论假冒注册商标罪中“同一种服务”的认定

On the Determination of “The Same Kind of Service” in the Crime of Counterfeiting Registered Trademarks

摘要: 受服务无形性的影响，服务商标具有使用的依附性以及跨类使用的常态性特征，前特征为“同一种服务”的实质判断提供了一定的判断基准，后特征虽加大了构成类似服务的可能性但却难以达到刑事犯罪中同种服务的要求。刑事犯罪以服务商标获得注册为法益保护之前提，刑事犯罪中的“同一种服务”不仅不包含类似服务，民事侵权当中的同种服务也不能直接等同于刑事犯罪中的同种服务。刑事犯罪中“同一种服务”的认定分两种情形，服务名称相同时以权利人注册商标证核准使用的服务名称为判断参照对象，当一种服务存在约定俗成的多种名称时不要求名称完全相同；服务名称不同时需进行实质判断，以服务商标的依附载体作为辅助判断，严格依照“客观标准到主观标准”的顺序梯次进行，同时满足客观标准与主观标准方能认定构成“同一种服务”。

Abstract: Affected by the intangibility of services, service trademarks have the characteristics of dependence on use and the normality of cross-category use, the former feature provides a certain criterion for the substantive judgment of “the same kind of service”, although the latter feature increases the possibility of forming similar services, it is difficult to meet the requirements of the same kind of service in criminal crimes. Criminal crimes are based on the registration of service trademarks as a prerequisite for the protection of legal interests, “the same kind of service” in criminal crimes does not include similar services, and the same service in civil infringement cannot be directly equivalent to the same service in criminal crimes. The identification of “the same kind of service” in criminal crimes is divided into two situations, when the service name is the same, the service name approved by the right holder’s registered trademark certification is used as the judgment reference object, when a service has a variety of commonly agreed names, the name is not required to be exactly the same; when the service name is different, it is necessary to make a substantive judgment, and the attachment carrier of the service trademark is used as an auxiliary judgment, it is strictly carried out in accordance with the order of “objective standard to subjective standard”, only when both objective and subjective standard are met can “the same kind of service” be recognized.