我国商标反向混淆侵权行为的司法认定问题研究

发布时间：2018-03-24 17:51

本文选题：反向混淆　切入点：混淆可能性　出处：《安徽财经大学》2017年硕士论文

【摘要】：商标作为表彰商品或服务的来源,在现代市场激烈的竞争中,发挥了不可替代的作用。正是由于其具备这种特殊的功能,商家在抢占市场的过程中也注重对于商标的抢占,因此就会产生消费者对于商标的混淆。不同于一般商标的正向混淆,反向混淆由于其自身的特点,往往很难进行认定。因此对于反向混淆的认定,应该结合其特征与混淆可能性原理进行综合认定,同时还要考量其他因素。我国商标保护发展较晚,对于商标反向混淆,没有形成统一的认识,混淆可能性原理运用也存在较大差异,同时相关法律的缺失导致在混淆认定时更是无从下手。本文对近十几年的典型反向混淆案件进行梳理研究,重点分析各案例的司法认定标准及审理结果后,总结概括了现阶段的司法认定过程中存在的困境,主要表现为商标反向混淆认定顺序混乱与标准不统一,造成案件的审理偏差较大,浪费司法资源且多出现同案不同判现象,同时双重相似标准与混淆可能性标准定位模糊,使司法实践中对于混淆的认定根基不稳;缺乏相应的考量因素,导致证据混乱、认定结果说服力不强;现行商标法中反向混淆条文缺失,使司法裁判缺乏公信力,得不到当事人的认可等。在总结出我国反向混淆司法认定的现实困境后,借鉴美国反向混淆的认定经验,同时结合我国的现实国情与司法环境,提出了相应的完善建议。首先,明确反向混淆的认定标准与认定顺序,本文设计了五项认定标准,按照依次的顺序进行排列,即第一步综合审查涉案商标的合法有效性;第二步审查涉案商标的相似性;第三步审查涉案商品或服务相似性;第四步审查相关消费者(或大众)的明智程度或是否会引起他们的混淆误认;第五步审查商标在后使用人是否经过大量的广告宣传或者行销策略抢占市场。其次为了使事实调查更加准确、判决更具说服力,在反向混淆的认定过程中增加相关考量因素,主要包括在先权利人的多样化经营情况、实际混淆误认的证据、相关消费者对各商标的熟悉程度、系争商标的注册申请是否善意等。最后再对现行商标法相关条文进行扩充,主要涉及到商标法第30条与第57条,对第30条的扩充是加入混淆可能性作为认定标准,有利于统一行政机关与司法机关对于商标混淆的认定,节约司法资源;第57条的扩充是在其第二款后明确反向混淆的这一具体侵权方式,增加认定的自信心与说服力。
[Abstract]:Trademark recognition as a source of goods or services, in the modern market competition, has played an irreplaceable role. It is because it has this special feature, businesses in the process to seize the market also pay attention to the trademark preemption, so consumers will produce for trademark trademark is different from the general confusion. Forward confusion, reverse confusion due to its own characteristics, it is often difficult to identify. So for confirmation, should be combined with its characteristics and the likelihood of confusion principle are considered, but also consider other factors. The late development of trademark protection in China, the trademark reverse confusion, there is no unified understanding, the likelihood of confusion principle there is a big difference, and the lack of relevant laws resulted in confusion when the identification is not start. The typical reverse nearly ten years of confusion cases Study on the analysis of the case, the judicial cognizance standard and trial results focus after summarizes the existing judicial process at the present stage in the dilemma, mainly for the identification of trademark reverse confusion order confusion and the standard is not unified, the trial of the deviation caused by the case of large waste of judicial resources and different co contracting phenomenon, at the same time double standards and similar standard of likelihood of confusion in the judicial practice of the localization is fuzzy, cognizance of the foundation of confused instability; the lack of consideration of relevant evidence, leading to confusion, that results are not convincing; the reverse confusion in trademark law provisions of the administration of justice is missing, the lack of credibility, not approval of parties. In summary the realistic dilemma of China's judicial cognizance of the reverse confusion, from the experience of the United States identified the reverse confusion, combined with the reality of China's national conditions and judicial environment, is put forward. Suggestions. First of all, clear standards of reverse confusion and confirmation of order, this paper designs five standards, are arranged according to the order, that is the first step in a comprehensive review of the legal validity of trademark; the second step review involved the similarity of trademarks; third step review involved goods or services similar to fourth; step review the relevant consumers (or public) wise degree or whether it will lead to misidentification of their confusion; fifth step review of the trademark after use is through a lot of advertising or marketing strategy to seize the market. Secondly in order to make more accurate judgment of facts, more convincing, in determining the reverse confusion related factors increase process in the case of diversification mainly include prior human rights, the actual evidence of consumer confusion, familiarity with the trademark, for the registration of a trademark. Please kindly. Whether the relevant provisions of the trademark law expansion, mainly related to the Trademark Law Article thirtieth and article fifty-seventh, article thirtieth of the extension of the likelihood of confusion is added as a recognized standard, is conducive to the unity of the administrative organ and the judicial organ for the identification of trademark confusion, saving judicial resources; fifty-seventh is to expand the second paragraph after the clear reverse confusion this specific way of infringement, increase confidence and determination of persuasion.

【学位授予单位】：安徽财经大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2017
【分类号】：D923.43

【相似文献】