关键词广告中搜索引擎商的商标侵权责任研究
发布时间:2018-04-24 12:48
本文选题:广告 + 搜索引擎商 ; 参考:《山西大学》2017年硕士论文
【摘要】:随着互联网技术的快速发展,网络服务提供者在利益的驱动下,开始寻找新的盈利模式,于是关键词广告的竞价排名技术应运而生。该网络服务营销的兴起,为广大的中小企业提供了比传统营销模式更加廉价且有效的推广方式,但同时也引发了商标侵权的纠纷。在关键词广告竞价排名服务下,企业作为广告主,为了使自己的网站链接更容易被搜索到,就会选择使用率高的他人的商标作为关键词,这可能就会侵犯到他人的商标专有权利。由于网络侵权的复杂性和隐蔽性,商标权人难以向侵犯商标权的广告主寻求救济,往往就会选择转向提供关键词广告服务的搜索引擎商。立法上的不足以及理论上的分歧,使得法院在审理中就搜索引擎商责任承担的问题无法形成统一的认识。所以需要解决的问题就是:在涉及关键词广告竞价排名商标侵权的案件中,搜索引擎商究竟应当承担何种形式的责任?美国法院在审理该类案件时,通过判断搜索引擎商对涉案商标的使用是否属于商标法意义上的“商标使用”以及是否会造成消费者混淆,从而认定搜索引擎商是否承担商标直接侵权的责任。美国的这一审理思路并不适合运用在我国的司法实务,但就“商标使用”认定方面,如果搜索引擎商在关键词竞价排名中直接参与了关键词的选择,则很有可能就会构成“商标使用”,进而构成商标侵权责任。欧洲法院在涉及关键词竞价排名服务中搜索引擎商责任认定的案件时,首先也会和美国法院一样认定是否构成商标直接侵权,但不同的是,当法院在认定搜索引擎商不成立商标直接侵权时,转而判断搜索引擎商的帮助侵权责任,欧洲法院法官所提出的对搜索引擎商分层审查的观点值得我们借鉴。对搜索引擎商帮助侵权责任的认定也是我国法院一直以来采用的审理思路,但在以往的司法审判中,我国法院存在着对搜索引擎商责任认定不统一、身份界定不统一,以及对搜索引擎商的审查义务不明确的问题。对于关键词广告服务中搜索引擎商责任的认定,首先应确立商标间接侵权的责任承担形式。商标间接侵权的概念起源于美国法,Inwood案确立了商标间接侵权的认定标准。我国现行法属于商标间接侵权规定的是《商标法》第57条第6项,依据该条文的规定,可以将商标间接侵权的构成要件归纳为:存在商标直接侵权行为;客观上实施了帮助行为;存在主观过错。司法实务中,对搜索引擎商主观过错的认定是难点,而认定主观过错的前提是明确搜索引擎商的注意义务。搜索引擎商的注意义务应该来源于法律的规定,关键词广告服务属于商业广告的性质,所以搜索引擎商作为广告发布者,应该对广告内容负有审查义务。但由于搜索引擎技术的特殊性,我们不得要求搜索引擎商承担严格的审查义务,应该根据其注意能力,赋予适度的审查义务。具体而言,就是将关键词广告服务以搜索引擎商和广告主签订合同之时为界,划分为两个阶段,并分别赋予不同的审查义务。法院在认定搜索引擎商的主观过错时,就可以根据其负担的注意义务,分别不同的时期进行判断。在搜索引擎商应该承担主动审查义务的阶段,以是否履行义务为标准来判断其过错;在搜索引擎商不承担主动审查义务的阶段,则以“红旗标准”和“通知+删除”规则来判断。构成商标间接侵权的搜索引擎商应当与广告主承担连带的侵权责任,且该连带责任为不真正的连带责任。
[Abstract]:With the rapid development of Internet technology, the network service providers, driven by the interests of the Internet, began to look for new profit patterns, so the bidding ranking technology of keyword advertising came into being. The rise of the network service marketing provides a cheaper and effective way of popularization for the large and small enterprises than the traditional marketing model, but at the same time In order to make their website links easier to be searched, enterprises will choose the trademarks of others with high rate as key words, which may infringe on the exclusive rights of other people's trademarks. Because of the complexity and concealment of the network infringement, the enterprise will be used as the advertiser. It is difficult for the trademark owners to seek relief from the advertisers who violate the trademark rights. They often choose to turn to the search engines that provide the service of keyword advertising. The shortcomings of the legislation and the differences in theory make it impossible for the court to form a unified understanding of the question of the business responsibility of the search engine in the trial. What kind of responsibility should a search engine be responsible for in a case involving a competitive bid for a keyword advertising bid? In the case of such a case, the court of the United States judges whether the use of a trademark in the sense of trademark law in the sense of trademark law by a search engine trader or whether it will cause confusion to consumers in the case of such cases. It is found that the search engine business is responsible for the direct infringement of the trademark. This thought of the United States is not suitable for the application of the judicial practice in our country, but the "trademark use" is likely to form a "trademark use" if the search engine is directly involved in the selection of key words in the ranking of keyword bidding. The European Court, in the case of the search engine business liability in the keyword competition ranking service, will first identify with the United States Court whether