商标反向混淆研究
|
摘要
反向混淆指在后商标使用人采用与在先商标使用人类似的标志,并通过市场的饱和轰炸,淹没在先商标使用人的商标,从而使公众以为在先商标使用人的产品来源于在后商标使用人或者在先商标使用人与在后商标使用人具有某种程度的联系。
反向混淆理论首次出现于美国“野马”商标纠纷一案中。随着类似案例的增多,反向混淆理论已逐渐被美国各法院予以接受,最终通过判例确定了其地位以及相应的规制方法。我国也面临商标反向混淆侵权的困扰,实有必要对商标反向混淆理论进行深入研究,以期商标理论的完整与立法实践的完善。
文章共分为五个部分,第一部分为反向混淆基础理论。该部分主要介绍了反向混淆的概念、历史沿革及对反向混淆行为的定性。通过对世界主要国家和地区的研究,认为反向混淆行为作为商标侵权行为已毋庸置疑。
第二部分为禁止反向混淆之正当性。该部分从公平正义、经济效率、商标法宗旨及商标功能四个方面对反向混淆行为合理与否进行了论证,认为反向混淆无论是法理上亦或是实践上都不具存在的正当性,应予以规制。
第三部分为禁止反向混淆之可行性。由于反向混淆案件中,在先商标使用人与在后商标使用人实力的对换以及消费者混淆对象的变换,使得反向混淆案件存在“搭便车”的缺失、商标事实之转移、赔偿数额模糊不清等异于传统正向混淆案件的难题。该难题的出现一定程度上增添了反向混淆规制的难度,但可以从侵权认定及责任认定两方面予以解决,不能从根本上动摇禁止反向混淆的现实可行性。
第四部分为反向混淆的具体规制。该部分分为反向混淆侵权认定和反向混淆责任认定两个方面。在反向混淆侵权认定上,应以混淆可能性为判断中心,采取两步走方式,先判定争议商标是否具有可保护利益,再依据改良的Polaroid标准进行混淆可能性判断。在反向混淆责任认定上,应重视责任规则的指导意义,以在后商标使用人是否产生合理信念界定其主观态度,而具体的责任承担形式则应选用禁令、损害赔偿责任、消除影响几种方式。
第五部分为我国反向混淆制度的构建。该部分首先分析了我国引入反向混淆理论的必要性,然后对我国具体制度的构建提出了自己的建议。
The reverse confusion is that the junior user adopts the same or similar mark with the senior user’s, and then the junior user’s promotion of the mark so overwhelm the use by the senior user that the consumers have mistaken the goods of the senior user’s come from the junior user or associated the senior user with the junior user.
The doctrine of reverse confusion was firstly appeared in the case Westward Coach Manufacturing co,Inc. V. Ford Motor co,inc. With the increase of the similar case, each court gradually accepted the doctrine of reverse confusion, and finally admitted its location in the trademark case and laid the compared regulations by the cases. Now, we are perplexed by the trademark infringement of reverse confusion. Thence, to complete the trademark theory, perfect the trademark law and judicial practice,it’s so necessary to study the reverse confusion theory deeply.
This article is assigned five parts. The first part is the basic theory of reverse confusion. This part introduced the concept of reverse confusion、the history of reverse confusion and the qualitative of reverse confusion. After studying the world’s major countries and regions’law or judicial practice, the conclusion that reverse confusion is trademark infringement is no doubt.
The second part is the justifiability of inhibition of reverse confusion. Studying on the divergences for the legitimacy of reverse confusion from four aspects:equity and justice、economic efficiency、the objective of trademark law and the function of trademark,this part then confirmed the reverse confusion is not legitimate whether in theory or practice and should be inhibited.
The third part is the feasibility of inhibition of reverse confusion. In the reverse confusion cases, the junior user usually is more powerful than the senior user, and the consumers always mistaken who is the true infringer, so, the reverse confusion cases behave some features such as: the absence of pass-off, the de facto metastasis of trademark and the faintness of the number of damages. These features are different from the traditional forward confusion cases, and to a certain extent, are the obstacles in the process of regulating the reverse confusion cases. However, the so-called obstacles can be solved by the complete rules of infringement and liability, they can not shake the feasibility of inhibition of reverse confusion simply.
