【作者】 戴彬；

【导师】 王莲峰；

【作者基本信息】 华东政法大学 ， 知识产权， 2013， 博士

【摘要】 商标权的取得与消灭制度是商标法基本理论中的重大问题，也是我国正在进行的《商标法》第三次修改的重要议题之一。本文以商标的功能和结构之发展为视角，以商标的使用为主线，通过对商标权取得与消灭制度的理论基础和基本原理的研究，对比和借鉴不同国家的立法及其实践，针对我国目前在商标权取得与消灭领域存在的立法问题和现状进行剖析，结合2012年12月28日全国人民代表大会公布的《中华人民共和国商标法修正案（草案）》（以下简称《修正案（草案）》）中相关章节的结构体系及具体条文进行评述，并对《商标法》的进一步完善提出了建议。第一章是探讨了商标权取得与消灭的理论基础。从历史、商标的结构功能、商标权取得与消灭的正当性基础和商标注册制度的合理性等角度对商标权的取得和消灭进行综合分析后，得出基本的结论：商标权所保护的核心价值在于商标所蕴含的商誉以及商标向公众传递有效信息的功能，单纯的注册制度虽然可以使得权利的范围和边界更加明晰，但是却无法保证通过注册所产生的商标权具有其应有的核心价值。首先，从历史发展的角度，本文对商标功能发展的各个历史时期及其在商标保护方面的特点进行了归纳。商标的使用可以追溯到古罗马时期，甚至更早，但是那时的商标只是一种制造者身份的标识，与现代的商标和商标权存在着重大的区别。随着贸易时间和地域跨度的逐渐扩大，消费者与产品生产者之间的距离也被拉大了，商标作为向消费者传达产品信息的工具的作用越来越明显，其使用对于贸易的重要性也相应提高了。生产者的具体身份已经无法为消费者知悉，消费者所能了解到的关于产品来源的唯一信息就是商标。这时的商标已经成为了一种重要的信息传递工具。相应地，只有在其信息功能受到破坏时，法律才为其提供保护。该阶段的保护主要针对故意的仿冒和欺诈。随着商标登记制度的产生，商标从一项信息传递工具逐渐转变为了一项具有独立价值的财产，可以单独转让。这种变化是根本性的，因为一旦商标被视为一项独立的财产，人们就会更加关注使其财产化的法律要件——登记。登记这一形式要件逐渐替代了商标原有的信息功能成为了商标最重要的表现形式。从商标的结构和功能角度看，商标结构是否完整应当成为商标权取得和消灭的依据。为了完成商标传递信息的功能，商标应当具有一般符号所共有的三元结构，即可以被感知的标识本身、所使用的产品或服务以及商标通过使用而在消费者心目中建立起来的印象。仅仅进行了注册而未实际投入使用的商标只具有可以被感知的标识本身这一个要素，而不具有完整的商标三要素。这样的商标从结构上来看是不完整的，也无法实现商标表明产品或服务来源的功能。商标保护的客体是一种标识，而这种标识原来存在于公有领域，要将公有领域的标识作为某个权利人的个人财产，必须具有一定正当性，否则商标制度本身就缺乏了存在的合理理由。笔者认为，商标保护的正当性可以从法理学、经济学和道德方面予以解释，而这三项正当性的基础都与商标的使用有着必然的联系。单纯的注册不仅不能为将符号的财产化提供正当性基础，而且可能助长商标抢注这种不正当的行为。笔者还从注册制度本身的角度分析了商标权的取得和消灭问题。目前的商标权取得和消灭制度过分地强调形式要件，而忽视了实质要件，导致许多原本不应该出现在注册簿中的商标进入了注册簿，而一些应当及时被清除出注册簿中的被商标长久地保留在注册簿中。这些状况的改善需要通过对商标权取得和消灭相关规定的完善来实现。第二章是国外商标权取得与消灭制度的立法比较研究。从比较法的角度对商标权取得和消灭的相关规定进行了梳理。当代各国主要存在三种商标权取得的模式，商标使用原则模式、商标注册原则模式以及标使用原则与商标注册原则相融合的混合模式。因取得模式的不同，商标权消灭条件和程序也存在着差异。在使用模式下，商标权的取得依据是使用，注册只是商标权存在的表面证据。在注册模式下，单纯的注册即可产生排他性的权利。混合模式又可以具体分为以普通法和制定法分别保护未注册商标和注册商标的英国模式，以及以统一的商标法保护注册商标和未注册商标，认为注册和使用是取得商标权的两种并行方式的德国模式。不同的取得模式决定了各个国家在商标权取得和消灭制度上具体规定的差异。传统认为，使用模式的合理性在于符合公平的原则，可以避免商标寻租现象，而注册模式的合理性在于明晰权利的范围和边界，使权利具有确定性，且保护成本较低，符合效率的原则。但是，从上文对注册制度运行状况的实际分析，注册模式是否真的可以降低权利的保护成本以符合效率的原则是值得商榷的。纯粹的注册制反而可能会增加商标制度的社会成本。因此，对注册模式进行修正是必然的选择和要求。第三章分析了我国商标权取得与消灭制度的现状与存在的问题。立足我国现实，分析了我国商标法中关于权利的取得和消灭的相关规定。在我国的商标法中国，商标可以包括注册商标和未注册商标，而商标权却仅仅是指注册商标专用权，未注册商标处于一个非常尴尬的境地。一方面，我们的立法承认现实生活中存在大量的未注册商标，也承认需要对未注册商标的使用进行管理和规范；另一方面，我国法律却不赋予未注册商标专有权利形式的保护，而仅仅给予非常有限的弱保护，即只对未注册的驰名商标或者已经有一定影响的商标给予一定的保护，保护的形式也仅仅是不予注册并禁止使用或者是不予注册。商标权的取得必须通过注册的方式进行，且在注册的程序要求方面对使用这一要件几乎完全忽视，这又催生了商标注册中的寻租现象。我国商标权取得的相关规定导致了现实中商标法运行的一系列问题。例如，对未注册商标保护不足、商标抢注现象严重，存在大量不使用的注册商标，导致客观上商标注册制度的运行成本高昂等。此外，我国商标权消灭方面的相关规定也存在许多问题，例如对商标续展的要求过低，对连续三年不使用商标的撤销规定操作性差等，导致了注册簿中大量不应当被注册或者应当被撤销的商标不能及时被清理出去。这些问题的产生既有我国商标制度的移植过程缺乏本土化过程的历史方面原因，也有对商标及商标权研究认识不充分的现实原因。在我国商标法第三次修改之际，有必要针对我国的特殊状况，对上述问题做出积极的应对。第四章是对我国商标权取得与消灭制度的完善。针对第三章提出的具体问题提出了解决的思路和具体方案。完善我国商标权取得与消灭相关规定的总体思路和目标应当是保障商标区分功能的实现，以商标结构是否完整作为判断商标权取得和消灭的依据，弱化商标取得与消灭规定中的行政色彩；以商标是否使用作为商标权取得和消灭的正当性基础，并根据商标使用的实际状况对商标提供不同程度的保护；通过对商标注册和撤销的实体性和程序性规定的完善，充分保障商标注册信息的完整性及真实性，以发挥商标注册信息的公示公信作用，实现商标注册制度的公示公信价值。具体的修改措施应当包括，将对未注册商标的保护作为商标法的原则，并以先用权的形式对未注册商标提供具体的保护；在注册环节中，加入商标使用的相关要求，将商标申请的主体限制为实际使用或者有意图实际使用的民事主体。相应地，要求在商标申请中提交相关的实际使用证据或者意图使用证明。而且，基于是否实际使用，对于商标权的保护程度也应当有所差异。对仅仅注册而未实际投入使用的商标，其保护程度要予以限制，例如在商标侵权中，必须以使用为基础提出损害赔偿请求；在商标异议和无效程序中也必须提交在先商标的使用证据等。此外，在商标权消灭部分的规定中，将提交虚假意图使用证明作为商标无效的法定理由。需要增加因不当使用导致显著性丧失而使商标可撤销的情况，删除行政化色彩强烈的商标撤销理由，同时完善商标三年不使用撤销的相关规定，使其在实体上更加符合公平的原则，而在程序上也更加简便易行。同时，为了更明确的体现作者的立法建议及其在商标法体系中的地位，作者将现行《商标法》、2012年12月28日我国人大最新公布的《中华人民共和国商标法修正案（草案）》中与笔者所建议商标权的取得和消灭相关部分条文进行了表格形式的对比。更多还原