it constitutes a trademark direct infringement, but the difference is that when the court finds that the search engine does not become a direct trademark infringement, it will judge the search engine business. To help the tort liability, the European Court of court judge's view of the search engine business delamination is worth our reference. The definition of identity is not uniform and the censorship of search engines is not clear. For the identification of search engine business responsibility in the keyword advertising service, first of all, the responsibility for indirect infringement of trademark should be established. The concept of trademark indirect infringement originates from the American law, and the Inwood case establishes the identification standard for the indirect infringement of trademark. The current law of the country belongs to the Trademark Law of indirect infringement of trademark, which is the "trademark law > fifty-seventh" sixth items. According to the provisions of this provision, the constituent elements of the indirect infringement of the trademark can be summed up as: the existence of the trademark direct tort; the objective implementation of the help behavior and the subjective fault. In judicial practice, it is difficult to identify the subjective fault of the search engine business, The premise of determining the subjective fault is to clear the duty of attention of the search engine merchants. The duty of attention of the search engine merchants should come from the provisions of the law. The keyword advertising service belongs to the nature of the commercial advertisement. So the search engine business, as the publisher of the advertisement, should have a censorship obligation on the content of the advertisement. But the special search engine technology is special. In nature, we should not ask the search engine to undertake strict censorship obligations, and should give appropriate review obligations according to their ability to pay attention. In particular, we divide the keyword advertising service into two stages and give different censorship obligations to the search engine merchants and advertisers. The subjective fault of the engine business can be judged in different periods according to the duty of paying attention to its duty of attention. In the stage of the search engine business should take the initiative to examine the obligation, to judge whether the obligation is the standard to judge its fault; in the stage where the search engine does not take the initiative to examine the obligation, then "the standard of red flag" and "pass" The search engine business that constitutes an indirect infringement of a trademark should bear joint liability with the advertiser, and the joint and several liability is not genuine joint and several liability.
【学位授予单位】:山西大学
【学位级别】:硕士
【学位授予年份】:2017
【分类号】:D923.43
【参考文献】
相关期刊论文 前10条
1 陈存款;;帮助侵权涵摄下的搜索引擎竞价排名[J];学术探索;2016年10期
2 张建文;廖磊;;竞价排名服务商审查义务研究[J];甘肃政法学院学报;2016年05期
3 阳东辉;;论互联网关键词广告的商标侵权认定规则[J];政治与法律;2016年09期
4 彭斌慧;;搜索引擎竞价排名中的商标侵权行为及其认定[J];法制博览;2015年23期
5 杜颖;;搜索引擎服务提供商关键词广告商标侵权责任之认定[J];法学;2015年06期
6 杜颖;;搜索链接服务提供者商标侵权责任认定的司法动向[J];人民司法;2015年02期
7 周多;李夏祈;;网络竞价排名中的商标侵权及不正当竞争问题研究[J];北京政法职业学院学报;2013年04期
8 谢雪凯;;商标间接侵权之制度辨明及其独立地位——写在中国《商标法》第三次修订稿颁布之初[J];云南社会科学;2013年06期
9 宋亚辉;;竞价排名服务中的网络关键词审查义务研究[J];法学家;2013年04期
10 祝建军;;竞价排名商标案裁判方法的反思——从两起百度案谈起[J];知识产权;2013年03期
相关重要报纸文章 前1条
1 吴学安;;付费网络搜索应纳入广告法规制体系[N];民主与法制时报;2016年
,本文编号:1796680
本文链接:https://www.wllwen.com/kejilunwen/sousuoyinqinglunwen/1796680.html