The fourth part is the regulations of reverse confusion. This part is divined two aspects: the test of reverse confusion and the liability. In determining whether the reverse confusion is trademark infringement, the possibility of confusion should be the focus and two steps should be flowed. First, whether the trademark is protectbile should be judged; second, whether there is likelihood of confusion should be judged by improved Polaroid. Then in determining the liability, the liability rules should be valued, and for the willfulness of the junior user, the reasonable belief is standard. Injunction、damages and elimination of effects are the responsibility of reverse confusion.
The fifth part is the construction of reverse confusion system in our country. This part firstly analyzes the necessity of recommending the reverse confusion theory,then gives some advices about how to establish the system.
反向混淆理论首次出现于美国“野马”商标纠纷一案中。随着类似案例的增多,反向混淆理论已逐渐被美国各法院予以接受,最终通过判例确定了其地位以及相应的规制方法。我国也面临商标反向混淆侵权的困扰,实有必要对商标反向混淆理论进行深入研究,以期商标理论的完整与立法实践的完善。
文章共分为五个部分,第一部分为反向混淆基础理论。该部分主要介绍了反向混淆的概念、历史沿革及对反向混淆行为的定性。通过对世界主要国家和地区的研究,认为反向混淆行为作为商标侵权行为已毋庸置疑。
第二部分为禁止反向混淆之正当性。该部分从公平正义、经济效率、商标法宗旨及商标功能四个方面对反向混淆行为合理与否进行了论证,认为反向混淆无论是法理上亦或是实践上都不具存在的正当性,应予以规制。
第三部分为禁止反向混淆之可行性。由于反向混淆案件中,在先商标使用人与在后商标使用人实力的对换以及消费者混淆对象的变换,使得反向混淆案件存在“搭便车”的缺失、商标事实之转移、赔偿数额模糊不清等异于传统正向混淆案件的难题。该难题的出现一定程度上增添了反向混淆规制的难度,但可以从侵权认定及责任认定两方面予以解决,不能从根本上动摇禁止反向混淆的现实可行性。
第四部分为反向混淆的具体规制。该部分分为反向混淆侵权认定和反向混淆责任认定两个方面。在反向混淆侵权认定上,应以混淆可能性为判断中心,采取两步走方式,先判定争议商标是否具有可保护利益,再依据改良的Polaroid标准进行混淆可能性判断。在反向混淆责任认定上,应重视责任规则的指导意义,以在后商标使用人是否产生合理信念界定其主观态度,而具体的责任承担形式则应选用禁令、损害赔偿责任、消除影响几种方式。
第五部分为我国反向混淆制度的构建。该部分首先分析了我国引入反向混淆理论的必要性,然后对我国具体制度的构建提出了自己的建议。
The reverse confusion is that the junior user adopts the same or similar mark with the senior user’s, and then the junior user’s promotion of the mark so overwhelm the use by the senior user that the consumers have mistaken the goods of the senior user’s come from the junior user or associated the senior user with the junior user.
The doctrine of reverse confusion was firstly appeared in the case Westward Coach Manufacturing co,Inc. V. Ford Motor co,inc. With the increase of the similar case, each court gradually accepted the doctrine of reverse confusion, and finally admitted its location in the trademark case and laid the compared regulations by the cases. Now, we are perplexed by the trademark infringement of reverse confusion. Thence, to complete the trademark theory, perfect the trademark law and judicial practice,it’s so necessary to study the reverse confusion theory deeply.
This article is assigned five parts. The first part is the basic theory of reverse confusion. This part introduced the concept of reverse confusion、the history of reverse confusion and the qualitative of reverse confusion. After studying the world’s major countries and regions’law or judicial practice, the conclusion that reverse confusion is trademark infringement is no doubt.
The second part is the justifiability of inhibition of reverse confusion. Studying on the divergences for the legitimacy of reverse confusion from four aspects:equity and justice、economic efficiency、the objective of trademark law and the function of trademark,this part then confirmed the reverse confusion is not legitimate whether in theory or practice and should be inhibited.
