论商标的淡化

【作者】 魏森；

【导师】 王军；

【作者基本信息】 对外经济贸易大学 ， 国际法学， 2007， 博士

【摘要】 商标淡化是指高度驰名且具有突出显著性的商标显著性的丧失或严重削弱。哈佛学派和芝加哥学派有关商标权保护正当性的理论各有得失。哈佛学派理论的缺点在于,首先,它把消费者购买特定品牌商品的动机过于简单化了,其次,其关于商标权保护可能导致商标权人对特定产品市场垄断的结论亦缺乏充分的证据来加以证明。而哈佛学派理论的价值则在于,它提醒人们,对商标权的过度的保护确实有可能妨碍竞争、制造市场进入障碍。芝加哥学派对商标权保护正当性的论证有一定的说服力,但它也在一定程度上不适当地抬高了商标的地位和作用,可能导致执法部门在实践中不自觉地对商标权提供过度的保护。商标淡化理论的正当性亦可从经济学的角度加以论证。反淡化法的保护对象仅限于商标,包括注册商标和非注册商标,常规商标和非常规类型商标,商标以外的其它商业标志不适用反淡化保护。受反淡化法保护的商标仅限于高度驰名且具有突出显著性的商标,高度驰名是指在中国一般公众中驰名,普通商标和仅在相关公众中驰名的商标不能享受反淡化保护;突出显著性是指受保护的商标在脱离其所标示的商品或服务时,仍能使消费者自然地将该商标与其所标示的商品或服务联系起来。突出显著性是商标获得反淡化保护的一项独立条件,仅驰名但不具有突出显著性的商标不能获得反淡化保护。淡化行为损害的是高度驰名商标的显著性,而不是其销售能力。商标淡化的后果是高度驰名商标的显著性完全丧失或严重削弱。反淡化法对在先商标和在后商标的近似程度有更高的要求,即必须近似到足以使消费者认为在先商标和在后商标是同一商标。如果消费者在看到在后商标时,仍然能够将其与在先商标区别开来,就不会发生淡化。商标淡化的行为类型包括弱化和退化,丑化行为虽然也可由商标法或反不正当竞争法加以规制,但丑化行为不属于淡化。反淡化法的适用范围应仅适用于非类似商品或服务,在相同或类似商品或服务上的使用不构成淡化。淡化行为的构成必须有在后商标的商业性使用,除退化行为外,非商业性的使用不构成淡化。立法上并应为淡化行为设置若干例外,主要包括比较广告、滑稽模仿和有其他正当理由的使用。商标淡化的救济措施与其它商标侵权的救济措施在类型上和具体规则上没有实质区别。其民事救济措施主要包括禁令和损害赔偿。禁令分为临时禁令和最终禁令,临时禁令在商标淡化案中只应适用于可能发生商标退化的情形,对商标弱化行为不应签发临时禁令。而损害赔偿的救济手段只有在被告主观上存在故意,且淡化行为已经给原告造成了实际的经济损失时才可适用。中国在修订商标法时应引入商标淡化制度,并设定详细具体的具有可操作性的规则。更多还原

【Abstract】 Trademark dilution is the loss or material lessening of the distinctiveness of trademarks both famous and highly distinctive. The theories of Harvard School and Chicago School concerning the justification of trademark protection both have their merits. The flaw of Harvard School lies in the fact that, in the first place, it simplifies to excess the consumers’motive in purchasing things and, in the second place, it furnishes little evidence to support its conclusion that trademark protection would result in the monopoly in specific goods by the trademark owner, while its value lies in its warning to people that overprotection would amount to barriers to free competition and market entrance. While Chicago School’s justification for trademark protection is kind of persuasive, it also errs in that it values trademarks to excess, which may result in overprotection of trademarks by the competent authorities in practice. Dilution doctrine can also be justified from economic perspective. Only trademarks, registered or non-registered, of common category or unusual, are covered by dilution law, other business symbols are not the subject matter of dilution protection. Only famous and highly distinctive marks deserve protection by dilution law, famous means being widely recognized by the general public in China, common marks and marks recognized only by the public concerned do not deserve dilution protection. Highly distinctive means the protected mark, when used independently, can naturally recall the public to the goods or services it symbolizes. High distinctiveness is an independent condition for dilution protection, marks famous but not highly distinctive are not qualified for dilution protection. It is a mark’s distinctiveness, rather than selling power, that is damaged by dilution acts. The result of dilution is the loss or material lessening of the highly famous mark’s distinctiveness. Dilution law has a stricter requirement for the similarity between the senior and the junior mark, That is, the two marks must be so similar that consumers believe they are essentially the same one. If consumers are able to distinguish the two marks dilution would not result. Dilutive acts include blurring and genericide, though tarnishment may be governed by trademark law or unfair competition law, it does not fall within the scope of trademark dilution. Dilution law should only cover acts happening in the field of non-similar goods or services, using of the mark in identical or similar goods or services does not constitute dilution. The use of the junior mark has to be commercial for the act to be dilutive, non-commercial use is excluded from the scope of dilutive use except in the case of genericide. There shall be some exceptions to dilution, mainly including use of the senior mark in comparative advertisement, parody, news report and comment, and other non-commercial use. Besides, uses with legal reasons shall be excluded from dilution. There is no essential difference between the categories and contents of remedies for dilution and other trademark infringement acts, there are two types of civil remedies: injunction and damages. Injunction includes preliminary injunction and final injunction, the author insists that preliminary shall apply only to acts of genericede rather than blurring, and damages may be recovered only when the defendant is willful and causes actual economic loss to the plaintiff. In the end of this dissertation, China is suggested to introduce dilution doctrine in the third revision of its Trademark Law and provide workable provisions.更多还原