中日商标不使用撤销制度的比较研究

发布时间：2018-05-22 08:40

本文选题：商标撤销 + 识别功能　；参考：《华东政法大学》2014年硕士论文

【摘要】：随着经济的发展，商标的价值越发被体现出来，我国采取的是商标注册制度，，这就难免会产生商标权人在商标注册之后，对商标长期闲置不予使用的情况。商标连续不使用撤销制度消除了商标注册制度导致的“副作用”。在当前的司法实践中，如何理解商标不使用撤销制度中的“在指定商品上使用商标”，往往成为争论的焦点。注册商标三年不使用撤销制度的立法目的在于促使注册商标的使用,及时清除闲置商标,免除商标资源的浪费。然而我国《商标法》对于不使用撤销制度的规定仅用一句话带过，对于“商标”、“指定商品或服务”、“使用”及“正当理由”等关键词汇都未作明确规定，使得在司法适用时产生了困难。本文立足于我国现行立法及司法实践，同时借鉴日本相关立法与判例，从四个方面对商标不使用撤销制度进行系统的分析。以期望能够对商标不使用制度的完善起到积极作用使其能够真正起到激励善意市场经营者、维护市场秩序、保护消费者利益的作用。本文分为五个部分：第一部分，分别介绍了“GNC”商标不使用撤销案及“PAPA JOHN’S”商标不使用撤销案这两个典型案例，从司法实践中分析中日两国在对商标不使用撤销制度进行适用时的不同之处，说明对两国适用不同比较的重要性。第二部分，第一节将商标分成文字商标和图形商标两部分，分别对其同一性的标准进行论述。对文字商标和图形商标的各种变化种类进行同一性分析，最后归纳总结得出一个统一的判断标准。第二节对商品或服务的可交易性与流通性进行了重点论述，并通过案例进行实践分析，为我国目前空缺的部分提供理论和实践标准。第三部分，首先从商标“使用”的性质即公开性、主动性、合法性和识别来源性出发，对使用的内涵进行分析以总结出商标使用的判断标准，特别是对象征性使用、合法使用的合理性等难点做了重点论述。第四部分，对不使用的正当理由进行分析，发现我国在对正当理由的认定上明显宽于日本，且存在除却法定事由之外并没有一个统一的标准可以对正当理由的情形进行判断的问题。第五部分，对商标不使用撤销制度的程序上的时间、举证问题进行了比较。首先是三年的撤销期的认定，其中产生了临时使用的认定问题。其次是追溯时效问题，我国修改后的商标法将不使用的事实作为了未经许可使用注册商标的抗辩理由。最后是对举证时间及要求等问题进行论述。
[Abstract]:With the development of economy, the value of trademark is reflected more and more. The trademark registration system is adopted in our country, which will inevitably lead to the situation that trademark owner does not use trademark for a long time after trademark registration. The system of non-use and revocation of trademark eliminates the "side effects" caused by the system of trademark registration. In the current judicial practice, how to understand the "use of trademark on designated goods" in the system of non-use of trademark is often the focus of controversy. The legislative purpose of the system of not using and revoking the registered trademark for three years is to promote the use of the registered trademark, to eliminate the idle trademark in time, and to avoid the waste of trademark resources. However, the provisions of the Trademark Law of our country on not using the revocation system have only been taken in one sentence, and the key words such as "trademark", "designated goods or services", "use" and "justified reasons" have not been clearly stipulated. This makes it difficult to apply justice. Based on the current legislation and judicial practice of our country, and drawing lessons from the relevant legislation and jurisprudence of Japan, this paper makes a systematic analysis of the system of non-use and revocation of trademarks from four aspects. It is expected to play a positive role in the perfection of trademark non-use system so that it can truly stimulate bona fide market operators, maintain market order and protect the interests of consumers. This paper is divided into five parts: The first part introduces two typical cases of "GNC" trademark non-use and "PAPA JOHN'S" trademark non-use revocation. This paper analyzes the differences between China and Japan in the application of the system of non-use and revocation of trademarks from judicial practice, and explains the importance of applying different comparisons to the two countries. In the second part, the first section divides the trademark into two parts: character trademark and graphic trademark. This paper analyzes the identity of the character trademark and the graphic trademark, and finally concludes a unified judgment standard. The second section focuses on the tradeability and circulation of goods or services, and through the practical analysis of cases, provides the theoretical and practical standards for the vacant part of our country. The third part, starting from the nature of trademark "use", that is, openness, initiative, legitimacy and identification source, analyzes the connotation of use to summarize the judgment standard of trademark use, especially symbolic use. The rationality of legal use and other difficulties are discussed emphatically. In the fourth part, through the analysis of the justification of non-use, we find that our country is obviously wider than Japan in the recognition of legitimate reasons. And there is a problem that there is no uniform standard to judge the situation of justification other than the legal cause. In the fifth part, the author compares the procedural time and proof of trademark non-use revocation system. The first is the confirmation of the three-year revocation period, in which the temporary use of the identification problem. Secondly, the problem of retrospective limitation. The fact of non-use is regarded as the defense of unauthorized use of registered trademark in China's trademark law. Finally, it discusses the time and requirement of proof.
【学位授予单位】：华东政法大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2014
【分类号】：D923.43;D931.3

【参考文献】