关键词广告中搜索引擎过错认定研究

发布时间：2018-04-08 15:07

本文选题：关键词广告　切入点：搜索引擎　出处：《华东政法大学》2013年硕士论文

【摘要】：如今关键词广告服务在为搜索引擎带来巨额利润，为广告主带来商业机会的同时，也引发了大量的商标侵权纠纷。搜索引擎将他人商标作为关键词出售给广告主的行为并不属于商标性使用，故并不能构成商标直接侵权，，而只能以间接侵权追究其法律责任。而搜擎引擎承担间接侵权责任的前提在于其具有过错，因此对关键词广告中搜索引擎过错的认定至关重要。本文共分为四章，分别是：第一章首先对关键词广告的商业模式及其引发的纠纷进行了介绍。在此基础上，对我国典型的司法判例进行了检讨，其中我国法院在对关键词广告中搜索引擎过错的认定上存在分歧，较为集中的体现在搜索引擎是否应负《广告法》上的审查义务，亦或仅依赖注意义务的违反对其过错进行判定。后笔者指出本文的基本观点，即关键词广告中搜索引擎不应负法定的审查义务，而仅应以注意义务的违反作为判断其是否具有过错的依据。第二章则进一步说明了关键词广告中搜索引擎为何不负有法定的审查义务，笔者认为，虽然关键词广告具备广告的性质，但是却不能当然对其适用《广告法》中有关广告经营者责任的规定。此外，也很难从现有的其他法律规范中找出搜索引擎应在关键词广告中承担法定审查义务的依据。接下来，结合欧洲的“LV—谷歌”案指出，尽管搜索引擎不负有事前审查的法定义务，但仍需承担合理的注意义务。第三章则着重分析了应如何从注意义务的角度对搜索引擎的过错进行判定。在对搜索引擎的过错进行判定之时，除了要遵守过失认定之一般规则，即遵循理性人标准、效益成本标准（汉德公式）以及违法情况下的标准之外，还需要结合案件的具体情况进行分析。指出关键词广告中，以搜索引擎服务的有偿性以及所出售商标的知名程度作为其承担更高水平注意义务的依据并不充分，唯有在确实存在相关证据证明搜索引擎的确“应知”其系统中存在侵权事实却并未及时采取措施的情况下，才能认定其具有过错。第四章为结论，笔者根据前三章的分析，对如何认定关键词广告中搜索引擎过错的问题进行了归纳总结。
[Abstract]:Nowadays, keyword advertising service brings huge profits for search engines and commercial opportunities for advertisers, but also leads to a large number of trademark infringement disputes.The act that search engine sells other people's trademark to advertisers as keywords does not belong to trademark use, so it can not constitute direct infringement of trademark, but can only be investigated for its legal liability by indirect infringement.The premise of the indirect tort liability of search engine lies in its fault, so it is very important to identify the fault of search engine in keyword advertisement.This paper is divided into four chapters:The first chapter introduces the business model of keyword advertising and the disputes caused by it.On this basis, the typical judicial cases of our country are reviewed, in which the courts of our country have different opinions on the fault of search engines in keyword advertisements.The focus is whether the search engine should bear the obligation to censor the advertisement law, or only rely on the breach of the duty of care to judge its fault.Then the author points out that the search engine in keyword advertisement should not have the legal obligation to censor, but only take the breach of duty of care as the basis to judge whether the search engine is at fault or not.The second chapter further explains why search engines in keyword advertising do not have the statutory obligation to censor. The author believes that, although keyword advertising has the nature of advertising,However, it can not be applied to the advertising law about the liability of advertising operators.In addition, it is difficult to find out from other existing legal norms that search engines should undertake statutory censorship obligations in keyword advertisements.Next, in conjunction with Europe's LV-Google case, the search engine has a reasonable obligation of care, although it does not have a statutory obligation to review in advance.Chapter three focuses on how to judge the fault of search engine from the perspective of duty of care.In order to judge the fault of search engine, in addition to following the general rules of fault determination, that is, the standard of rational person, the criterion of benefit and cost (Hande formula) and the standard in case of violation of the law,It also needs to be analyzed in the light of the specific circumstances of the case.It is pointed out that the compensation of search engine services and the well-known degree of trademarks sold as the basis for assuming a higher level of care in advertising are not sufficient.Only when there is some relevant evidence to prove that the search engine "should know" that there are tort facts in its system, but not taking measures in time, can it be deemed to be at fault.Chapter four is the conclusion. According to the analysis of the first three chapters, the author sums up the problem of how to identify the fault of search engine in keyword advertisement.
【学位授予单位】：华东政法大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2013
【分类号】：D922.294

【相似文献】