The third part is the feasibility of inhibition of reverse confusion. In the reverse confusion cases, the junior user usually is more powerful than the senior user, and the consumers always mistaken who is the true infringer, so, the reverse confusion cases behave some features such as: the absence of pass-off, the de facto metastasis of trademark and the faintness of the number of damages. These features are different from the traditional forward confusion cases, and to a certain extent, are the obstacles in the process of regulating the reverse confusion cases. However, the so-called obstacles can be solved by the complete rules of infringement and liability, they can not shake the feasibility of inhibition of reverse confusion simply.
The fourth part is the regulations of reverse confusion. This part is divined two aspects: the test of reverse confusion and the liability. In determining whether the reverse confusion is trademark infringement, the possibility of confusion should be the focus and two steps should be flowed. First, whether the trademark is protectbile should be judged; second, whether there is likelihood of confusion should be judged by improved Polaroid. Then in determining the liability, the liability rules should be valued, and for the willfulness of the junior user, the reasonable belief is standard. Injunction、damages and elimination of effects are the responsibility of reverse confusion.
The fifth part is the construction of reverse confusion system in our country. This part firstly analyzes the necessity of recommending the reverse confusion theory,then gives some advices about how to establish the system.
引文
1黄凰:“浙江民企诉百事商标侵权案开庭”,《中国知识产权报》,2006年4月7日,第5版。
2李明德:“美国商标法中的“反向混淆””,《中华商标》,2002年第6期,第28页。
3彭学龙:“商标反向混淆探微——以“‘蓝色风暴’商标侵权案”为切入点”,《法商研究》,2007年第5期,第140页;张爱国:“商标“反向混淆”理论初探——以案例为视角”,《电子知识产权》,2007年第8期,第51页。
4Ameritech, Inc. v.American Information Technologies Ccrporation.,1 U.S.P.Q.2d 1861(6thcir.1987).
5J.Thomas McCarthy,:McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competitions,Fourth Edition (2002).
6International News Service v. Associated Press, 248 U.S. 215, 247 (1918).
7Westward Coach Manufacturing co,Inc. V. Ford Motor co,Inc,156 U.S.P.Q. 437 (7thcir. 1968).
8Ibid.
9Ibid.at441.
10Ibid.
11Westward Coach Manufacturing co,Inc. V. Ford Motor co,Inc,156 U.S.P.Q. 437 (7thcir. 1968).
12Thad G. Long、Alfred M. Marks:Reverse Confusion: Fundamentals and limits, The Trademark Reporter(1994).
13Big O Tire Dealers, Inc. v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co,195 U.S.P.Q. 417(10thcir.1977).
14 Big O Tire Dealers, Inc. v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co,195 U.S.P.Q. 417(10thcir.1977).
15 Ibid.
16 Banff, Ltd. v. Federated Department Stores, Inc., and Bloomingdale's, 6 U.S.P.Q.(2ndcir.1988).
17 Ibid.
18 Ameritech, Inc. v.American Information Technologies Ccrporation.,1 U.S.P.Q.2d 1861(6thcir.1987).
19 http://www.cta315.com/fa_gui_vewe.asp?infor_id=651&class1_id=8,访问日期2010年9月28日。
20 Jeremy Phillips:Trade Mark Law:APractical Anatomy,Oxford University Press(2003).
21台湾台北高等行政法院判决95年度诉字第00949号判决,http://fyjud.lawbank.com.tw/list.aspx,访问日期2010年9月28日。
22程立显:“论社会公正-平等与效率”,北京大学学报(哲学社会科学版),1999年第3期,第60页。
23刘作翔:“权利平等保护的几个理论问题”,甘肃政法学院学报,2010年总第108期,第5页。
24 Joel R. Feldman:Reverse Confusion in Trademarks: Balancing the Interests of the Public, the Trademark Owner,and the Infringer,Journal of Technology Law & Policy(2003) 25 Ibid.
