试析商标法诚实信用原则的适用——由“毕加索”案引发的思考

发布时间：2018-06-27 02:56

本文选题：诚信原则 + 商标法　；参考：《知识产权》2017年04期

【摘要】："毕加索"案是一场发酵已久的民事纠纷,涉及对《合同法》第52条中"恶意串通损害第三人利益之行为"的理解,同时牵涉到民法、商标法等民事法律关系中诚实信用原则的适用。终审法院认为,"明知"不构成"恶意",进而认定该案在后签订的独占许可使用合同不属于"恶意串通损害第三人利益"的情形,因而给予其肯定的法律效力,此种解释不符合法理。产生这个问题的根本原因在于法院误将法律意义上的"恶意"与中国本土词汇"恶意"相混淆,又未考虑诚信原则效力的彻底性及内容的强行规定性等特征,故在具体适用时偏离了立法的价值取向。因此,有必要重申诚实信用原则的帝王条款地位,通过区分主观诚信与客观诚信来明确相关行为的效力及发生侵权后的具体赔偿数额,并主张重视主观诚信,通过制止"恶意"来从根本上保障商标市场的有序运行。
[Abstract]:The Picasso case is a long-standing civil dispute involving the understanding of "malicious collusion against the interests of third parties" in Article 52 of the contract Law, as well as civil law. The application of the principle of good faith in civil legal relations such as trademark law. The Court of final Appeal held that "knowing" did not constitute "malice", and further held that the exclusive license contract signed later in the case did not fall into the situation of "malicious collusion against the interests of the third party" and thus gave it positive legal effect. This interpretation is inconsistent with jurisprudence. The root cause of this problem lies in the court's mistaken confusion of "malice" in the legal sense with "malice" in the Chinese local vocabulary, and the failure to consider the characteristics of the validity of the principle of good faith and the mandatory nature of the content, etc. Therefore, it deviates from the value orientation of legislation when it is applied concretely. Therefore, it is necessary to reaffirm the monarch clause status of the principle of good faith, to make clear the effectiveness of relevant acts and the amount of compensation after infringement by distinguishing between subjective and objective good faith, and to advocate attaching importance to subjective good faith. By stopping "malice" to fundamentally protect the orderly operation of the trademark market.
【作者单位】：太原科技大学法学院;
【分类号】：D923.43;D920.5

【相似文献】