驰名商标虚假诉讼研究
发布时间：2019-04-16 08:46
【摘要】：最初的驰名商标制度是为了突破知识产权地域性的限制以及注册取得原则,防止在外国已经注册的享有较高声誉的商标,在本国遭到抢注,然而根据公平原则,本国商标一样可以获得同等的“待遇”。作为通过法律移植过来的制度,在其本土化的过程中,却悄然从一个法律制度异化成“质量”与“商誉”的认证或保证标志。驰名商标并不是一类特别的商标,而是商标的法律保护方法,是司法对一个商标在相关公众领域内享有较高商誉的法律事实状态的确认,则此商标在法律上就获得了“反混淆”或是“反淡化”的“特权”。虽然知识产权是对世权,但是驰名商标的认定确是“个案有效”,不过“天下熙熙,皆为利来：天下攘攘,皆为利往。”一时间驰名商标被捧上了“神坛”,成为了企业的巨大荣誉,官员的非凡政绩,消费者的质量保证与品位追求,商标代理机构与律师的财富来源,然而却成为了法官的麻烦事。原被告当事人,通过虚构商标侵权纠纷,向法院提起诉讼,通过法院对驰名商标进行司法认定,而以驰名商标为前提才可以进行的扩张保护,就不是真正的目的了。驰名商标虚假诉讼为法院带来了识别难与惩治难的司法困境,然而为了预防,法院采取了一系列的措施,起到了一定的效果,如强调被动认定、按需认定以及个案有效的认定原则,但是有些措施却出现了矫枉过正的问题,牺牲了驰名商标的制度价值,甚至危及诉讼法律制度的基石。如2009年最高人民法院出台《关于审理涉及驰名商标保护的民事纠纷案件应用法律若干问题的解释》(法释[2009]3号)剑指驰名商标虚假诉讼,规定不得在判决书主文认定驰名商标,调解书不得涉及驰名商标的认定以及排除了域名与驰名商标纠纷认定驰名商标的“缘由”的具体规制措施,其核心是认为驰名商标属于事实范畴,非权利范畴,即不是程序法或是实体法上的权利或是利益。如此,随之而来的问题是,驰名商标司法认定制度,存乎?亡乎?故此,应针对驰名商标虚假诉讼的特点以及引起的历史原因、社会原因、诉讼法律制度原因以及行为的经济成本原因出发,提出司法之外预防,司法之内识别以及刑事惩治等规制措施。 笔者希望通过本文,首先可以对驰名商标虚假诉讼的司法困境提供有效规制建议；其次,就是对虚假诉讼问题的解决提供有益的探索路径；最后,可以引起各位同仁对法律移植及其本土化所引起的问题与中国法治进程带来可能的有益的思考。
[Abstract]:The original well-known trademark system was designed to break through the restrictions on the regionality of intellectual property rights and the principle of obtaining registration, and to prevent the registration of highly reputable trademarks already registered in foreign countries from being preempted in their own countries, however, on the basis of the principle of fairness, National trademarks are equally entitled to "treatment". As a system transplanted through the law, in the process of its localization, it quietly dissimilates from a legal system to the certification or guarantee mark of "quality" and "goodwill". A well-known trademark is not a special kind of trademark, but a legal protection method of a trademark. It is a judicial confirmation of the legal fact that a trademark enjoys a high goodwill in the relevant public domain. The trademark is legally entitled to "anti-confusion" or "anti-dilution" privilege. Although intellectual property is the right to the world, but the identification of well-known trademarks is indeed a "case effective", but "the world is Hexi, is profit: the world is bustling, is profit." For a time, well-known trademarks have been praised to the "shrine" and become a huge honor of the enterprise, the extraordinary political achievements of officials, the quality assurance and taste pursuit of consumers, the wealth source of trademark agencies and lawyers, but it has become a troublesome matter for judges. The original defendant party, through the fictitious trademark infringement dispute, brings a lawsuit to the court, through the court carries on the judicial confirmation to the well-known trademark, but takes the well-known trademark as the premise can carry on the expansion protection, is not the real purpose. The well-known trademark false litigation has brought the court difficult to identify and punish the difficult judicial dilemma, however, in order to prevent, the court has taken a series of measures, played a certain effect, such as emphasizing passive identification, On-demand and case-by-case principles of effective identification, but some measures have been overdone, sacrificing the system value of well-known trademarks, and even endangering the cornerstone of the legal system of litigation. For example, in 2009, the Supreme people's Court issued an interpretation of certain legal issues concerning the Application of laws in Civil disputes involving the Protection of well-known trademarks (interpretation [2009] No. 3), referring to the false litigation of well-known trademarks. It is stipulated that well-known trademarks shall not be identified in the main text of the judgment, and the mediation statement shall not involve the identification of well-known trademarks and specific regulatory measures that exclude disputes between domain names and well-known trademarks in determining well-known trademarks, and the "cause" of the identification of well-known trademarks, Its core is that the well-known trademark belongs to the category of fact and non-right, that is, it is not the right or interest in procedural law or substantive law. In this way, the following question is, well-known trademark judicial identification system, exist? Dead? Therefore, according to the characteristics of well-known trademark false litigation, as well as the historical reasons, social reasons, litigation legal system reasons and the economic costs of the behavior, we should put forward extra-judicial prevention. Judicial identification and criminal punishment and other regulatory measures. I hope that through this article, first of all, we can provide effective regulatory advice on the judicial dilemma of well-known trademark false litigation; secondly, we can provide a useful exploration path to solve the problem of false litigation; Finally, it can cause some useful thoughts about the problems caused by the transplantation and localization of law and the process of rule of law in China.