26 Michael Swygert、Katherine Yanes,:A Primer on the Coase Theorem: Making Law in a World of Zero Transaction Costs, 11 DEPAUL BUS. L.J. 1, 2 (1998).
27 Joel R. Feldman:Reverse Confusion in Trademarks: Balancing the Interests of the Public, the Trademark Owner,and the Infringer,Journal of Technology Law & Policy(2003)
28晏辉:“作为生活方式的消费与消费主义”,求是学刊, 2007年第2期,第29页。
29 Dreamwerks Prod. Group, Inc. v. SKG Studio, 142 F.3d 1127, 1129 (9th Cir. 1998).
30 James Burrough Ltd. v. Sign of the Beefeater, Inc., 540 F.2d 266, 274 (7th Cir. 1976).
31 S. Rep. No. 1333, 79th Cong., 2d Sess. 3 (1946) (Senate Committee on Patents), reprinted in 1946
32 S. Rep. No. 1333, 79th Cong., 2d Sess. 3 (1946) (Senate Committee on Patents), reprinted in 1946 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1274, 1274-75.
33 Ill. High Sch. Ass'n v. GTE Vantage, Inc., 99 F.3d 244, 247 (7th Cir. 1996).
34 ibid.
35 J. Thomas McCarthy,:McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competitions,Fourth Edition (2002).
36 ibid.
37 Leah L. Scholer:Righting the wrong in reverse confusion,Hastings Law Journal(2004).
38 Ameritech, Inc. v.American Information Technologies Ccrporation.,1 U.S.P.Q.2d 1861(6thcir.1987).
39浙江省高级人民法院(2007)浙民三终字第74号民事判决书。
40同上注。
41 Barton Beebe , Search and Persuasion in Trademark Law , 103 Michigan L. Rev. 2020 (2005)转引自彭学龙:《商标法的符号学分析》,北京:法律出版社,2007年版,第112页。
42 Banff, Ltd. v. Federated Department Stores, Inc.,and Bloomingdale's, 6 U.S.P.Q.(2ndcir.1988).
43彭学龙:“商标反向混淆探微---以蓝色风暴商标侵权案为切入点”,《法商研究》,2007年第5期,第145页。
44 Westward Coach Manufacturing co,Inc. V. Ford Motor co,Inc,156 U.S.P.Q. 437 (7thcir. 1968).
45 Thad G. Long、Alfred M. Marks:Reverse Confusion: Fundamentals and limits,The Trademark Reporter(1994).
46 Leah L. Scholer:Righting the wrong in reverse confusion,Hastings Law Journal(2004).
47 A&H Sportswear, Inc. v. Victoria's Secret Stores, Inc., 167 F. Supp. 2d 770, 793 (E.D. Pa. 2001).
48 Sands, Taylor & Wood Co. v. Quaker Oats Co., No. 84-C-8075, 1995 WL 221871, at *3 (N.D. Ill. April 12,1995).
49 Big O Tire Dealers, Inc. v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co,195 U.S.P.Q. 417(10thcir.1977).
50 Anthony L. Fletcher:The curious doctrine of reverse confusion--getting it right in reverse,The Trademark Reporter(2005).
51 Sands, Taylor & Wood Co. v. Quaker Oats Co., No. 84-C-8075, 1995 WL 221871, at *3 (N.D. Ill. April 12, 1995).
52 Daniel D. Domenico:Mark Madness: How brent musburger and the miracle bra may have led to a more equitable and efficient understanding of the reverse confusion doctrine in trademark law,Virginia Law Review(2000).
