩大了对商标商品化权的保护。将商标视为财产，并不是没有争议的。晚近，商标财产化的话题牵扯到商标权的宪法基础，以及商标权与人权、言论自由的关系等。在第四章，笔者首先对美国商标法的宪法命运进行描述，揭示出商标权虽然与著作权、专利权并列为知识产权。实际上，商标法的宪法基础并不是依据“知识产权条款”，而是“贸易条款”。建立在此基础上的商标法一方面要保护商标权人和消费者的利益，另一方面要从国家贸易政策出发维护市场的公平竞争。其次，通过分析2007年欧洲人权法院审理的“商标与人权第一案”，认为商标权在国际人权公约中没有合适的地位，商标权本身不是人权，但可以依据《欧洲人权公约第一议定书》的“财产权条款”获得人权公约的保护。最后，与其他财产不同，商标（特别是驰名商标）往往蕴含着特殊的社会属性。一方面，商标具有文化价值，特定商标之形象成为消费者分享的语言。另一方面，商标属于一种“商业言论”。法律在保护商标财产时，要防止权利人垄断符号、压制公众言论空间。商标的社会属性孕育了商标权与言论自由的内在冲突，也决定了言论自由成为商标权的限制因素，其中商标戏仿和比较广告是限制商标权的最典型情形。在考察完商标财产化的起源、表现与争议后，笔者在第五章对商标财产化进行反思。针对商标财产本质的讨论，笔者依照“信息说”的进路，认为商标只是信息的传播媒介，标记本身不能被当做财产。相比之下，商标的财产本质是商誉的观点与信息说的理论较为吻合。但是，将商标财产本质界定为商誉，并不是没有问题的。商誉作为财产不仅面临定义的问题，而且与传统的有形财产或者知识产权相比，其具有存在时间非确定性、存在地域非确定性以及存在价值非确定性等特点。并且，商誉与商标常常是重叠、交织。商誉不等于商标，甚至意味着更多。可以说，商标的财产价值离不开商誉，而商誉的财产价值却不限于商标。针对商标立法目的之讨论，笔者认为必须厘清一组概念：宗旨与目的。宗旨，是宏观的、长远的、相对静态不变的。目的，是具体的、可以变化和调整的。默察商标法的发展史，维护“公平竞争”是商标法恒久不变的宗旨。保护“商标权”与“消费者利益”则是一体两面之目的。针对商标侵权责任的探讨，笔者认为赔礼道歉不应适用于商标侵权纠纷。因为商标权不具有人身权的内容。而且，从对象上看，商标权人一般为法人，法人在遭受商标权侵害时，其并无“精神损害”也无需“精神抚慰”。最后，从功效上看，在商标侵权案件中，赔礼道歉无法发挥引导侵权人真诚悔过的道德功能。鉴于赔礼道歉的局限性，笔者认为“消除影响”更契合商标侵权案件的需要。
[Abstract]:At present, the word "trademark property" has been used by many scholars, especially the critics. Some scholars believe that the trademark act as a kind of property deviates from the purpose of the trademark law to protect the consumer; some scholars believe that the trademark as property will split the trade mark and commodity, the connection of service and the fraud of the consumer; some scholars recognize that As a result, trademark property expansion has caused the expansion of trademark rights and seriously endangers the social and public interests. Based on the above dispute, this article takes "trademark property" as the research object. Through the investigation of the origin of the legal system of trademark, the article comprehensively explains the course of the development of trademark from "recognition tool to private property".
