“避风港规则”在商标间接侵权下的移植
发布时间：2019-06-05 19:20
【摘要】：随着网络技术的不断发展，互联网成了人们生活中必不可少的一部分。越来越多的人开始使用搜索引擎查找信息，使用网络进行购物。在互联网带来便捷的同时，也滋生了不少的法律纠纷，特别是商标法律纠纷。与传统的商标纠纷不同的是，在互联网商标纠纷中，法律主体不仅限于商标权利人和直接侵权人，还牵扯到了网络服务提供者。由于在网络商标纠纷中，实际侵权人往往人数众多、分布地域广阔，而且承担不起最终的巨额赔偿，权利人通常将网络服务提供者作为共同被告，要求侵权赔偿。在这样的背景之下，我们发现，在商标侵权中，，网络服务提供者的定位和责任承担方式在目前而言都是一片空白。立法的空白使得在实际操作中，法官的判决差异巨大，并且对于网络服务提供者而言，也对自身所需承担的义务不甚了解。纵观国内外，只有在版权网络纠纷中对网络服务提供者的责任承担方式有所规定，其中最具代表性的便是“避风港规则”。“避风港规则”的出现明确了权利人、侵权人以及网络服务提供者的责任义务，与此同时，也并没有改变现有的版权法规则。对比网络版权纠纷与网络商标纠纷，网络服务提供者在这两种纠纷中所处的地位、所扮演的角色几乎相同，因此，笔者考虑是否可以将“避风港规则”移植到商标间接侵权中。 本文在简要介绍了“避风港规则”之后，对可否将“避风港规则”移植到商标间接侵权中进行了可行性分析，在得出肯定的结论之后，结合国内外知名案例，对如何移植“避风港规则”进行分析。文章共分四个部分，第一部分简要介绍了“避风港规则”的出现发展以及在我国的适用情况；第二部分从法理学、立法以及司法实践三个维度对可否将“避风港规则”移植到商标间接侵权中进行了可行性分析；第三部分分别从在商标间接侵权环境中适用“避风港规则”的主体、主观要件、客观要件等方面进行分析，主要对如何判断网络服务提供者的主观要件进行分析，并对如何在商标环境中适用“通知—移除”规则进行阐述；第四部分，笔者在进行理论及实证分析之后，提出了对此问题的一些立法建议。
[Abstract]:With the continuous development of network technology, the Internet has become an indispensable part of people's lives. More and more people begin to use search engines to find information and use the Internet for shopping. While the Internet brings convenience, it also breeds a lot of legal disputes, especially trademark legal disputes. Different from the traditional trademark disputes, in the Internet trademark disputes, the legal subject is not only limited to trademark rights holders and direct infringers, but also involves network service providers. Because in the network trademark dispute, the actual infringer often has a large number of people, the distribution area is broad, and can not afford the final huge compensation, the obligee usually takes the network service provider as the co-defendant, claims the infringement compensation. In this context, we find that in trademark infringement, the positioning and liability of network service providers are blank at present. The blank legislation makes the decision of the judge differ greatly in practice, and for the network service provider, he also has little understanding of the obligations he needs to undertake. At home and abroad, only in copyright network disputes, the responsibility of network service providers is stipulated, among which the most representative is the safe haven rules. The emergence of safe haven rules clarifies the responsibilities and obligations of rights holders, infringers and network service providers. At the same time, it does not change the existing rules of copyright law. Compared with the network copyright dispute and the network trademark dispute, the role of the network service provider in these two disputes is almost the same. Therefore, the author considers whether the "safe haven rule" can be transferred to the indirect infringement of the trademark. After a brief introduction to the "safe haven rules", this paper makes a feasibility analysis on whether the "safe haven rules" can be transferred to the indirect infringement of trademarks. After drawing a positive conclusion, combined with well-known cases at home and abroad, This paper analyzes how to transplant the safe haven rules. The article is divided into four parts. The first part briefly introduces the emergence and development of the safe haven rules and their application in our country. The second part analyzes the feasibility of transplanting the "safe haven rule" into the indirect infringement of trademark from the three dimensions of jurisprudence, legislation and judicial practice. The third part analyzes the subject, subjective element and objective element of the "safe haven rule" in the environment of indirect trademark infringement, and mainly analyzes how to judge the subjective elements of the network service provider. And how to apply the "notice-remove" rule in the trademark environment is expounded. In the fourth part, after theoretical and empirical analysis, the author puts forward some legislative suggestions on this issue.
