發(fā)布時(shí)間：2018-05-04 09:00

  本文選題：商標(biāo)侵權(quán) + 司法判定��； 參考：《湘潭大學(xué)》2013年碩士論文

【摘要】：社會(huì)經(jīng)濟(jì)的不斷發(fā)展，商標(biāo)的價(jià)值功能日益彰顯。伴隨商標(biāo)侵權(quán)數(shù)量的日益增多，侵權(quán)形式復(fù)雜和多樣化，，如何判定商標(biāo)侵權(quán)行為已成為司法機(jī)關(guān)審理商標(biāo)侵權(quán)案件的關(guān)鍵。我國(guó)商標(biāo)侵權(quán)行為的判定源于1982年《商標(biāo)法》的規(guī)定，1993年和2001年兩次修訂均未作實(shí)質(zhì)性的修改。且前兩次修訂很大程度上是受到外來壓力的影響，而非基于商標(biāo)法原理和自身國(guó)情的選擇結(jié)果。而本次《商標(biāo)法》的修訂是在貫徹知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)戰(zhàn)略下的自發(fā)行為，因此有必要對(duì)不符合我國(guó)國(guó)情和國(guó)際發(fā)展趨勢(shì)、背離商標(biāo)法基本原理的相關(guān)制度進(jìn)行完善。 而商標(biāo)侵權(quán)行為的判定作為商標(biāo)法的重要組成部分，其判定主體、判定標(biāo)準(zhǔn)和判定因素一直是司法實(shí)踐的難題。本文通過樣本案例的實(shí)證分析，對(duì)商標(biāo)侵權(quán)理論的應(yīng)用和操作進(jìn)行研究，對(duì)商標(biāo)侵權(quán)有關(guān)法律實(shí)施效果的進(jìn)行測(cè)量，同時(shí)通過比較研究的方法，對(duì)國(guó)外商標(biāo)侵權(quán)判定的法律經(jīng)驗(yàn)進(jìn)行總結(jié)歸納和對(duì)比分析，進(jìn)而對(duì)我國(guó)商標(biāo)侵權(quán)判定進(jìn)行多維度剖析和評(píng)判，發(fā)現(xiàn)存在的問題及其原因。 對(duì)各國(guó)商標(biāo)侵權(quán)行為判定的立法模式進(jìn)行總結(jié)，并對(duì)我國(guó)商標(biāo)侵權(quán)行為判定立法沿革進(jìn)行梳理，發(fā)現(xiàn)目前對(duì)商標(biāo)侵權(quán)行為的判定主要有列舉式、概括式和雙軌制三種立法模式。從我國(guó)的立法沿革看，我國(guó)一直采用列舉式模式。 針對(duì)樣本案例從發(fā)案時(shí)間和地點(diǎn)、案件主體與客體、案件判定三個(gè)大方面進(jìn)行實(shí)證分析，重點(diǎn)從判定主體、判定標(biāo)準(zhǔn)、判定因素和援引法條對(duì)案件判定部分進(jìn)行詳細(xì)論述。研究表明，目前我國(guó)商標(biāo)侵權(quán)案件起訴的數(shù)量仍處于不斷增長(zhǎng)的階段，但從最終判定來看，商標(biāo)侵權(quán)判定數(shù)量較為平穩(wěn)，案件和解與撤訴比重不斷增加，并且這一趨勢(shì)在沿海發(fā)達(dá)地區(qū)更為明顯。此外，判定商標(biāo)侵權(quán)的比重遠(yuǎn)遠(yuǎn)高于判定商標(biāo)不侵權(quán)的比重，侵權(quán)案件主要集中于企業(yè)與企業(yè)、企業(yè)與個(gè)人之間的訴訟。而且，我國(guó)的商標(biāo)侵權(quán)判定的主體還不規(guī)范，標(biāo)準(zhǔn)還未統(tǒng)一，侵權(quán)認(rèn)判定的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)還存在較為嚴(yán)重的邏輯問題，司法實(shí)踐操作存在難題，這種情形在《商標(biāo)法修正案（草案）》中仍沒有解決。 重點(diǎn)需要從商標(biāo)侵權(quán)判定主體、侵權(quán)判定的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)和侵權(quán)判定的因素三個(gè)方面進(jìn)行制度的完善。提出要統(tǒng)一規(guī)范商標(biāo)侵權(quán)判定主體，以“相關(guān)公眾”作為侵權(quán)判定主體，同時(shí)調(diào)整商標(biāo)侵權(quán)判定的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，解決目前商標(biāo)近似與混淆之間的邏輯錯(cuò)誤，以“混淆可能性”作為商標(biāo)侵權(quán)判定的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。并且通過司法解釋等途徑對(duì)商標(biāo)侵權(quán)行為判定因素進(jìn)行補(bǔ)充，增強(qiáng)商標(biāo)行為侵權(quán)判定的可操作性。
[Abstract]:With the development of social economy, the value function of trademark is becoming more and more obvious. With the increasing number of trademark infringement and the complexity and diversification of infringement forms, how to judge trademark infringement has become the key of judicial organs to try trademark infringement cases. The judgment of trademark infringement in our country originates from the provisions of the Trademark Law in 1982. The first two revisions are influenced by external pressure to a great extent, not based on the principles of trademark law and the selection of their own national conditions. The revision of the Trademark Law is a spontaneous act under the implementation of the intellectual property strategy, so it is necessary to perfect the relevant system which does not conform to the national conditions of our country and the international development trend and deviates from the basic principles of the Trademark Law. As an important part of trademark law, the judgment of trademark infringement is a difficult problem in judicial practice. Through the empirical analysis of sample cases, this paper studies the application and operation of trademark infringement theory, measures the effect of law enforcement of trademark infringement, and at the same time, through the method of comparative study, This paper sums up and contrasts the legal experience of foreign trademark infringement adjudication, and then analyzes and judges the trademark infringement judgment in our country in many dimensions, and finds out the existing problems and their causes. This paper summarizes the legislative model of trademark infringement judgment in various countries, and combs the legislative evolution of trademark infringement judgment in our country, and finds that there are three kinds of legislative models for judging trademark infringement at present: enumeration, generalization and dual track system. From the legislative evolution of our country, our country has been using the enumeration model. According to the sample case from the time and place of the case, the subject and object of the case, the case of three major aspects of empirical analysis, mainly from the judgment of the main body, judging criteria, judging factors and invoking the law to determine the part of the case is discussed in detail. The research shows that the number of trademark infringement cases in China is still growing, but judging from the final judgment, the number of trademark infringement judgments is relatively stable, and the proportion of cases reconciliation and withdrawal is increasing. And this trend is more obvious in developed coastal areas. In addition, the proportion of judgment trademark infringement is far higher than the proportion of judgment trademark non-infringement, tort cases mainly focus on the litigation between enterprises and enterprises, enterprises and individuals. Moreover, the main body of trademark infringement judgment in our country is not standardized, the standard is not unified, the standard of tort recognition judgment still has serious logic problems, and the judicial practice operation is difficult. This situation remains unresolved in the Trademark Law Amendment (draft). It is necessary to perfect the system from three aspects: the main body of trademark infringement judgment, the standard of infringement judgment and the factors of infringement judgment. It is proposed that the judgment subject of trademark infringement should be unified and the relevant public should be used as the judgment subject of infringement. At the same time, the standard of judgment of trademark infringement should be adjusted to solve the logic error between trademark approximation and confusion. Taking the possibility of confusion as the criterion of trademark infringement. And through judicial interpretation and other means of trademark infringement judgment factors are supplemented to enhance the operability of trademark infringement determination.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：湘潭大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2013
【分類號(hào)】：D923.43