In addition to the introduction and conclusion, there are five chapters and one hundred and fifty thousand words. In the first chapter, the author investigates the counterfeit action in Britain and discusses how the property language is generated in the common law trademark cases. The history of the fake lawsuit can be traced back to the "JG v. Sam Ford case" in 1584, and Anderson, one of the four judge judges, thinks that the defendant is the defendant. The use of the label of the plaintiff on a commodity constitutes a fraud of the consumer and should be responsible for the common law. Although there is no historical record of the adoption of Anderson's opinion, the later courts have introduced "fraud" as the basis of the case. "Fraud" gradually fade out of the false prosecution, because of the ordinary court and the equitable court. The conflict of jurisdiction. In the counterfeit cases heard by the ordinary court, the owner of the trademark can get damages, but it is not entitled to apply for the injunction to prevent the counterfeiting. The equitable court, although it can enact the injunction, can not control the counterfeit cases, because the infringer carries out fraud, not infringing property rights. In order to obtain the counterfeit In the case of jurisdiction, the equitable court interpreted the trademark as a property so that it had the right to jurisdiction over the counterfeit cases. In 1838, judge West opened the precedent of the equity court to hear the counterfeit cases on the basis of property rights. But judge West was only a vague reference to the nature of the trademark property. In the early twentieth Century, judge Parke introduced the concept of "goodwill" to the counterfeit lawsuit and distinguished the distinction between goodwill and other property, that is, the goodwill is the product of the trademark owner in business activities. Its existence depends on the perception of others. For the counterfeit complaint, the introduction of goodwill has established an independent protection object and maintained its vigorous vitality in the day of the growing prosperity of the trademark legislation. What is the value of property?
The counterfeit lawsuit opens the precedent of trademark protection. The modern trademark system is inspired by the modern trademark system and establishes its structure. In the second chapter, the author analyzes how the modern trademark law is to join the large family of intellectual property law, and how to independent from the counterfeit lawsuit and protect the trademark as property. When the patent law and copyright law are set up in succession, the trademark law is still in a "procrastination and disorderly" and has never been considered into the category of modern intellectual property law. But in the second half of the nineteenth Century, because of many factors, the trademark law became an independent domain of modern intellectual property law. The first reason was the social environment. The development of the industrial revolution has provided the impetus for the rise of the market. The increasing prosperity of the market activities, the increasing use and recognition of the value of the trade mark in the business practice. The merchant groups use political discourse power to press the government to protect their trademark property for.1860, the British Sheffield merchants. The bill, which represents the strong appeal for the government to protect the trademark and property, requires the government to establish a trademark registration system and allow the free transfer of the trademark. This type of appeal has laid a burden on the establishment of the later registration system. Secondly, the biggest problem of the incorporation of Trademark Law into the knowledge rights law is the lack of theoretical support. In nineteenth Century, people's concept of property remained in the theory of Blackstone, that is, the property is the absolute control of the "thing". And according to the judgment of the case of counterfeiting, the trademark is not what the trademark is, it is only a kind of identification tool. The basis of the trademark case is "deceit", which is divorced from the "fraud" without any infringement. In the judicial practice, the court is gradually puzzled by the theory of blemstone. They find that property is not only "objects", and that many non material interests that have significant property values should also be protected. Under the influence of Rock's theory of "freedom and the gospel of property", the "use of the creation of property" is recognized, and this property is a goodwill. At the same time, goodwill also conforms to the intangible characteristics of the object of intellectual property law as well as the embarrassment of the trademark as "things", and has removed the theoretical obstacles for the trademark legislation. A key link of the protection of the standard property, if the trademark is registered, it is of course the property of the listed person from the moment the registration certificate is issued. However, in the country where the system of trademark rights is used, the significance of registration is only to recognize the prior right rather than to authorize it. Under the protection of the registration system, the trademark is also Only to play the role of identification tools, trademark infringement is still in accordance with the consumer confusion as the criterion of judgment. Until later, the emergence of anti dilution legislation, the focus of attention of the court is not whether the consumer is confused, but focus on the value of the property of the trademark itself.
