搜索引擎营销中的商标侵权问题研究
发布时间：2019-04-08 16:00
【摘要】：在搜索引擎环境下将商标作为关键词是否构成“商标的商业性使用”是认定商标侵权与否的前提条件。如果该使用形式无法认定为商标的商业性使用则其后的初始利益混淆理论便无从适用。值得注意的是：商标的商业性使用必须同时满足“商标性使用”和“在商业领域使用”。竞价排名服务是传统广告在网络环境下的一种衍生，将注册商标作为关键词出现在广告条目中进行商业宣传，被消费者看到的那一刻即不构成内部使用，且满足“商标的商业性使用”这一条件。 关于侵权认定，商标的核心功能是产源识别功能，而混淆则破坏了该功能，因此“混淆的可能性”是我国司法实践中商标侵权的认定标准，但是由于搜索引擎营销中的商标侵权形式的特殊性，不能完全适用传统混淆理论，因为潜在消费者的混淆是发生在购买前阶段，并且行为人是通过借用他人商标的商誉来误导消费者关注自身商品或服务。借鉴欧美相关案例，笔者认为将“初始利益混淆”作为认定搜索引擎商标侵权的判断标准是一种国际趋势，它改变了传统判定规则，在搜索引擎环境下的运用会使得对该类商标侵权的认定更加高效和统一，但是，目前我们在司法实践中应该对初始利益混淆进行合理地规制和谨慎地适用，力求当事人之间的利益平衡。 关于侵权责任认定，由于竞价排名客户（广告主）通过竞价排名服务能够自主选择关键词，投放时间，地点等因素，并且广告利益完全由广告主自身所得，因此广告主作为侵权行为人应承担直接侵权责任。对于竞价排名服务商，在搜索引擎环境下，间接侵权附属于直接侵权而存在，，广告主承担的是直接侵权责任，搜索引擎商在有“主观过错”及未履行“审查义务”的前提下构成间接侵权。
[Abstract]:Under the environment of search engine, whether using trademark as key word constitutes "commercial use of trademark" is the precondition to confirm trademark infringement or not. If the form of use cannot be recognized as a commercial use of a trademark, the subsequent theory of initial benefit confusion cannot be applied. It should be noted that the commercial use of trademarks must meet both Trademark use and Commercial use. Bidding ranking service is a derivative of traditional advertising in the network environment, the registered trademark appears as a keyword in the advertising items for commercial promotion, and the moment that consumers see it does not constitute internal use. And the condition of "commercial use of trademark" is satisfied. Regarding the infringement determination, the core function of trademark is to identify the origin of the product, and confusion destroys this function. Therefore, "the possibility of confusion" is the identification standard of trademark infringement in the judicial practice of our country. However, due to the particularity of trademark infringement forms in search engine marketing, the traditional confusion theory cannot be fully applied, because the confusion of potential consumers occurs in the pre-purchase stage. And the doer misleads consumers to pay attention to their own goods or services by borrowing the goodwill of others' trademarks. Referring to the relevant cases in Europe and the United States, the author thinks that it is an international trend to take "initial benefit confusion" as the judgment standard for determining trademark infringement of search engines, and it has changed the traditional judgment rules. The application in search engine environment will make the identification of this kind of trademark infringement more efficient and uniform, but at present, we should regulate and apply cautiously to the confusion of initial interests in judicial practice. Strive for a balance of interests between the parties. With regard to the determination of tort liability, because bidding ranking customers (advertisers) are able to select key words, put in time, place and other factors on their own through bidding ranking service, and advertising benefits are entirely derived by the advertisers themselves, Therefore, advertisers as tortfeasors should bear direct liability for tort. In the environment of search engine, indirect infringement is attached to the direct infringement and exists in the bidding ranking service provider, and the advertisers bear the direct tort liability. Under the premise of "subjective fault" and failure to fulfill the obligation of examination, the search engine operator constitutes indirect tort.
【学位授予单位】：上海大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2013
【分类号】：D923.43
本文编号：2454716
[Abstract]:Under the environment of search engine, whether using trademark as key word constitutes "commercial use of trademark" is the precondition to confirm trademark infringement or not. If the form of use cannot be recognized as a commercial use of a trademark, the subsequent theory of initial benefit confusion cannot be applied. It should be noted that the commercial use of trademarks must meet both Trademark use and Commercial use. Bidding ranking service is a derivative of traditional advertising in the network environment, the registered trademark appears as a keyword in the advertising items for commercial promotion, and the moment that consumers see it does not constitute internal use. And the condition of "commercial use of trademark" is satisfied. Regarding the infringement determination, the core function of trademark is to identify the origin of the product, and confusion destroys this function. Therefore, "the possibility of confusion" is the identification standard of trademark infringement in the judicial practice of our country. However, due to the particularity of trademark infringement forms in search engine marketing, the traditional confusion theory cannot be fully applied, because the confusion of potential consumers occurs in the pre-purchase stage. And the doer misleads consumers to pay attention to their own goods or services by borrowing the goodwill of others' trademarks. Referring to the relevant cases in Europe and the United States, the author thinks that it is an international trend to take "initial benefit confusion" as the judgment standard for determining trademark infringement of search engines, and it has changed the traditional judgment rules. The application in search engine environment will make the identification of this kind of trademark infringement more efficient and uniform, but at present, we should regulate and apply cautiously to the confusion of initial interests in judicial practice. Strive for a balance of interests between the parties. With regard to the determination of tort liability, because bidding ranking customers (advertisers) are able to select key words, put in time, place and other factors on their own through bidding ranking service, and advertising benefits are entirely derived by the advertisers themselves, Therefore, advertisers as tortfeasors should bear direct liability for tort. In the environment of search engine, indirect infringement is attached to the direct infringement and exists in the bidding ranking service provider, and the advertisers bear the direct tort liability. Under the premise of "subjective fault" and failure to fulfill the obligation of examination, the search engine operator constitutes indirect tort.
【学位授予单位】：上海大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2013
【分类号】：D923.43
【参考文献】
相关期刊论文 前10条
1 林婉琼;;关键词广告商标侵权问题再探[J];研究生法学;2010年05期
2 邓宏光;;商标混淆理论的扩张[J];电子知识产权;2007年10期
3 陈晓俊;;竞价排名商标侵权认定的新思路——商标间接侵权原则的应用[J];电子知识产权;2009年04期
4 许春明;;知识产权基本特征在网络环境下的嬗变[J];中国发明与专利;2008年03期
5 张德芬;韩萌;;商标售前混淆理论的发展及其适用规则[J];公民与法(法学);2011年04期
6 邓宏光;;网络广告商标侵权问题初探[J];科技与法律;2009年06期
7 孙佳慧;;搜索引擎竞价排名间接侵害商标权问题认定[J];黑龙江省政法管理干部学院学报;2010年08期
8 胡洪;;法律视角下的竞价排名业务——从搜索引擎服务商角度出发[J];网络法律评论;2010年01期
9 陶鑫良;网络时代知识产权保护的利益平衡思考[J];知识产权;1999年06期
10 邓宏光;;商标混淆理论之新发展:初始兴趣混淆[J];知识产权;2007年03期
本文编号：2454716
本文链接：https://www.wllwen.com/kejilunwen/sousuoyinqinglunwen/2454716.html