53 J. Thomas McCarthy,:McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competitions,Fourth Edition (2002).
54邓宏光:《商标法的理论基础——以商标显著性为中心》,北京:法律出版社,2008年版,第169页。
55 Victory Pipe Craftsmen, Inc. v. Faberge, Inc. 582 F. Supp. 551 (N.D. Ill. 1984).
56 Plus Products v. Plus Discount Foods, Inc 722 F.2d 999 (2ndcir.1983).
57 Opticians Association of America v. Independent Opticians of America 920 F.2d 187 (3rd cir. 1990).
58 F.Schechter,The rational basis of trade mark protection,40Harvard L.R.,1927,p.813,p.831转引自邓宏光:《商标法的理论基础——以商标显著性为中心》,北京:法律出版社,2008年版,第49页。
59 Abercrombie & Fitch Co. v. Hunting World,Inc.,537 F.2d 4 (2nd cir. 1976).
60彭学龙:《商标法的符号学分析》,北京:法律出版社,2007年版,第130页。
61 IHSA自1940年开始,在其赞助的篮球巡演赛和该巡演赛的相关产品上使用MARCH MADNESS商标。1982年,CBS广播电台的播音员开始在其播报的NCAA的篮球冠亚军争夺赛使用MARCH MADNESS。此后,大量的媒体开始使用MARCH MADNESS来形容NCAA的冠亚军争夺赛。其后,NCAA许可Vantage在其电脑游戏中使用MARCH MADNESS,IHSA据此以提起反向混淆诉讼。
62 Illinois High Sch. Ass'n. v. GTE Vantage, Inc., 99 F.3d 244, 245 (7th cir. 1996).
63 Richard E. Stanley, Jr:Rerverse confusion as applied in Dream Team collectibles, Harlem Wizards Entertainment Basketball, and Illinois High School Assoctation,Baylor Law Review(1998).
64 Jeffrey B. Samuels & Linda B. Samuels: Recent Developments in Trademark Law and Practice, 79 J. PAT. & TRADEMARK OFF. SOC'Y 181, 182 (1997).
65 J. Thomas McCarthy,:McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competitions,Fourth Edition (2002).
66 Polaroid Corp. v. Polaroid Electronics Corp.287 F. 2d 492(2nd cir.1961).
67 Symposium: First Amendment and the Media: Regulating Interactive Communications on the Information Highway, Fordham Intell. Prop., Media & Ent. L.J. 235, 262 & n.75 (1995)).
68 Plus Products v. Plus Discount Foods, Inc 722 F.2d 999 (2ndcir.1983).
69 Sunenblick v. Harrell and MCA, Inc. 895 F. Supp.(S.D.N.Y.1995).
70 Thad G. Long、Alfred M. Marks:Reverse confusion: fundamentals and limits,The Trademark Reporter(1994).
71 bright line rules规定了7种常见的商标侵权方式:(1)在后商标使用人明知对该受保护商标有在先使用情形,依然采用足以导致混淆的相似标志,在先商标使用人通常情况下会胜诉;(2)在先商标使用人先于在后商标使用人首次使用前对争议商标进行了联邦范围内的注册,其通常会胜诉……
72 Thad G. Long、Alfred M. Marks:Reverse confusion:fundamentals and limits,The Trademark Reporter(1994).
73 The Sports Auth. Inc. v. Prime Hospitality Corp., 89 F.3d 955 (2nd cir. 1996).
74 Sands, Taylor & Wood Co. v. Quaker Oats Co, 978 F2d947(7thcir.1992).
75 Fisons Horticulture, Inc. v. Vigoro Industries., Inc., 30 F.3d 466 (3rd cir. 1994).
76 Dream Team Collectibles, Inc. v. NBA Properties, Inc., 958 F. Supp. 1401 (E.D.Mo. 1997).
77 Sunenblick v. Harrell and MCA, Inc. 895 F. Supp.(S.D.N.Y.1995).
78 Prime Media, Inc. v. Primedia, Inc., 33 F. Supp. (D.Kan. 1998).
79 Molly S. Cusson:Reverse confusion: modifying the Polaroid factors to achieveconsistent results. Fordham Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal(1995).
80 Plus Products v. Plus Discount Foods, Inc 722 F.2d 999 (2ndcir.1983).
81 Dream Team Collectibles, Inc. v. NBA Properties, Inc., 958 F. Supp. 1401 (E.D.Mo. 1997).
82 Plus Prods. v. Plus Discount Foods, Inc., 564 F. Supp. (S.D.N.Y. 1983).
83 Richard E. Stanley, Jr.:Reverse confusion as applied in Dream Team Collectilbes, Harlem Wizards Entertainment Basketball,and Illinois High School Association. Baylor Law Review(1998).