Under the influence of the concept of trademark property, the court has continuously increased the protection of the trademark owner in practice. In the third chapter, the author discusses the manifestation of the trademark property and clarifies that the interests of the trademark owners are strengthened under the shelter of the "property". In recent years, because of the spread of the concept of trademark property, especially after the enhancement of the function of trademark advertising, the United States and other countries have expanded the scope of the protection of the trademark right in advance or after the time of the judgment of the risk of confusion. The second is the transfer and license of the trademark. There is an inseparable relationship. Unless the enterprise and the goodwill join together with the transfer, the transfer of the trademark is invalid. While the modern trademark is regarded as a property, the free disposal will be the proper meaning. Therefore, the TRIPS agreement clearly states whether the trade mark can be transferred individually or not. The United States Court also relaxes the restrictions on the transfer. The Federal Supreme Court, judge Martin, said that the validity of a separate trade mark can not be considered null and void. As long as the goods made by the assignee have the same quality and the same type previously produced by the transferor. Whether the trademark can be permitted or not, it is in theory a barrier before. The court believes that the trademark is only a tool for identification. If a trademark is owned by a licensor, but the commodity is provided by the licensee, it separates the relationship between the mark and the source. The judge later realized that the trademark is not only a tool of identification but also a property value. As long as the quality of the licensee can be consistent with the Licensor, not only the owner of the trademark can make a profit, but also the consumption of the trademark owner. The interests of the people have not been damaged. Finally, the commercialization of the trademark. The commercialization of the trademark has been raised by many scholars. The reason is that the trademark is only a tool for identification. The primary purpose of the traditional trademark law is to protect the consumer, and the protection of the commercialization of the trademark is undoubtedly endowed with the trademark owner with an unlimited expansion of the trademark. Despite this objection, the US Congress and the court gradually expanded the protection of trademark merchandising rights by introducing sponsorship or confusion.
It is not undisputed to see the trademark as property. In the fourth chapter, the author first describes the constitutional fate of the trademark law in the United States, and reveals that the trademark right, although with the copyright and the patent right, is listed as the knowledge production, and the trademark rights are related to the constitutional basis of the trademark right and the relationship between the trademark right and human rights and the freedom of speech. In fact, the constitutional basis of the trademark law is not based on "the terms of intellectual property" but "the terms of trade". On the one hand, the trademark law should protect the interests of the people of the trademark rights and the consumers, on the other hand, to maintain the fair competition of the market from the state trade policy. Secondly, through the analysis of the European human rights law in 2007, the European Law of human rights is analyzed. The "first case of trademark and human rights", which is heard by the hospital, holds that trademark rights do not have a proper position in international human rights conventions. Trademark right is not a human right in itself, but it can be protected by the human rights convention according to the "terms of property right" of the first protocol to the European Convention on human rights. Finally, unlike his property, the trademark (especially the well-known trademark) is often used. There is a special social attribute. On the one hand, the trademark has cultural value, the image of a specific trademark becomes the language of the consumer. On the other hand, the trademark belongs to a kind of "commercial speech". In the protection of the trademark property, the law should prevent the monopoly of the right holder and suppress the public discourse space. The social attribute of the trademark has bred the trademark right and the trademark. The internal conflict of freedom of speech also determines that freedom of speech becomes the limiting factor of trademark right, in which trademark parody and comparative advertising are the most typical cases of restricting the right to trademark.
After reviewing the origin, performance and controversy of the trademark property, the author rethinks the trademark property after the fifth chapter. According to the discussion of the nature of the trademark property, the author believes that the trademark is only the medium of information and that the mark itself can not be regarded as the property. Point is more consistent with the theory of information theory. However, it is not without a problem to define the nature of trademark property as goodwill. As a property, goodwill not only faces the problem of definition, but also has time uncertainty, regional uncertainty and value uncertainty in comparison with traditional tangible property or intellectual property. In addition, goodwill and trademark often overlap and interweave. Goodwill is not equal to trademark and even more. It can be said that the value of the property of a trademark is not free from goodwill, but the value of the property of a goodwill is not limited to the trademark. Far, relatively static. Aim, it is specific, can change and adjust. To observe the development history of trademark law and maintain "fair competition" is the tenet of the trademark law for a long time. Protection of "trademark right" and "consumer interests" is one of the two purposes. In the discussion of trademark infringement liability, I believe that the apology should not be made. It is applicable to trademark infringement disputes. Because the trademark right does not have the content of personal rights. Moreover, from the object of the object, the trademark owner is generally a legal person. When the legal person is infringed on the trademark right, there is no "mental damage" or "spiritual comfort". Finally, in the case of trademark infringement, in the trademark infringement case, the apology cannot give full play to the guide tortfeasor In view of the moral function of sincere repentance, in view of the limitations of apology, I believe that "eliminating influence" is more suitable for trademark infringement cases.

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

【参考文献】