我国境外驰名商标的认定和保护—中日立法与司法实践之比较

发布时间：2018-03-20 12:15

本文选题：境外驰名商标　切入点：恶意抢注　出处：《清华大学》2015年硕士论文　论文类型：学位论文

【摘要】：论文的研究课题是境外驰名商标的认定和保护。研究目的在于通过指出我国《商标法》在抑制境外驰名商标的恶意抢注上的不足,比较中日相关立法与司法实践,提出完善我国《商标法》驰名商标保护机制的建议。随着世界经济一体化、企业活动国际化、信息流动的加速,商誉的传播已突破了国界的限制,不再以使用作为其主要的传播手段。因此,一些在境外驰名却未在中国使用的商标也在中国消费者中广为知晓。我国《商标法》采用商标专有权注册取得制度、坚持商标权的地域性原则,对境外驰名且未在中国注册的商标不予保护。因此,现实中大量境外驰名商标被抢注的问题不能得到有效解决。可以说,这是世界经济一体化向商标权的地域性原则提出的挑战。本研究从追溯境外驰名商标保护的法律渊源、回顾日本境外驰名商标保护的历史、比较中日两国相关法规和司法实践,指出我国商标法的不足并提出完善建议。20世纪80年代的日本和今天的中国一样,饱受商标抢注的困扰。由于境外驰名商标的恶意抢注而引起的贸易摩擦对日本经济产生了负面的影响,激发了日本学者和政府对境外驰名商标保护的必要性的探讨。1996年日本终于突破商标权的地域原则,通过立法开始对境外驰名商标进行保护。根据本研究,日本通过立法从根本上,并且成功地改善了恶意抢注的状况,同时没有引起境外商标的过分保护。事实证明,这一举措使恶意抢注得到了抑制、公平竞争的市场秩序得到了维护,起到了促进经济发展的作用。日本的经验值得我们研究和借鉴。笔者认为,我国应该根据自身的情况,在认定驰名商标时适当突破商标权地域性原则,给境外驰名商标明确的法律保护,以改善抢注境外驰名商标的现状。同时,从严格商标注册的程序着手,及时发现、驳回恶意抢注的商标,减少由此而引起的诉讼纠纷。最后,为了使中国的驰名商标在国外能得到更有力地保护,为中国企业的海外发展清除障碍,笔者建议建立与其他国家和地区建立地区间的相互保护机制,正真实现巴黎公约和TRIPs协议所倡导的国民待遇原则。
[Abstract]:The purpose of this thesis is to identify and protect well-known foreign trademarks. The purpose of the research is to compare the relevant legislation and judicial practice between China and Japan by pointing out the deficiencies of China's Trademark Law in restraining the malicious grabbing of foreign well-known trademarks. With the integration of the world economy, the internationalization of enterprise activities and the acceleration of information flow, the spread of goodwill has broken through the limits of national boundaries. Therefore, some well-known trademarks abroad but not used in China are widely known among Chinese consumers. The Trademark Law of our country adopts the trademark registration and acquisition system. Adhere to the regional principle of trademark rights, and do not protect well-known trademarks outside China that are not registered in China. Therefore, in reality, the problem of a large number of overseas well-known trademarks being preempted cannot be effectively resolved. This is a challenge posed by the integration of the world economy to the regional principle of trademark rights. This study traces the legal sources of the protection of well-known trademarks outside Japan, reviews the history of the protection of well-known trademarks outside Japan, and compares the relevant laws and regulations and judicial practices between China and Japan. Pointing out the deficiencies of China's trademark law and putting forward some suggestions for perfection. Japan in 80s of the 20th century is the same as China today. Suffering from trademark grabbing. Trade frictions caused by malicious grabbing of well-known trademarks abroad have had a negative impact on the Japanese economy. In 1996, Japan finally broke through the territorial principle of trademark rights and began to protect foreign well-known trademarks through legislation. Japan's adoption of legislation has fundamentally and successfully improved the situation of malicious grabs, while not causing excessive protection of foreign trademarks. Facts have proved that this move has curbed malicious grabbing. The fair competition market order has been maintained and played a role in promoting economic development. The experience of Japan is worth studying and drawing lessons from. In determining well-known trademarks, we should properly break through the regional principle of trademark rights and give clear legal protection to foreign well-known trademarks in order to improve the present situation of overseas well-known trademarks. At the same time, we should start with strict trademark registration procedures and find out in time, To reject the malicious trademark and reduce the litigation disputes arising therefrom. Finally, in order to enable China's well-known trademarks to be better protected abroad and to clear the way for the overseas development of Chinese enterprises, The author suggests the establishment of mutual protection mechanism with other countries and regions in order to realize the principle of national treatment advocated by the Paris Convention and TRIPs agreement.
【学位授予单位】：清华大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2015
【分类号】：D923.43

【相似文献】