驰名商标跨类保护与全类保护之辩
A Debate on Cross-Class Protection and Full-Class Protection of Well-Known Trademarks
摘要: 围绕着驰名商标跨类保护是否应受到限制,商标法上“跨类保护”与“全类保护”之争一直是受争议的话题,该争议实际上是由对驰名商标的理解偏差而产生的。主张限制商品类别的会带来解释困境,“跨类保护”存在逻辑漏洞,违背商标法价值目标,容易导致驰名商标制度异化等弊端,因此需进一步明确驰名商标这一法律概念,规范驰名商标的认定与使用。另一方面,从近年来我国逐渐采用的淡化理论来看,驰名商标的反淡化保护也需要对驰名商标进行“全类保护”,而淡化理论在我国法律规范与司法事务中也得到支撑。驰名商标是法律概念而非商业概念,需经过特定程序产生并仅在个案中生效,通过明确驰名商标的概念、激活个案认定规则,有助于厘清商标法律关系,避免驰名商标异化。
Abstract:
Whether cross-class protection of well-known trademarks shall be restricted, the dispute between “cross-class protection” and “full class protection” in trademark law has always been a controversial topic. This controversy is actually caused by a misunderstanding of well-known trademarks. Advocating for restricting the category of goods will bring about interpretational difficulties. “cross-class protection” has logical loopholes, violates the value goals of trademark law, and is prone to cause the alienation of the well-known trademark system. Therefore, it is necessary to further clarify the legal concept of well-known trademarks and regulate their identification and use. On the other hand, from the perspective of the dilution theory gradually adopted in China in recent years, the anti-dilution protection of well-known trademarks also needs to be “fully protected” for well-known trademarks. The dilution theory is also supported in China’s legal norms and judicial affairs. Well-known trademarks are legal concepts rather than commercial concepts. They need to be generated through specific procedures and only take effect in individual cases. Clarifying the concept of well-known trademarks and activating the case identification rules can help clarify the legal relationship of trademark law and avoid the alienation of well-known trademarks.
参考文献
|
[1]
|
吴伟光. 商标权注册取得制度的体系性理解及其制度异化的纠正[J]. 现代法学, 2019, 41(1): 96-109.
|
|
[2]
|
王建宏, 庞学硕. 驰名商标的司法认定与司法保护[J]. 中华商标, 2023(3): 38-42.
|
|
[3]
|
王莲峰. 驰名商标异化的法律规制[J]. 河南省政法管理干部学院学报, 2010, 25(6): 42-50.
|
|
[4]
|
杜颖, 何吉. 驰名商标“按需认定”原则辨析[J]. 电子知识产权, 2020(8): 20-30.
|
|
[5]
|
杜颖. 商标淡化理论及其应用[J]. 法学研究, 2007(6): 44-54.
|
|
[6]
|
黄晖. 商标法[M]. 第二版. 北京: 法律出版社, 2015: 263.
|
|
[7]
|
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, 26(2): 137-146.
|
|
[8]
|
李小武. 商标反淡化研究[M]. 杭州: 浙江大学出版社, 2011: 93-94.
|
|
[9]
|
McCarthy, J.T. (2016) McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition. Vol. 3, 4th Edition, Thomson West, Eagan, Minnesota, 72 p.
|
|
[10]
|
王洋. 跨类使用驰名商标是否既构成混淆又构成淡化——中美实证研究[J]. 中华商标, 2022(3): 7-11.
|
|
[11]
|
王迁. 知识产权法教程[M]. 北京: 中国人民大学出版社, 2014: 504.
|
|
[12]
|
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.
|
|
[13]
|
张伟君. 论我国《商标法》驰名商标保护规则的完善[J]. 知识产权, 2023(9): 3-24.
|
|
[14]
|
马孟驰飞. 我国驰名商标反淡化理论的法律实践[J]. 中华商标, 2022(3): 12-14.
|
|
[15]
|
李友根. “淡化理论”在商标案件裁判中的影响分析——对100份驰名商标案件判决书的整理与研究[J]. 法商研究, 2008(3): 134-145.
|