【作者】 张娟；

【导师】 舒利；

【作者基本信息】 南昌大学 ， 法律硕士（专业学位）， 2023， 硕士

【摘要】 注册制度使得我国一跃成为商标大国,商标申请数量稳居世界第一。但是恶意注册行为是我国商标注册取得制度下的“寄生虫”,极大地影响了商标正常功能的运行和价值的发挥。认定商标恶意注册行为是规制商标恶意注册的基础,我国即使有多个条款用于规制恶意注册行为,但仍存在恶意注册的认定标准模糊、不统一等基本问题。一方面,统一认定恶意注册需要从一般性条款出发,首先以诚实信用原则为界线来厘清恶意注册,区分合法的抢注行为与恶意注册下的抢注行为,可以通俗地认为,恶意注册是违反诚实信用原则的行为。再联系并区分民法中的“故意”与商标法中的“恶意”,“恶意”的程度不同并高于“故意”,可以将恶意等同于主观故意+不正当目的和手段+可能造成损害。最后,根据主观认知来认定恶意,将主观认知分为“明知”和“应知”,“推知”也归为“明知”的范畴,将“应知”认定为“不知”,认定恶意时主观上应当是“明知”,应当知道而不知道则不能认定为“恶意”,在认定商标恶意注册时应与商标侵权的认定作区分。另一方面,统一认定恶意注册还需要从具体情形出发,厘清恶意注册与“使用意图、其他不正当手段、不良影响”的关系。2023年《《商标法》修订草案(征求意见稿)》将商标恶意注册类型进行归纳后规定在第二十二条,为我们研究恶意注册提供了一个指引,尤其是“无使用意图、其他不正当手段、不良影响”占了浓墨重彩的一笔,因此具体分析这三种情形很有必要。就“使用意图”而言,可以认为无使用意图的注册违反了商标法立法精神,使商标的功能得不到发挥,但是防御商标的存在又是一个例外,因此应当将适量的防御商标申请排除在恶意注册之外,可以认定除适量防御商标之外的无使用意图的商标注册为恶意注册。根据“其他不正当手段”认定恶意注册时,针对侵害私益的恶意注册,不应适用“其他不正当手段”的规定予以认定,而应适用不予注册的相对理由和《商标法》第四条的规定。如果申请人有使用意图并提交证据证明,这可以排除适用第四条的规定,但为了排除适用第四十四条第1款“不正当手段”的规定,除了满足上述条件外,还需证明该商标的申请注册时间较早并且实际进行了商业使用,即使满足这些条件,仍然可以根据情况认定构成“不正当手段”,并且在有其他确定性的法律条款规定时优先适用明确性法律条款。在认定商标是否具有“不良影响”时应从一般社会公众的视角出发,综合考虑现代化社会对词汇赋予的新涵义,主要考虑商标标识的使用可能对社会造成的不良影响,而不是商标所有人的主观意图,同时,使用后可能会产生不良影响的也应该禁止注册。更多还原

【Abstract】 The registration system has made China a major trademark country,with a stable number of trademark applications ranking first in the world.However,malicious registration behavior is a "parasite" under China’s trademark registration and acquisition system,greatly affecting the normal operation and value of trademarks.The recognition of malicious trademark registration is the basis for regulating malicious trademark registration.Even though there are multiple provisions in China to regulate malicious registration,there are still basic issues such as unclear and inconsistent recognition standards for malicious registration.On the one hand,the unified recognition of malicious registration needs to start from general provisions,first using the principle of good faith as the boundary to clarify malicious registration,distinguishing between legitimate preemptive registration behavior and preemptive registration behavior under malicious registration.It can be widely believed that malicious registration is a violation of the principle of good faith.Further linking and distinguishing between "intention" in civil law and "malice" in trademark law,the degree of "malice" is different and higher than "intention",and malice can be equated with subjective intention+improper purpose and means+potential harm.Finally,malicious intent is determined based on subjective cognition,which is divided into "knowing" and "should know"."inferring" is also classified as "knowing",and "should know" is identified as "not knowing".When determining malicious intent,it should be "knowing" subjectively.If one should know but not know,it cannot be identified as "malicious".When determining trademark malicious registration,it should be distinguished from the determination of trademark infringement.On the other hand,the unified determination of malicious registration also needs to start from specific situations and clarify the relationship between malicious registration and "intention to use,other improper means,and adverse effects".The revised draft of the Trademark Law(Draft for Soliciting Opinions)in 2023 summarizes the types of malicious trademark registration and stipulates them in Article 22,providing us with a guide for studying malicious registration.Especially,"no intention to use,other improper means,and adverse effects" account for a significant amount,so it is necessary to analyze these three situations in detail.In terms of "intention to use",it can be considered that registration without intention to use violates the spirit of trademark law legislation,which hinders the function of the trademark.However,the existence of defensive trademarks is an exception,so an appropriate amount of defensive trademark applications should be excluded from malicious registration.Registration of trademarks without intention to use other than moderate defensive trademarks can be considered malicious registration.When determining malicious registration based on "other improper means",the provisions of "other improper means" should not be applied to malicious registration that infringes on personal interests.Instead,the relative reasons for malicious registration and the provisions of Article 4 of the Trademark Law should be applied.If the applicant has the intention to use and submits evidence to prove,this can exclude the application of Article 4.However,in order to exclude the application of Article 44(1)"Unfair Means",in addition to meeting the above conditions,it is also necessary to prove that the trademark was registered earlier and actually used commercially.Even if these conditions are met,it can still be deemed as "Unfair Means" according to the situation,And when there are other deterministic legal provisions,explicit legal provisions shall prevail.When determining whether a trademark has a "negative impact",it should be considered from the perspective of the general public,taking into account the new meanings given to vocabulary by modern society.The main consideration should be the potential negative impact of the use of trademark marks on society,rather than the subjective intention of the trademark owner.At the same time,registration should also be prohibited if the use may have adverse effects.更多还原