84 Harlem Wizards Entertainment Basketball, Inc. v. NBA Properties, Inc. 952 F. Supp(D.N.J.1997).
85 ibid.
86 Lang v. Retirement Living Publishing Co., 949 F.2d.(2nd Cir. 1991).
87 Plus Prods. v. Plus Discount Foods, Inc., 564 F. Supp. (S.D.N.Y. 1983).
88 Harlem Wizards Entertainment Basketball, Inc. v. NBA Properties, Inc. 952 F. Supp(D.N.J.1997).
89 Dream Team Collectibles, Inc. v. NBA Properties, Inc.,958 F.Supp.1401(E.D.Mo. 1997).
90 In re Shell Oil Co. 992 F.2d (Fed. cir. 1993)
91 Sports Auth. Inc. v. Prime Hospitality Corp., 89 F.3d 955 (2d Cir. 1996).
92 J.Thomas McCarthy,:McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competitions,Fourth Edition (2002).
93 Restatement (Third) of Unfair Competition§21 (1995).
94 Nancy Del Pizzo:Developing a uniform test for "reverse confusion" trademark cases in the sports & entertainment industries. Seton Hall Journal of Sports and Entertainment Law(2004).
95 Restatement (Third) of Unfair Competition§21 (1995).
96 J.Thomas McCarthy,:McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competitions,Fourth Edition (2002).
97 J.Thomas McCarthy,:McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competitions,Fourth Edition (2002).
98 Plus Prods. v. Plus Discount Foods, Inc., 564 F. Supp. (S.D.N.Y. 1983).
99 Big O Tire Dealers, Inc. v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co,195 U.S.P.Q. 417(10thcir.1977).
100 Reed Union Corp. v. Turtle Wax, Inc. 869 F. Supp. 1304 (N.D. Ill. 1994).
101 Sports Auth. Inc. v. Prime Hospitality Corp., 89 F.3d 955 (2nd cir. 1996).
102 Trovan,Ltd.v.Pfizer,inc.F.Supp.2d,2000WL709149(C.D.Cal.2000).
103 Big O Tire Dealers, Inc. v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co,195 U.S.P.Q. 417(10thcir.1977).
104 Sands, Taylor & Wood Co. v. Quaker Oats Co, 978 F.2d947(7thcir.1992).
105 J.Thomas McCarthy,:McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competitions,Fourth Edition (2002).
106 Restatement (Third) of Unfair Competition§21 (1995).
107 Richard E. Stanley, Jr.: Reverse confusion as applied in Dream Team Collectibles,Harlem Wizards Entertainment Basketball,and Illinois High School Associtation.Baylor Law Review(1998).
108 ibid.
109 W.W.W. Pharmaceutical Co. v. Gillette Co., 984 F.2d 567, 575 (2ndcir.1993). .
110 Restatement (Third) of Unfair Competition§21 (1995).
111Guido Calabresi、A. Douglas Melamed:Property rules,liability rules,and inalienability: one view of thecathedral.Harvard Law Review April(1972).
112 Guido Calabresi、A. Douglas Melamed:Property rules,liability rules,and inalienability: one view of the cathedral.Harvard Law Review April(1972).
113 [美]威廉?M?兰德斯、查理德?A?波斯纳:《知识产权法的经济结构》,金海军译,北京:北京大学出版社,2007年版,第49页。
114 Saul Levmore:Explaining Restitution.71 Va. L. Rev. 65, 80 (1985).
115 Plus Products v. Plus Discount Foods, Inc 722 F.2d 999 (2ndcir.1983).
116 Daniel D. Domenico: Mark Madness:How brent musburger and the miracle bra may have led to a more equitable and efficient understanding of the reverse confusion dotrine in trademark law.Virginia Law Review(2000).
117 ibid.
