【作者】 顾亮；

【导师】 王迁；

【作者基本信息】 华东政法大学 ， 民商法， 2009， 硕士

【摘要】 本文结合对现有经济社会发展及各种新型“搭便车”现象之介绍,揭示商标,特别是驰名商标功能发生之巨大转变。笔者认为传统商标混淆理论对新型“搭便车”行为已然力不从心,上述行为实乃对驰名商标显著性之损害,若不加以阻止,必将最终导致质量维护与广告投入所形成之驰名商标独特吸引力与巨大商业价值的丧失,因此对于驰名商标之保护亟待新的制度突破。本文对驰名商标反淡化保护的理论基础加以分析,通过详细阐述淡化行为针对之对象,得出淡化行为的定义。据此,笔者进一步探究淡化行为之性质及其对驰名商标的损害,并厘清淡化行为之分类,结合美国反淡化立法及司法实践,着重分析淡化行为构成中所产生的各种分歧,提出自己的观点。在此基础上,对我国有关驰名商标保护立法及司法实践进行评述并提出相应建议。本文分为导言、正文及结语三个部分,其中正文部分由以下四章组成：第一章：本章对反淡化保护理论经济背景分为四个部分进行讨论,分析现有情况下混淆理论及其扩张之不足,扼要介绍反淡化保护的起源,并指出淡化行为针对对象并非商誉、商标独特吸引力或广告价值,而是驰名商标的显著性,并同传统商标侵权行为加以区分,将淡化行为界定为在没有产生混淆可能之情况下,非驰名商标所有人因商业使用与驰名商标相同或类似的标识而逐步危及驰名商标显著性的行为,而无论是否存在竞争关系或任何实际经济损失。第二章：本章从商标权与市场竞争两个角度来探讨淡化行为属于何种类型的行为。指出淡化行为并不构成传统意义上的商标侵权行为,但是淡化行为属于渐次损害驰名商标显著性的行为,应当构成商标权侵权行为；在对无谓竞争理论进行反思的基础上,笔者认为淡化行为构成对淡化行为人之同行竞争者及驰名商标权利人的不正当竞争行为。同时,厘清淡化行为之分类,指出退化不属于淡化,弱化与丑化并非并列关系,应当属于包含关系。第三章：本章结合美国立法及司法实践,分析反淡化保护之构成若干问题,指出绝对驰名商标是反淡化保护之前提,获得显著性足以构成反淡化保护的“显著性”要件,结合联想理论解释淡化与联想之间的关系,并提出不应要求驰名商标权利人证明淡化的实际存在,列举并分析美国司法判断淡化之虞之考量因素,并提出自己的观点。同时,针对反淡化保护理论的反对观点,提出反驳并阐述与淡化相关之限制与例外情形。第四章：本章对我国有关驰名商标保护之立法及司法实践与案例加以综述,指出我国没有驰名商标反淡化保护之立法,但在司法中已然出现适用反淡化保护之趋势,特别是2009年4月22日出台之最高院司法解释明确扩张《商标法》第十三条第二款之适用范围,涵盖了驰名商标反淡化保护的规定,对此笔者认为不妥。并据此提出相关建议。更多还原

【Abstract】 This dissertation, starting with a brief introduction on the current economic and social development as well as various free ride phenomena of new style, reveals the fundamental change occurring to the functions of trademark, especially those of the famous marks. It is the author’s contention that traditional confusion test can no longer cover those emerging free ride acts, which are actually damaging the distinctiveness of famous marks. The failure to stop those acts will eventually result in the loss of the unique attraction as well as immense commercial values as cultivated by constant maintenance of high quality together with intense advertisement. Therefore a breakthrough shall be made pertinent to the protection of famous marks.An analysis on the rationale and theoretical basis for the anti-dilution protection of the famous marks has been made to illustrate the objects against which dilution acts is aiming for, based upon which the act of dilution is defined. Further the nature of dilution and the damages incurred thereby is probed into and the classification of dilution acts is discussed and corrected. The remainder of the content is mainly devoted to solve several issues taking place in the prerequisite and conditions for constituting dilution with detailed illustration of Federal Trademark Dilution Acts and judicial practices in the United States, leading to the author’s opinions on these issues. Finally several suggestions are made concerning China’s legislation on protection of famous marks.This dissertation is divided into three parts including introduction, body text and conclusion. The content of body text is as follows,ChapterⅠ:this part of text discusses the economic background of anti-dilution protection detailed in four sections, which reveals the deficiency of traditional confusion test despite its multidimensional expansion. A later brief introduction of the origin of anti-dilution protection of famous mark is followed by a detailed discrimination on the object against which dilution targets, upon which the author argues that it is the distinctiveness of famous trademark rather than the goodwill, unique attractiveness or advertising value that is targeted. In order to distinguish from traditional infringement, dilution is defined as person other than the famous trademark owner commences use in commerce of a mark that is same or similar with the famous trademark that is likely to damage the distinctiveness of that famous mark without actual or likely confusion, regardless of presence of competition, or of actual economic injury.ChapterⅡ:this chapter is dedicated to the expatiation on the nature of dilution acts from two aspects. It is pointed out that dilution does not fall within the scope of traditional trademark infringement but still damages the distinctiveness of famous mark, and therefore shall be determined as a new category of trademark infringement. Grounded on criticism on the concurrence parasitaire, the author argues that dilution act constitutes unfair competition both to the businesses as directly compete with the dilution actor and to the famous mark owner. In addition, the traditional classification of dilution act is challenged and it is argued that degeneracy does not belong to the scope of dilution while blurring comprises tarnishment.ChapterⅢ:focusing on the legislation and classic cases in the United States, this chapter is mainly dealing with the prerequisite and essential conditions of anti-dilution protection. It is explicitly supported that a mark widely recognized by the general consuming public is a prerequisite for anti-dilution protection and the inherent and acquired distinctiveness shall both qualify for the distinctiveness requirement. Moreover, the author explains the reason for the adoption of likelihood of dilution test with a prior illustration of the relationship between association and dilution. The considerations for judging the likelihood of dilution is listed and analyzed. The remaining part is devoted to refute the arguments against anti-dilution protection and to present limitations and exceptions related to anti-dilution protection.ChapterⅣ:the content herein summarizes and comments upon China’s legislations and cases concerning the anti-dilution protection of famous mark, arguing that there is actually no legislation in China which can accord anti-dilution protection while it is noted the theory, however, has already been practiced as a trend in judicial branches and further confirmed by the Supreme Court’s latest Interpretation. Therefore, several suggestions are proposed concerning the issue.更多还原