【学位授予单位】：华东政法大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2012
【分类号】：D923.43
本文编号：2493765
[Abstract]:With the continuous development of network technology, the Internet has become an indispensable part of people's lives. More and more people begin to use search engines to find information and use the Internet for shopping. While the Internet brings convenience, it also breeds a lot of legal disputes, especially trademark legal disputes. Different from the traditional trademark disputes, in the Internet trademark disputes, the legal subject is not only limited to trademark rights holders and direct infringers, but also involves network service providers. Because in the network trademark dispute, the actual infringer often has a large number of people, the distribution area is broad, and can not afford the final huge compensation, the obligee usually takes the network service provider as the co-defendant, claims the infringement compensation. In this context, we find that in trademark infringement, the positioning and liability of network service providers are blank at present. The blank legislation makes the decision of the judge differ greatly in practice, and for the network service provider, he also has little understanding of the obligations he needs to undertake. At home and abroad, only in copyright network disputes, the responsibility of network service providers is stipulated, among which the most representative is the safe haven rules. The emergence of safe haven rules clarifies the responsibilities and obligations of rights holders, infringers and network service providers. At the same time, it does not change the existing rules of copyright law. Compared with the network copyright dispute and the network trademark dispute, the role of the network service provider in these two disputes is almost the same. Therefore, the author considers whether the "safe haven rule" can be transferred to the indirect infringement of the trademark. After a brief introduction to the "safe haven rules", this paper makes a feasibility analysis on whether the "safe haven rules" can be transferred to the indirect infringement of trademarks. After drawing a positive conclusion, combined with well-known cases at home and abroad, This paper analyzes how to transplant the safe haven rules. The article is divided into four parts. The first part briefly introduces the emergence and development of the safe haven rules and their application in our country. The second part analyzes the feasibility of transplanting the "safe haven rule" into the indirect infringement of trademark from the three dimensions of jurisprudence, legislation and judicial practice. The third part analyzes the subject, subjective element and objective element of the "safe haven rule" in the environment of indirect trademark infringement, and mainly analyzes how to judge the subjective elements of the network service provider. And how to apply the "notice-remove" rule in the trademark environment is expounded. In the fourth part, after theoretical and empirical analysis, the author puts forward some legislative suggestions on this issue.
【学位授予单位】：华东政法大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2012
【分类号】：D923.43
【参考文献】
相关期刊论文 前6条
1 李国庆;;美国商标间接侵权的法律渊源[J];中华商标;2007年05期
2 陈绍玲;;C2C网络交易平台下侵权投诉通知的有效性探讨——以“衣念诉杜某、淘宝商标侵权案”为视角[J];中华商标;2011年04期
3 汤黎明,陈惠珍,徐俊;浅议知识产权侵权诉讼举证责任分配规则[J];电子知识产权;2003年12期
4 陈慧婷;;从eBay商标侵权案看欧美各国对拍卖网站侵权行为的认定[J];内蒙古农业大学学报(社会科学版);2010年04期
5 王迁;;论“信息定位服务”提供者“间接侵权”行为的认定[J];知识产权;2006年01期
6 黄武双;;搜索引擎服务商商标侵权责任的法理基础——兼评“大众搬场”诉“百度网络”商标侵权案[J];知识产权;2008年05期
相关硕士学位论文 前3条
1 霍定文;电子商务环境下购物网站商标间接侵权问题研究[D];华东政法大学;2010年
2 陈德娟;商标间接侵权研究[D];中国政法大学;2011年
3 怀蕾;商标间接侵权问题研究[D];复旦大学;2011年
本文编号：2493765
本文链接：https://www.wllwen.com/kejilunwen/sousuoyinqinglunwen/2493765.html
