全部 标题 作者
关键词 摘要

OALib Journal期刊
ISSN: 2333-9721
费用:99美元

查看量下载量

相关文章

更多...

商标恶意抢注法律规制研究
Research on the Legal Regulation of Trademark Malicious Rush Registration

DOI: 10.12677/DS.2024.101040, PP. 286-294

Keywords: 商标恶意抢注,商标权注册取得,诚信原则,使用在先
Trademark Malicious Rush Registration
, Obtain Trademark Right by Registration, Good Faith Principle, Use of Priority

Full-Text   Cite this paper   Add to My Lib

Abstract:

商标恶意抢注不利于建立公平公正的市场运行的秩序,也导致了大量司法和行政资源的浪费。我国现行《商标法》对规制商标恶意抢注仍存在局限性,使得该现象未能得到有效规制。笔者通过分析归纳商标恶意抢注的典型案例,认为我国对于商标恶意抢注问题存在着对行为人主观“恶意”界定不清、商标注册过程中先申请的商标注册人优先于先使用的商标注册人取得商标专用权以及行为人实施恶意抢注商标行为后所应受到的法律制裁过轻的问题。为解决以上问题,需明确行为人“恶意”的标准,强化在商标注册过程中对诚信原则的应用;明确使用在先与先申请原则相结合,强调先使用原则在商标申请注册中的地位;并且适当加重在行为人实施商标恶意抢注行为后应承担的相关法律责任,增加实施商标恶意抢注行为的成本,从而对商标恶意抢注进行有效的法律规制,进一步加强对知识产权的维护,为我国经济的繁荣和发展保驾护航。
Trademark malicious rush registration is not conducive to the establishment of a fair and just market operation order, but also leads to the waste of a large number of judicial and administrative resources. China’s current trademark law still has limitations in regulating the malicious rush registration of trademarks, which makes the phenomenon unable to be effectively regulated. By analyzing and summarizing the typical cases of trademark malicious rush registration, the author thinks that there are some problems in the regulation of trademark malicious rush registration such as unclear definition of subjective “malice” of the actor, the principle of application first is better than the principle of use first in the process of trademark registration and the responsibility of malicious rush to register trademark is too light. To address the above issues, it is necessary to clarify the criteria for the perpetrator’s “malicious intent” and strengthen the application of the principle of good faith in the trademark registration process; clarify the combination of the principle of prior use and prior application, and emphasize the position of the principle of prior use in trademark application and registration; and appropriately increase the relevant legal responsibilities that the actor should bear after committing malicious trademark registration behavior, increase the cost of implementing malicious trademark registration behavior, and effectively regulate trademark malicious registration, further strengthen the maintenance of intellectual property rights, and safeguard the prosperity and development of China’s economy.

References

[1]  毋国平. 法律概念的形成思维[J]. 北方法学, 2017, 11(5): 124-138.
[2]  刘铁光. 规制商标“抢注”与“囤积”的制度检讨与改造[J]. 法学, 2016(8): 38-48.
[3]  张鹏. 规制商标恶意抢注规范的体系化解读[J]. 知识产权, 2018(7): 17-32.
[4]  魏丽丽. 商标恶意抢注法律规制路径探究[J]. 政法论丛, 2020(1): 113-124.
[5]  王太平. 商标法: 原理与案例[M].北京: 北京大学出版社, 2015: 178.
[6]  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.
[7]  Bently, L., Davis, J. and Ginsburg, J.C. (2008) Trade Marks and Brands: An Interdisciplinary Critique. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511495212
[8]  崔国斌. 商标挟持与注册商标权的限制[J]. 知识产权, 2015(4): 35-44.
[9]  祝建军. 囤积商标牟利的司法规制——优衣库商标侵权案引发的思考[J]. 知识产权, 2018(1): 33-40.
[10]  董慧娟, 贺朗. 新“商标法”背景下恶意注册之类型化及规制——以商标审查程序为重点[J]. 电子知识产权, 2020(6): 48-59.
[11]  冯晓青, 刘欢欢. 效率与公平视角下的商标注册制度研究——兼评我国商标法第四次修改[J]. 知识产权, 2019(1): 3-13.
[12]  王国柱. 论商标故意侵权的体系化规制[J]. 东方法学, 2020(5): 140-150.
[13]  吴元元. 在所有与使用之间:商誉保护的制度逻辑——以广药集团与加多宝公司系列争讼为中心[J]. 东方法学, 2020(2): 65-78.
[14]  彭学龙. 论连续不使用之注册商标请求权限制[J]. 法学评论, 2018, 36(6): 103-115.
[15]  田晓玲, 张玉敏. 商标抢注行为的法律性质和司法治理[J]. 知识产权, 2018(1): 27-32, 49.
[16]  戴文骐. 认真对待商标权: 恶意抢注商标行为规制体系的修正[J]. 知识产权, 2019(7): 33-46.
[17]  徐国栋. 民法基本原则解释: 诚信原则的历史、实务法理研究[M]. 北京: 北京大学出版社, 2014: 266.
[18]  马一德. 商标注册“不良影响”条款的适用[J]. 中国法学, 2016(2): 225-237.
[19]  杨凯旋. 韩国商标法使用义务规则的新变化及对我国的借鉴[J]. 电子知识产权, 2019(3): 59-69.
[20]  唐春, 李旭颖. 《商标法》第19条第4款“申请注册”的解释及相关问题研究[J]. 知识产权, 2016(3): 99-104.
[21]  徐小奔. 知识产权损害的价值基础与法律构造[J]. 当代法学, 2019, 33(3): 116-125.

Full-Text

comments powered by Disqus

Contact Us

service@oalib.com

QQ:3279437679

WhatsApp +8615387084133

WeChat 1538708413