驰名商标反淡化的误区和出路
作者:
中图分类号:

D923.43

基金项目:

湖北省人大研究课题"湖北省著名商标制度立法研究"(HBRDYJKT2018141)


Misunderstanding and outlet of anti-dilution of well-known trademarks
Author:
  • 摘要
  • | |
  • 访问统计
  • |
  • 参考文献 [18]
  • |
  • 相似文献 [20]
  • |
  • 引证文献
  • | |
  • 文章评论
    摘要:

    中国在司法实践中确立了驰名商标反淡化制度。混淆理论通过跨类混淆来达致对驰名商标的反淡化保护;联想理论重视商标持有人的利益诉求,强调对驰名商标的"绝对保护"而不论是否存在混淆可能性。联想理论不足以独自证成驰名商标反淡化保护的合理性,往往通过经济学上的搭便车理论和其他理论来为其佐证。中国驰名商标反淡化立法在联想理论和混淆理论间摇摆不定,导致执法和司法的混乱,驰名商标反淡化保护呈现过滥的趋势。搭便车理论从社会总福利的角度证成了驰名商标反淡化保护的合理性,但更优的方式不是通过社会行政和司法力量对驰名商标进行保护,而是通过将社会成本转换为私人成本的方式避免联想和淡化,避免驰名商标反淡化的扩大适用。

    Abstract:

    China has established the anti-dilution system of well-known trademarks in judicial practice. Confusion theory is used to protect well-known trademarks based on cross category confusion. The association theory attaches great importance to the interests of the trademark holders and emphasizes the "absolute protection", regardless of the possibility of confusion. The association theory is not enough to prove the rationality of trademark anti-dilution protection, and it is proved by the theory of free riding and other theories. The legislation of anti-dilution of well-known trademarks in China is wavering between the association theory and the confusion theory, which leads to the confusion in law enforcement and judicature. The free rider theory has proved the rationality of anti-dilution protection of well-known trademarks from the perspective of total social welfare. But the better way is to translate social cost into private cost, rather than by way of administrative and judicial power, to avoid association and dilution, and to avoid expanded application of anti-dilution of well-known trademarks.

    参考文献
    [1] 任燕.论驰名商标淡化与反淡化措施——再谈我国驰名商标保护的立法完善[J].河北法学,2011(11):51-57.
    [2] 苏珊,瑟拉德,张今,等.美国联邦商标反淡化法的立法与实践[J].外国法译评,1998(4):1-3.
    [3] 杨柳,郑友德.从美国Moseley案看商标淡化的界定[J].知识产权, 2005(1):58-62.
    [4] 冯晓青.注册驰名商标反淡化保护之探讨[J].湖南大学学报(社会科学版),2012(2):137-146.
    [5] 张冬梅,孙英伟.对驰名商标反淡化保护的思考[J].贵州社会科学,2013(5):89-92.
    [6] 邓宏光.我国驰名商标反淡化制度应当缓行[J].法学,2010(2):97-105.
    [7] 温芽清,南振兴.驰名商标保护的异化与理性回归[J].河北法学,2012(6):77-88.
    [8] 彭学龙.论"混淆可能性"——兼评《中华人民共和国商标法修改草稿》(征求意见稿)[J].法律科学(西北政法学院学报),2008(1):130-143.
    [9] SCHECHTER F I.The Rational basis of trademark Protection[J].Harvard law review, 1927, 40(6):813-833.
    [10] 杜颖.商标淡化理论及其应用[J].法学研究,2007(6):44-54.
    [11] 许波.驰名商标行政案件中的反淡化保护[J].人民司法,2013(13):95-100.
    [12] FRANKLYN D J.Debunking dilution doctrine:Toward a coherent theory of the anti-free-rider principle in American trademark law[J].Hastings Law Journal, 2004, 56:117-129.
    [13] BONE R G.Skeptical view of the trademark dilution revision act[J].Intell.Prop.L.Bull., 2007, 11:187-198.
    [14] KLERMAN D.Trademark dilution, Search costs, and naked licensing[J].USC Law Legal Studies Paper, 2006, 74(4):1759-1773.
    [15] MORRIN M, JACOBY J.Trademark dilution:Empirical measures for an elusive concept[J].Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 2000, 19(2):265-276.
    [16] 陈文煊.反淡化理论司法适用的新发展——评"伊利"商标异议复审行政纠纷案[J].知识产权,2010(6):49-53.
    [17] 张乔.商标混淆辩析(上)[J].中华商标,2005(11):20-24.
    [18] 蔡晓东,王忠诚.欧美反淡化法商标驰名认定标准[J].河北法学,2013(3):110-116.
    引证文献
    网友评论
    网友评论
    分享到微博
    发 布
引用本文

张军荣.驰名商标反淡化的误区和出路[J].重庆大学学报社会科学版,2018,24(6):149-156. DOI:10.11835/j. issn.1008-5831.2018.06.014

复制
分享
文章指标
  • 点击次数:1075
  • 下载次数: 873
  • HTML阅读次数: 1614
  • 引用次数: 0
历史
  • 最后修改日期:2018-06-07
  • 在线发布日期: 2018-10-25
文章二维码