搜索引擎竞价排名中使用他人商标的分析

发布时间：2018-07-05 16:17

本文选题：商标侵权 + 混淆理论　；参考：《中国社会科学院研究生院》2012年硕士论文

【摘要】：在被称为“注意力经济”的当今时代，网上获得关注的多少可能关系着一个网站的生死成败。作为当今网民离不开的工具，搜索引擎为各网站提供了展现在网民面前的机会，但是由于搜索结果众多，一些按照搜索排序靠后的网站可能就无人问津。搜索引擎服务商发现了这个商机，开展竞价排名服务，向客户出售搜索引擎关键词，将客户的网页链接在搜索结果页面中优先展示出来。这种新的商务模式便利了客户的商业推广，但同时也产生了各种纠纷，其中格外引人注目的是在竞价排名过程中使用他人商标涉及到的侵权问题。竞价排名的客户使用他人的商标作为关键词，使网络用户在搜索该商标时，竞价排名客户的网站链接优先出现在搜索结果上方，并且会有广告词对该网站进行宣传。这样搜索者可能会误以为该链接是商标权人自己的网站，或者与商标权人有某种关联关系；即使不产生这种误认，也是不正当地利用了他人商标所蕴含的商誉来进行宣传。国内已经发生了数起因搜索引擎竞价排名而起的商标侵权案件，在法院的判决中，对于竞价排名服务的性质、是否会造成混淆、是构成商标侵权还是不正当竞争、搜索引擎服务商是否具有审核竞价排名关键词的义务等有不同的认定，并未形成统一的认识。笔者考察了商标法的理论和国内外关于这类案件的判决，认为竞价排名服务虽然是搜索引擎服务商所提供，但不同于一般的自然搜索，它人为改变了搜索结果的排序以达到宣传推广客户的目的，因此属于广告，对于搜索引擎服务商因此应该赋予广告发布者的责任。对于在关键词中使用他人商标，可以分为三种情况，第一种是只有在关键词设链时使用商标，在搜索结果页面和客户自己的网站上都没有使用他人商标；第二种是在关键词设链和搜索结果页面上都使用了他人的商标，但客户自己的网站上没有使用他人商标；第三种是不仅关键词设链时使用了商标，而且在搜索结果页面和客户自己的网站上都使用了该商标。笔者认为，对于第三种情况，可以较容易地利用传统的商标混淆理论解决，而对于第二种和第一种情况，可能会导致赞助混淆，从而构成商标侵权；也可能不会导致任何混淆，这时虽不构成商标侵权，但可能会构成不正当竞争。对于搜索引擎服务商，由于他们的广告发布者的地位，而且由于其技术条件可以对竞价排名客户提交的关键词进行审核，因此应负担起审查义务，怠于履行审查义务的，，应当承担辅助侵权的责任。
[Abstract]:In an age known as the attention economy, the amount of online attention may matter whether a website dies or dies. As a tool that Internet users can not do without, search engine provides the opportunity for each website to display in front of the netizens, but because of the numerous search results, some websites ranked by the search order may be ignored. The search engine service provider found this opportunity, launched the bidding ranking service, sold the search engine keyword to the customer, and gave priority to display the customer's web link in the search results page. This new business model facilitates the business promotion of customers, but it also produces various disputes, especially the infringement of using other people's trademarks in the process of bidding ranking. When searching for the trademark, the website link of the bidding ranking customer will appear first above the search result, and there will be advertisement words to publicize the website. In this way, the searcher may mistakenly assume that the link is the trademark owner's own website, or has some connection with the trademark owner; even if this misconception does not occur, it may improperly use the goodwill contained in another person's trademark to publicize it. There have been a number of trademark infringement cases caused by search engine bidding ranking in China. In the judgment of the court, whether the nature of the bidding ranking service will cause confusion, whether it constitutes trademark infringement or unfair competition, Whether search engine service provider has the obligation to examine the keywords of bidding ranking has different recognition, and has not formed a unified understanding. The author examines the theory of trademark law and the judgments of this kind of cases at home and abroad, and thinks that although the bidding ranking service is provided by the search engine service provider, it is different from the general natural search service. It artificially changes the order of search results to achieve the purpose of promoting customers, so it belongs to the advertisement, so the search engine service provider should give the advertisement publisher the responsibility. For the use of other people's trademarks in key words, can be divided into three situations, the first is only when the keyword chain use trademarks, search results page and the customer's own website does not use other people's trademarks; The second is the use of someone else's trademark on the keyword chain and the search results page, but not on the client's own website; the third is the use of a trademark not only when the keyword is chained, but not on the customer's own website. The logo is also used on the search results page and on the client's own website. In my opinion, for the third case, it is easier to use the traditional trademark confusion theory to solve the problem, while for the second case and the first case, it may lead to sponsorship confusion, thus constituting trademark infringement, or it may not lead to any confusion. This time does not constitute trademark infringement, but may constitute unfair competition. For search engine service providers, because of their status as publishers of advertisements, and because their technical conditions allow them to examine the keywords submitted by bidding ranking customers, they should bear the obligation to review and be lazy to fulfill their obligations. Shall bear the responsibility for auxiliary infringement.
【学位授予单位】：中国社会科学院研究生院
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2012
【分类号】：D923.43

【参考文献】