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 張今;陸錫然;;認(rèn)定商標(biāo)侵權(quán)的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)是“混淆”還是“商標(biāo)近似”[J];中華商標(biāo);2008年08期

2 彭學(xué)龍;;論“混淆可能性”——兼評(píng)《中華人民共和國(guó)商標(biāo)法修改草稿》(征求意見稿)[J];法律科學(xué)(西北政法學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào));2008年01期

3 王太平;狹義信息論與商標(biāo)保護(hù)理論[J];電子知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán);2005年01期

4 閻春光;從白雪商標(biāo)侵權(quán)案看馳名商標(biāo)的司法認(rèn)定[J];電子知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán);2005年04期

5 李友根;;“淡化理論”在商標(biāo)案件裁判中的影響分析——對(duì)100份馳名商標(biāo)案件判決書的整理與研究[J];法商研究;2008年03期

6 鄧宏光;;論商標(biāo)侵權(quán)的判斷標(biāo)準(zhǔn)——兼論《中華人民共和國(guó)商標(biāo)法》第52條的修改[J];法商研究;2010年01期

7 孫昊亮;;論我國(guó)《商標(biāo)法》第三次修改中的反淡化保護(hù)[J];法學(xué)雜志;2010年09期

8 鄧宏光;;我國(guó)馳名商標(biāo)反淡化制度應(yīng)當(dāng)緩行[J];法學(xué);2010年02期

9 杜燕霞;;從戴姆勒訴三一案評(píng)英國(guó)商標(biāo)侵權(quán)構(gòu)成要件[J];中華商標(biāo);2011年07期

10 伊茂慶;;商標(biāo)法修訂草案的亮點(diǎn)和缺憾[J];中華商標(biāo);2012年01期

本文編號(hào)：1842421