【Abstract】 Trademark right acquisition and elimination is an important part of the trademarklaw system. For the basic attitude to the acquisition of trademark right and eliminatesystem will affect all aspects of a country’s specific provisions of the trademark law.For example, if that trademark right is considered to be produced through the use andthe registration is only a way to confirm the nature right produced through the use of,the scope of trademark protection trademark will be associated with scope of the use.Accordingly, different reasons for trademark right elimination can lead to differentprovisions on trademark objection, revocation and abandon. Therefore, the analysis ofacquisition and elimination of trademark right is the basic and fundamental question isresearching trademark law. In addition, acquisition and elimination of rights are twodifferent aspects of the same problem. Only to the link the analysis and find out theircommon foundation can we integrate the relevant system to avoid the existingsituation of lacking a thread put relevant trademark provisions together with the guideof the same theory. Divided into four chapters, this paper discusses acquisition andelimination of trademark right in order to put forward some concrete opinions andsuggestions for the third amendment of China’s trademark law with the theory of thefunction and the structure of trademark as the thread that put the whole papertogether. The Chapter I is the analysis of related issues for the theory perspective. Bycomprehensively analyzing the history of the development of trademark law, thestructure and function of trademark, the legitimacy and rationality of trademarkprotection and registration system of trademark right, the conclusions that the corevalue of the protection of trademark right is the goodwill embodied in trademark andinformation function of trademark. Although the registration system can make thescope and boundary of trademark right clear, it cannot guarantee that the generatedthat registered trademark has its core value it should have. First of all, from theperspective of historical evolvement, the trademark and trademark protection in eachhistorical period of development and its characteristics are summarized. The use oftrademarks can be traced back to ancient Rome, or even earlier, but then thetrademark is a maker of identity, which is significantly difference from the moderntrademark and trademark right. Along with the gradually expansion in geography,the distance between consumers and producers have been widened. Trademark beganto play as a more important communicate tool to consumers, and its use in the courseof trade also increases accordingly. Producers’ specific identity is unknown toconsumer. The only source of information regarding the products for consumers is thetrademark. The trademark has become an important tool for transmitting information.Accordingly, the law only provided protection against damages to its informationfunction. Protection in this period of time is mainly against intentional counterfeit andfraud. With the introduction of trademark registration, from a tool to communicateinformation, the trademark gradually shifted to an independent property, which can betransferred separately from the business. This change is The fundamental, becauseonce the trademark has been regarded as an independent property, people will paymore attention to the legal requirements of making them property, which isregistration. Secondly, from the point of view of the structure and function oftrademark, in order to accomplish the function, a trademark should have athree-element structure, which includes a sign, the product or service on which the sign is used and the recognition established in the minds of consumers through the use.The distinctiveness of trademark plays an