竞价排名服务中的商标侵权判定

发布时间：2018-06-15 03:56

本文选题：竞价排名 + 直接侵权　；参考：《浙江大学》2013年硕士论文

【摘要】：互联网使得信息极大丰富,搜索引擎因而成为互联网信息检索的重要工具。竞价排名作为搜索服务提供商的新兴商业模式,保证了搜索引擎的可持续发展,并为商事主体推广宣传商品和服务提供了极优的选择。然而,使用他人注册商标并将其作为搜索关键词的行为导致竞价排名深陷商标侵权纠纷。本文全文分为引言、正文和结语三部分,正文分为六章。第一章分析竞价排名的操作模式,对竞价排名服务推广链接得以生成的来源作细分,引出将商标作为关键词所产生的纠纷。区分出竞价排名所涉及的利益相关人包括搜索服务提供商与竞价排名服务购买商。第二章分析国内外的立法与司法在判定竞价排名服务购买商是否构成商标直接侵权时所依据的各个判定要件,包括“在商业中使用”判定与消费者混淆判定。另外通过分析商标直接侵权抗辩理由的方式对比较广告做了研究。第三章提出认定竞价排名商标直接侵权的法律事实应当是搜索结果中的推广链接；应当坚持以“混淆之虞”标准作为竞价排名服务购买商直接侵权的基本认定标准,同时以“商标显著性受到损害之虞”标准作为该标准的必要补充；所谓的商标侵权“初始兴趣混淆”实质仍然是最基本的“混淆之虞”,它仅是一种表明推广链接存在混淆的事实状态,不应当被用于作为认定竞价排名商标侵权的标准；可基于比较广告在竞价排名中建立对商标的竞争性使用,同时鉴于我国禁止明确性比较广告,提出企业如何在我国进行风险规避。第四章从国内的立法与司法两个角度出发,讨论认为搜索服务提供商承担商标帮助侵权责任的判定依据,是基于其是否履行事先审查义务或者注意义务。竞价排名属于应履行事先审查义务的广告服务,但行政机关无法对此进行切实监管,从而导致行政不作为。另外,其注意义务应当包括作为和不作为两个方面。第五章基于司法判例与客观实际情况,认为免除搜索服务提供商事先审查义务具有必要性与合理性。其注意义务的内容应当采取理性积极式进路,同时提出了在竞价排名服务中如何建立搜索服务提供商豁免规则的建议。第六章分析认为调整反不正当竞争的法律与商标法在立法基础及适用上的关系应当属于一般法与特别法,特别法优先于一般法适用。
[Abstract]:The Internet makes the information extremely rich, therefore the search engine becomes the Internet information retrieval important tool. As a new business model of search service provider, bidding ranking ensures the sustainable development of search engine, and provides an excellent choice for commercial subjects to promote goods and services. However, the use of a trademark as a search term results in a trademark infringement dispute. This paper is divided into three parts: introduction, text and conclusion, and the text is divided into six chapters. The first chapter analyzes the operation mode of bidding ranking, subdivides the source of the promotion link of bidding ranking service, and leads to the disputes caused by trademark as the key word. The stakeholders involved in distinguishing the bidding ranking include search service providers and bidding ranking service buyers. The second chapter analyzes the domestic and foreign legislation and judicature in determining whether the bidding ranking service purchasers constitute direct trademark infringement, including the "use in business" judgment and consumer confusion. In addition, comparative advertising is studied by analyzing the defense of trademark direct infringement. The third chapter proposes that the legal fact of direct trademark infringement should be the promotion link in the search results, and should adhere to the criterion of "confusion risk" as the basic criterion of direct infringement of bidding ranking service purchasers. At the same time, it is necessary to supplement the criterion of "risk of harm to trademark significance"; the essence of the so-called "initial confusion of interest" in trademark infringement is still the most basic "danger of confusion". It is merely a factual state that indicates confusion in the promotion of links and should not be used as a criterion for determining trademark infringement in competitive ranking; competitive use of trademarks can be established in competitive rankings based on comparative advertising. At the same time, in view of the prohibition of explicit comparative advertising in our country, this paper puts forward how to avoid risks in our country. The fourth chapter from the domestic legislation and judicial two angles discusses that the search service provider to bear the trademark help tort judgment basis is based on whether they fulfill the obligation of prior review or duty of care. The bidding ranking is an advertising service which should fulfill the obligation of prior examination, but the administrative agency can not supervise it, which leads to the administrative omission. In addition, the duty of care should include two aspects: act and omission. The fifth chapter, based on the judicial case and objective reality, thinks that it is necessary and reasonable to exempt the search service provider from the obligation of prior examination. The content of its duty of care should adopt the rational and positive approach, at the same time, it puts forward some suggestions on how to establish the exemption rules of search service provider in the bidding ranking service. The sixth chapter analyzes the relationship between the adjustment of the law against unfair competition and the trademark law on the legislative basis and application should belong to the general law and special law, and the special law takes precedence over the general law.
【学位授予单位】：浙江大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2013
【分类号】：D923.43

【参考文献】