【学位授予单位】：湖南师范大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2013
【分类号】：D925;D923.43
本文编号：2458642
[Abstract]:The original well-known trademark system was designed to break through the restrictions on the regionality of intellectual property rights and the principle of obtaining registration, and to prevent the registration of highly reputable trademarks already registered in foreign countries from being preempted in their own countries, however, on the basis of the principle of fairness, National trademarks are equally entitled to "treatment". As a system transplanted through the law, in the process of its localization, it quietly dissimilates from a legal system to the certification or guarantee mark of "quality" and "goodwill". A well-known trademark is not a special kind of trademark, but a legal protection method of a trademark. It is a judicial confirmation of the legal fact that a trademark enjoys a high goodwill in the relevant public domain. The trademark is legally entitled to "anti-confusion" or "anti-dilution" privilege. Although intellectual property is the right to the world, but the identification of well-known trademarks is indeed a "case effective", but "the world is Hexi, is profit: the world is bustling, is profit." For a time, well-known trademarks have been praised to the "shrine" and become a huge honor of the enterprise, the extraordinary political achievements of officials, the quality assurance and taste pursuit of consumers, the wealth source of trademark agencies and lawyers, but it has become a troublesome matter for judges. The original defendant party, through the fictitious trademark infringement dispute, brings a lawsuit to the court, through the court carries on the judicial confirmation to the well-known trademark, but takes the well-known trademark as the premise can carry on the expansion protection, is not the real purpose. The well-known trademark false litigation has brought the court difficult to identify and punish the difficult judicial dilemma, however, in order to prevent, the court has taken a series of measures, played a certain effect, such as emphasizing passive identification, On-demand and case-by-case principles of effective identification, but some measures have been overdone, sacrificing the system value of well-known trademarks, and even endangering the cornerstone of the legal system of litigation. For example, in 2009, the Supreme people's Court issued an interpretation of certain legal issues concerning the Application of laws in Civil disputes involving the Protection of well-known trademarks (interpretation [2009] No. 3), referring to the false litigation of well-known trademarks. It is stipulated that well-known trademarks shall not be identified in the main text of the judgment, and the mediation statement shall not involve the identification of well-known trademarks and specific regulatory measures that exclude disputes between domain names and well-known trademarks in determining well-known trademarks, and the "cause" of the identification of well-known trademarks, Its core is that the well-known trademark belongs to the category of fact and non-right, that is, it is not the right or interest in procedural law or substantive law. In this way, the following question is, well-known trademark judicial identification system, exist? Dead? Therefore, according to the characteristics of well-known trademark false litigation, as well as the historical reasons, social reasons, litigation legal system reasons and the economic costs of the behavior, we should put forward extra-judicial prevention. Judicial identification and criminal punishment and other regulatory measures. I hope that through this article, first of all, we can provide effective regulatory advice on the judicial dilemma of well-known trademark false litigation; secondly, we can provide a useful exploration path to solve the problem of false litigation; Finally, it can cause some useful thoughts about the problems caused by the transplantation and localization of law and the process of rule of law in China.
【学位授予单位】：湖南师范大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2013
【分类号】：D925;D923.43
【参考文献】
相关期刊论文 前10条
1 刘银良;;论我国商标法的完善:从制度到文本 基于《商标法》第三次修订草案(征求意见稿)的讨论[J];电子知识产权;2011年11期
2 钟蔚莉;胡昌明;王煜珏;;关于审判监督程序中发现的虚假诉讼的调研报告[J];法律适用;2008年06期
3 朱健;;论虚假诉讼及其法律规制[J];法律适用;2012年06期
4 王利明;;侵权法一般条款的保护范围[J];法学家;2009年03期
5 马忠法;王高平;;驰名商标虚假诉讼成因及其应对之探究——由“康王”商标纠纷案引发的思考[J];西部法学评论;2011年01期
6 郑小军;;必胜客诉鸿图商标异议案[J];中华商标;2006年10期
7 王先林;;试论建立我国驰名商标特别保护的法律制度[J];政法学刊;1990年01期
8 周翔;;虚假诉讼定义辨析[J];河北法学;2011年06期
9 潘春玲;;论驰名商标司法认定虚假诉讼之防范[J];湖北广播电视大学学报;2010年08期
10 王琦;;论司法权的被动性——以民事诉讼为视角[J];海南大学学报(人文社会科学版);2007年02期
相关重要报纸文章 前3条
1 ;[N];检察日报;2003年
2 陕西省西安市中级人民法院 姚建军;[N];人民法院报;2011年
3 清华大学法学院教授、博士生导师 张卫平;[N];人民法院报;2011年
相关博士学位论文 前1条
1 胡业勋;立法上的金融违法行为入罪研究[D];西南财经大学;2010年
相关硕士学位论文 前2条
1 许勤;从司法角度看虚假诉讼的刑法规制[D];华东政法大学;2010年
2 杨成梅;论驰名商标司法认定虚假诉讼之法律规制[D];中南大学;2008年
，本文编号：2458642
本文链接：https://www.wllwen.com/falvlunwen/zhishichanquanfa/2458642.html