important role in maintaining thethree-element structure of trademark, which ensures that the three elements are notconfused, and maintain close contact. Registered Trademarks which are not put toactual use are only perceptive signs, lacking the other two necessary elements of acomplete trademark. This kind of trademark cannot realize the function of indicatingthe source of a product or service.Thirdly, the object of protection of trademark is amark, which exists in the public domain. Making a sign in public domain a personalproperty, there must be a legitimacy reason; otherwise the trademark system itself willbe lack of a reasonable reason for existence.The legitimacy of the trademarkprotection can be explained from the jurisprudence, economics and moral aspects, andall these aspects are closely related to the use of the trademark. Finally, the author alsoanalyses the registration system of trademark right. Trademark registration systemaims to provide valid proof of material for the scope of rights, and provide usefulinformation about the protection of the rights of the public. Part of the reason is thatthe unregistered trademark is protection as well, which is an inevitable defects of thesystem itself. However, other part of the reason is that the system excessivelyemphasis on the form of acquisition and elimination of trademark right, whileignoring the real elements, which cause many trademarks which should not have beenallowed in registration book to appear in the registration book, and some whichshould not have been be promptly removed from the register to long retain in theregister. Relevant provisions of acquisition and elimination of trademark right shouldbe amended as a respond to the forgoing problems.In Chapter II, the relevant provisions are reviewed from the angle of comparativelaw. The modern countries mainly have three different modes for trademark rightacquisition, namely the trademark registration mode, the trademark use mode and themixed mode which combines the trademark registration mode, the trademark usemode. In different modes, the corresponding provisions regarding the conditions and procedures of trademark right elimination are different accordingly. In the use mode,trademark right is obtained on the basis of the use, and the registration is only surfaceevidence for trademark right. In registration mode, exclusive rights can be achievedthrough the simple action of filing for registration. There are two different types of themixed mode. They are the British way of protecting unregistered trademarks incommon law and registered trademarks in statute law of the British model, and theGermany way of protecting the registered and unregistered trademark in trademarklaw, treating use and registration as two parallel ways of acquiring trademark right.Traditionally, rationality of the use the mode is in line with the principle of fairness,which can avoid trademark rent-seeking phenomenon, while rationality of registrationmode is in line with the principle of efficiency, which can help clear scope andboundary of trademark rights to low the cost of the protection. However, from theanalysis of the operating status of the registration system, it is questionable whetherregistration mode can actually reduce the cost of rights protection in line with theefficiency principle. A simple registration system may in fact increase the social costof trademark system. Therefore, the correction of improvement of the registrationmode is an inevitable choice.Chapter III is based on China’s reality, analyzing China’s trademark