商標(biāo)反向混淆問題的解決策略研究,法學(xué)碩士論文

商標(biāo)反向混淆問題的解決策略研究,法學(xué)碩士論文本篇論文目錄導(dǎo)航：【第1部分】商標(biāo)反向混淆問題的解決策略研究【第2部分】【第3部分】【第4部分】【第5部分】【第6部分】【第7部分】摘要商標(biāo)反向混淆理論起源并發(fā)展于美國司法判例，與傳統(tǒng)的正向混淆在權(quán)利人的損害賠償認(rèn)定、侵權(quán)人的主觀意圖、消費者混淆方向等方面存在眾多差異，故侵權(quán)人的民事責(zé)任承當(dāng)與正向混淆也理應(yīng)有別，不能簡單地完全套用正向混淆的解決機(jī)制來處理反向混淆案件。反向混淆的解決既要保衛(wèi)好商標(biāo)權(quán)利人利益，又要維護(hù)消費者權(quán)益，同時也要兼顧效率與公平。本文從美國司法判例入手，先認(rèn)識商標(biāo)反向混淆，再認(rèn)定反向混淆侵權(quán)的成立要件和責(zé)任承當(dāng)，最后對癥下藥,探究反向混淆相應(yīng)解決機(jī)制。本文第一部分闡述商標(biāo)反向混淆的理論溯源，包括反向混淆的發(fā)展歷程和禁止反向混淆的法理基礎(chǔ)兩部分。反向混淆經(jīng)歷了不被接受--開場關(guān)注--逐步認(rèn)可的發(fā)展歷程，這個歷程通過標(biāo)志性的司法判例野馬〔Mustang〕商標(biāo)案、大腳〔BigFoot〕商標(biāo)案和BeeWear商標(biāo)案來展現(xiàn)。禁止反向混淆的法理基礎(chǔ)，包括公平和效率兩個方面。認(rèn)識反向混淆是什么后，本文第二部分就著重討論什么樣的情形構(gòu)成反向混淆侵權(quán)、反向混淆成立后應(yīng)承當(dāng)什么樣的責(zé)任，為下文相對應(yīng)的解決機(jī)制的討論作好鋪墊。本文第三部分從反不正當(dāng)競爭法的角度來解決商標(biāo)反向混淆。商標(biāo)混淆本質(zhì)上屬于不正當(dāng)競爭行為，美國早期的商標(biāo)糾紛案件，一般都通過反不正當(dāng)競爭法的原理解決。但反不正當(dāng)競爭法要求行為人必須具有侵權(quán)的主觀過錯，而反向混淆中原告往往很難證明侵權(quán)者過錯，此時反不正當(dāng)競爭法的弊端就顯露無遺。本文第四部分從商標(biāo)法的角度解決反向混淆問題。商標(biāo)侵權(quán)行為的認(rèn)定上，商標(biāo)法不要求侵權(quán)人具備主觀過錯，通過商標(biāo)法解決反向混淆具有充分的理論和法律根據(jù)。在解決形式的選擇上，法院的個案判決應(yīng)兼顧公平與效率；引進(jìn)商標(biāo)雙重使用和商標(biāo)共存協(xié)議具有可行性，但應(yīng)防止損害公共利益；借鑒民法添附制度更突出了效率價值。本文第五部分介紹我們國家商標(biāo)反向混淆的解決現(xiàn)在狀況及完善建議。我們國家商標(biāo)法對反向混淆沒有明確規(guī)定，也沒有否認(rèn)其侵權(quán)本質(zhì)，司法實踐對反向混淆案件的解決進(jìn)行了有益探尋求索。商標(biāo)法關(guān)于反向混淆的侵權(quán)認(rèn)定、責(zé)任承當(dāng)仍需明確，司法實踐可以引進(jìn)權(quán)利通約理論，促成當(dāng)事人交換協(xié)議的達(dá)成。本文關(guān)鍵詞語：商標(biāo)，反向混淆，解決機(jī)制，商標(biāo)共存，添附。AbstractTrademarkreverseconfusiontheoryoftheoriginsanddevelopsofthejurisprudenceintheUnitedStates,withthetraditionalforwardconfusepeople,therearemanydifferencesintherightsrecognizeddamages,theinfringerssubjectiveintent,directionandotheraspectsofconsumerconfusion,theinfringerscivilliabilitythereshouldalsobeconfusedwithanotherforward,sowecantsimplybeappliedentirelypositiveresolutionmechanismtodealwithreverseconfusioncase.Thesolutionofthereverseconfusionshouldnotonlyprotectthetrademarkholderofinterests,butalsosafeguardtheinterestsofconsumers,whilealsotakeintoaccounttheefficiencyandfairness.ThisarticlefromtheAmericanjurisprudencetostart,firstlygettoknowthetrademarkreverseconfusion,andthenfindsthereverseconfusioninfringementestablishedrequirementsandresponsibilities,andfinallyrighttoexplorethereverseconfusioncorrespondingsettlementmechanism.Thefirstpartofthisarticlediscussesthetheoryofreverseconfusiontrademarktraceability,includingreverseconfusionofthedevelopmentprocessandthelegalbasistoprohibitreverseconfusion.Reverseconfusionexperiencedthedevelopmentprocessofnottobeaccepted-startedtobepaidattention-graduallytoberecognized,thisjourneythroughiconicjurisprudenceMustang〔Mustang〕trademarkcase,Bigfoot〔BigFoot〕trademarkcaseandBeeWeartrademarkcasetoshowoff.Thelegalbasistoprohibitreverseconfusionincludesbothequityandefficiency.Knowingwhatthereverseconfusionis,thesecondpartofthispaperfocusesonwhichsolutionconstitutesareverseconfusioninfringementcase,andthenwhatkindofresponsibilitythereverseconfusionshouldbear,asdiscussedbelow,thecorrespondingresolutionmechanismstopavetheway.ThethirdpartfromtheperspectiveoftheAnti-UnfairCompetitionLawtoresolvetrademarkreverseconfusion.Trademarksbelongtoconfusethenatureofunfaircompetition,theUnitedStatesearliertrademarkdisputes,usuallybyanti-unfaircompetitionlawprinciplestosolve.However,theUnfairCompetitionLawrequiresthattheperpetratormusthavesubjectivefaultinfringement,whilethedemandantisoftendifficulttoproveconfusinginfringersfault,thentheAnti-UnfairCompetitionLawsdrawbackswererevealed.ThefourthpartofthisarticlesolvetheproblemfromtheperspectiveofTrademarkLaw.TheTrademarkLawdoesnotrequiretheinfringersubjectivefaulttoidentifythetrademarkinfringement,therearesufficienttheoreticalandlegalbasistoresolvereverseconfusionthroughtheTrademarkLaw.Inselectingsolvingmodelbasedonthejudgmentofthecourtcasesshouldbebothfairandefficient;theintroductionofdual-usetrademarkandtrademarkcoexistenceagreementisfeasible,butshouldpreventagainstthepublicinterest;learningmoreprominentcivillawaccretionhighlightstheefficiencyvalue.ThefifthsectionofthisarticledescribesthecurrentsituationofChinastrademarkreverseresolveconfusionandsuggestionsforimprovement.Ourtrademarklawdoesnotspecifyonthereverseconfusion,alsonotdenyitsinfringingnature,thejudicialpracticeofthereverseconfusioncasesolvedmakesalotofusefulexploration.TheInfringementandresponsibilityofthereverseconfusionshouldbemadeclearbyTrademarkLaw,theExchangeEntitlementThesisshouldbeintroducedbyjudicialpracticetocontributetothepartiesexchangeagreementbeingreached.KeyWords:Trademark,ReverseConfusion,SettlementMechanism,CoexistenceofTrademark,Accessio目錄引言11商標(biāo)反向混淆理論溯源31.1商標(biāo)反向混淆理論的發(fā)展脈絡(luò)31.1.1反向混淆開場走進(jìn)司法視野--野馬〔Mustang〕商標(biāo)案31.1.2商標(biāo)反向混淆的司法確立--大腳〔BigFoot〕商標(biāo)案41.1.3禁止反向混淆的目的--BeeWear商標(biāo)案51.1.4商標(biāo)反向混淆的基本特征51.2禁止商標(biāo)反向混淆的法理基礎(chǔ)61.2.1基于公平角度之一：反向混淆損害在先商標(biāo)權(quán)利人利益61.2.2基于公平角度之二：誤導(dǎo)消費者61.2.3禁止反向混淆的效率考量72商標(biāo)反向混淆的認(rèn)定92.1反向混淆的侵權(quán)認(rèn)定92.1.1原告商標(biāo)具有可保衛(wèi)性92.1.2消費者出現(xiàn)認(rèn)知混淆92.1.3在后商標(biāo)使用人的市場地位優(yōu)于在先商標(biāo)權(quán)利人112.2反向混淆的責(zé)任認(rèn)定122.2.1禁令122.2.2損害賠償133反向混淆的反不正當(dāng)競爭法解決163.1適用反不正當(dāng)競爭法的根據(jù)163.1.1理論根據(jù)163.1.2法律根據(jù)163.2適用反不正當(dāng)競爭法的缺乏174反向混淆的商標(biāo)法解決194.1適用商標(biāo)法的根據(jù)194.1.1理論根據(jù)194