论商标恶意抢注的法律规制
发布时间：2019-02-13 13:32
【摘要】：随着《商标法》2013年的修订,《最高人民法院关于审理商标授权确权行政案件若干问题的规定》(以下简称《商标授权确权规定》)2017年3月1日开始实施,商标恶意抢注应当如何规范也成为了当下的热点话题。本文针对商标恶意抢注国内外研究现状做出一定的剖析,结合本文落脚点,对本文商标恶意抢注概念采取广义说,进而探讨商标恶意抢注的具体类型。关于商标恶意抢注在实践中如何认定,从抢注对象和抢注人两个视角,并结合具体实际案例,予以阐述。对于商标恶意抢注的规制现状以及具有哪些漏洞做出说明,结合域外相关国家关于防范商标抢注的立法规定和司法实践,联系我国《商标法》及相关司法解释的相关条文,从商标恶意注册前的防范角度和商标恶意注册后的遏制角度来规制商标恶意抢注行为。
[Abstract]:With the revision of the Trademark Law in 2013, the provisions of the Supreme people's Court on the hearing of administrative cases concerning the right to confirm trademark authorizations (hereinafter referred to as the provisions on the right to confirm Trademark Authorization) came into effect on March 1, 2017. Trademark malicious note should be standardized has become a hot topic. This paper makes a certain analysis of the domestic and foreign research status of trademark malicious grabbing, combined with the foothold of this article, the concept of trademark malicious grabbing is generalized, and then the specific types of trademark malicious grabbing are discussed. How to identify the trademark malicious preemption in practice is expounded from the two perspectives of the object of preemption and the person who preempts the trademark, and combined with practical cases. This paper explains the current situation and loopholes of trademark malicious preemption, combined with the legislation and judicial practice of foreign countries to prevent trademark grabbing, and the relevant provisions of Trademark Law and related judicial interpretation of our country. From the perspective of prevention before trademark malicious registration and containment after trademark malicious registration, the trademark malicious preemption behavior is regulated.
【学位授予单位】：中央民族大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2017
【分类号】：D923.43
本文编号：2421595
[Abstract]:With the revision of the Trademark Law in 2013, the provisions of the Supreme people's Court on the hearing of administrative cases concerning the right to confirm trademark authorizations (hereinafter referred to as the provisions on the right to confirm Trademark Authorization) came into effect on March 1, 2017. Trademark malicious note should be standardized has become a hot topic. This paper makes a certain analysis of the domestic and foreign research status of trademark malicious grabbing, combined with the foothold of this article, the concept of trademark malicious grabbing is generalized, and then the specific types of trademark malicious grabbing are discussed. How to identify the trademark malicious preemption in practice is expounded from the two perspectives of the object of preemption and the person who preempts the trademark, and combined with practical cases. This paper explains the current situation and loopholes of trademark malicious preemption, combined with the legislation and judicial practice of foreign countries to prevent trademark grabbing, and the relevant provisions of Trademark Law and related judicial interpretation of our country. From the perspective of prevention before trademark malicious registration and containment after trademark malicious registration, the trademark malicious preemption behavior is regulated.
【学位授予单位】：中央民族大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2017
【分类号】：D923.43
【参考文献】
相关期刊论文 前10条
1 王莲峰;;商标先用权规则的法律适用——兼评新《商标法》第59条第3款[J];法治研究;2014年03期
2 曹世海;;注册商标不使用撤销制度及其再完善——兼评《关于修改〈中华人民共和国商标法〉的决定》[J];法律适用;2013年10期
3 北京市第一中级人民法院民五庭课题组;强刚华;蒋利玮;王fk;王东勇;曾谦;杨振中;;恶意抢注商标的司法对策[J];中华商标;2013年02期
4 钟鸣;陈锦川;;制止恶意抢注的商标法规范体系及其适用[J];法律适用;2012年10期
5 李扬;;我国商标抢注法律界限之重新划定[J];法商研究;2012年03期
6 迟瑞;;商标抢注的分析及规制[J];中华商标;2012年02期
7 曹柯;;商标抢注及其规制程序[J];人民司法;2011年05期
8 程晓梅;;日本特许厅商标审判概览[J];中华商标;2011年01期
9 刘燕;;商标抢注行为浅析与防范[J];政法论坛;2010年05期
10 谭正标,黄华;如何认定"恶意抢注"[J];中华商标;2005年04期
，本文编号：2421595
本文链接：https://www.wllwen.com/falvlunwen/minfalunwen/2421595.html