law on therights of the relevant provisions of acquisition and elimination. In China’s trademarklaw, the trademark refers to both registered and unregistered trademark. Howevertrademark right only refers to the exclusive right to use a registered trademark. Thusthe unregistered trademark is in a very awkward position. On the one hand, ourlegislative recognize that in real life, there are a lot of unregistered trademark, the useof which worth administrating and regulating.On the other hand, our law does notprotect unregistered trademarks as a kind of exclusive proprietary rights. On thecontrary, only a weak and limited protection is provided for unregistered well-knowntrademarks or unregistered trademark with certain influence. The way of protection isonly against the improper cybersquatting. Exclusive trademark right can only be obtained through registration, and the use element was almost entirely ignored in theregistration procedure, which gave birth to the rent-seeking phenomenon of trademarkregistration. The relevant provisions of China’s trademark rights have led to a seriesof problems in the reality of the trademark law operation. For example, the protectionof unregistered trademarks are not sufficient; the phenomenon of trademarkcybersquatting is quite serious; a large number of registered trademarks are “deadwood”, which have never been putting into actual use; operation cost of trademarkregistration system is extremely very high. In addition, China’s provision regardingthe elimination of trademark rights also the cause many problems. The requirement oftrademark renewal is too low. The procurers of the revocation of trademarks not beingused for three consecutive years are not convenient. These led to problem that thetrademarks which should not be registered appear in the register and trademarks shallbe revoked cannot be timely cleared out from the register. These problems are due tothe reasons rooting in the history, the culture and the trademark practice in China. Atthe time of the third revision of China’s trademark law, it is necessary to amend therelevant provisions as a positive response to these problems.Chapter IV puts forward concrete ideas and solutions to specific problemsanalized in Chapter III. The general idea and the goal of amending relevant provisionsof our trademark right acquisition and elimination should be to achieve the trademarkfunction of distinguishing, weaken the administrative color of the provisions of thetrademark acquisition and elimination, and keep the integrity and authenticity of thetrademark registration information, which should be a use source of information oftrademark protection. In the registration process, the person who applies fortrademark registration should have actually used the trademark or have the intent touse it in trade. Accordingly, the relevant evidence of the actual use or the intent to useshould be submitted in the application for trademark registration. In addition,revocation due to improper use which causes loss of the distinctiveness of thetrademark revocation should be added to the law. At the same time, to improve the relevant provisions of the revocation of the trademark without the use for threeconductive is necessary. Finally, in the conclusion part, according to latest draftrevision of the trademark law released China’s National People’s Congress in2013and based on the analyses above, the author reviewed the provisions regardingacquisition and elimination of trademark right and made some suggestions for themodification of specific provisions.更多还原