商标指示性使用法律问题研究

【作者】 丁宁；

【导师】 马晓燕； 汤茂仁；

【作者基本信息】 南京师范大学 ， 法律（非法学）（专业学位）， 2022， 硕士

【摘要】 随着人类社会商业水平的不断发展,商标使用方式也逐渐多样化,在许多商业领域,尤其是正品转售领域与零配件销售及兼容性服务领域,指示性使用他人商标说明自身商品或服务特性实属必要。在这一现实背景之下,尽管《商标法》中尚且没有针对商标指示性使用的明文规定,但是司法实务中却不乏涉及商标指示性使用的案件。在这些案件中,不仅被告会主动提出商标指示性使用抗辩,法院有时也会主动依据商标指示性使用论证裁判结果,然而由于立法上的缺失,商标指示性使用在实践中存在大量同案异判、同判异理的现象,明确商标指示性使用的法律性质、认定标准,为商标指示性使用制度立法提供依据成为当下亟需解决的实务问题。现今司法实践中有的地方法院指导性文件采用“商标指示性合理使用”的说法,有的则认为属于对商标的“正当使用”;在裁判中,有些法院依据《商标法》48条对“使用”性质进行说理,有些法院通过分析混淆可能性判断是否侵权,只有少数法院依据商标指示性使用的构成要件予以裁判,但对于构成要件的具体内容也存在分歧,商标指示性使用存在着“性质不明”、“认定标准不一”等问题。由于指示性使用他人商标并没有发挥商标“识别商品来源”这一功能,因而不属于“商标性使用”,同时商标指示性使用不符合商标侵权要件,应是一种不侵权事实抗辩。实践中应当依据商标指示性使用的构成要件对其进行认定,由于混淆可能性判断是商标侵权认定标准,并且无混淆可能性是指示性使用的当然结果,因此混淆可能性判断不宜作为商标指示性使用的构成要件。商标指示性使用的构成要件应当分为主观和客观要件,主观要件指主观善意标准,主要通过行为人的认知水平和主观动机进行考察;客观要件包含使用必要性与使用合理性标准,主要通过商业领域性质以及具体使用方式进行考察。互联网环境下商标指示性使用也具有正当性,但其认定标准需要结合互联网中具体商标使用方式及消费者购物习惯进行综合考察。更多还原

【Abstract】 With the continuous development of the commercial level of human society,the use of trademarks has gradually diversified.In many commercial fields,especially in the field of genuine resale and parts sales and compatibility services,it is necessary to use others’ trademarks to explain the characteristics of merchant goods or services.Under this realistic background,although there is no explicit legal provision for the nominative use of trademarks in the trademark law,there are many cases involving the nominative use of trademarks in judicial practice.In these cases,not only the defendant will raise the defense of trademark nominative use,but also the court will sometimes demonstrate the judgment results based on trademark nominative use.However,due to the lack of legislation,there are a large number of different judgments in the same case and different reasons in the practice of trademark nominative use,so as to clarify the legal nature and recognition standard of trademark nominative use,Providing the basis for the legislation of trademark nominative use system has become an urgent practical problem to be solved.In today’s judicial practice,some local court guidance documents adopt the statement of "nominative and reasonable use of trademarks",while others believe that they belong to the "legitimate use" of trademarks;In the judgment,some courts reasoned about the nature of "use" according to Article 48 of the trademark law,some courts judged whether there was infringement by analyzing the possibility of confusion,and only a few courts judged according to the constituent elements of the nominative use of trademarks,but there were differences on the specific contents of the constituent elements.There were problems such as "unclear nature" and "different recognition standards" in the nominative use of trademarks.Because the nominative use of others’ trademarks does not play the function of "identifying the source of goods",it does not belong to "trademark use".At the same time,the nominative use of trademarks does not meet the requirements of trademark infringement,which should be a defense of non infringement facts.In practice,it should be identified according to the constituent elements of trademark nominative use.Because the judgment of confusion possibility is the standard of trademark infringement,and no confusion possibility is the natural result of nominative use,the judgment of confusion possibility should not be used as the constituent elements of trademark nominative use.The constituent elements of trademark nominative use should be divided into subjective and objective elements.The subjective element refers to the subjective standard of good faith,which is mainly investigated through the actor’s cognitive level and subjective motivation;The objective elements include the standards of necessity and rationality of use,which are mainly investigated through the nature of the commercial field and the specific way of use.The nominative use of trademarks in the Internet environment is also legitimate,but its identification standard needs to be comprehensively investigated in combination with the specific ways of trademark use in the Internet and consumers’ shopping habits.更多还原