118 Champion Spark Plug Co. v. Sanders.331.U.S.125.67S.Ct.1136(U.S.1947).
119 Leah L. Scholer: Righting the wrong in reverse confusion. Hastings Law Journal(2004).
120 Leah L. Scholer: Righting the wrong in reverse confusion. Hastings Law Journal(2004).
121 Minn. Pet Breeders, Inc. v. Schell & Kampeter, Inc., 41 F.3d 1242, 1247 (8thcir.1994).
122 Banff, Ltd. v. Federated Department Stores, Inc.,and Bloomingdale's, 6 U.S.P.Q.(2ndcir.1988).
123 Minn. Pet Breeders, Inc. v. Schell & Kampeter, Inc.41 F.3d 1242, 1247 (8thcir.1994).
124 Big O Tire Dealers, Inc. v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co,195 U.S.P.Q. 417(10thcir.1977).
125 MasterCard Intern, Inc. v. Arbel Corp.13U.S.P.Q.2d (S.D.N.Y. 1989).
126 Universal Motor Oils, Co., v. Amoco Oil Co., 809 F. Supp. 816(D.Kan. 1992).
127 A&H Sportswear Co., Inc., et al. v. Victoria's Secret Stores, Inc.,etal., 167 F.Supp.2d 770 (E.D.Pa. 2001).
128 Leah L. Scholer: Righting the wrong reverse confusion.Hastings Law Journal(2004).
129 A&H Sportswear Co., Inc., et al. v. Victoria's Secret Stores, Inc.,etal., 167 F.Supp.2d 770 (E.D.Pa. 2001).
130 Ibid.
131 Leah L. Scholer: Righting the wrong reverse confusion.Hastings Law Journal(2004).
132 Panduit Corp. v. Stahlin Bros. Fibre Works, 575 F.2d 1152 (6th cir. 1978).
133 Ibid.
134 Sands, Taylor & Wood Co. v. Quaker Oats Co, 978 F.2d947(7thcir.1992).
135 Leah L. Scholer:Righting the wrong reverse confusion.Hastings Law Journal(2004).
136吴志强:“百事可乐“蓝色风暴”败诉”,《浙江市场导报》,2007年5月29日。
[1]彭学龙:《商标法的符号学分析》,北京:法律出版社,2007年版。
[2]邓宏光:《商标法的理论基础——以商标显著性为中心》,北京:法律出版社,2008年版,第169页。
[3][美]威廉?M?兰德斯、查理德?A?波斯纳:《知识产权法的经济结构》,金海军译,北京:北京大学出版社,2007年版,第49页。
[4]张文显:《二十世纪西方法哲学思潮研究》,北京:法律出版社,2006年版。
[5]谢鹏程:《基本法律价值》,山东:山东人民出版社,2000年版。
[6]张玉敏:《知识产权法》,北京:法律出版社,2005年版。
[7]黄晖:《驰名商标和著名商标的法律保护》,北京:法律出版社,2001年版。
[1]李明德:“美国商标法中的“反向混淆””,《中华商标》,2002年第6期。
[2]彭学龙:“商标反向混淆探微——以“‘蓝色风暴’商标侵权案”为切入点”,《法商研究》,2007年第5期。
[3]张爱国:“商标“反向混淆”理论初探——以案例为视角”,《电子知识产权》,2007年第8期。
[4]程立显:“论社会公正-平等与效率”,北京大学学报(哲学社会科学版),1999年第3期。
[5]刘作翔:“权利平等保护的几个理论问题”,甘肃政法学院学报,2010年总第108期。
[6]晏辉:“作为生活方式的消费与消费主义”,求是学刊, 2007年第2期。
[7]张玉敏,李杨:“商标反向混淆探微——由“蓝色风暴”商标侵权案引起的思考”,《江西社会科学》,2008年第5期。
[1]黄凰:“浙江民企诉百事商标侵权案开庭”,《中国知识产权报》,2006年4月7日。
[2]吴志强:“百事可乐“蓝色风暴”败诉”,《浙江市场导报》,2007年5月29日。
[3]http://www.cta315.com/fa_gui_vewe.asp?infor_id=651&class1_id=8,访问日期2010年9月28日。
[4]http://www.fsou.com/html/text/fnl/1174888/117488817.html访问时间:2010年7月27日。
[5]http://www.fsou.com/html/text/fnl/1175660/117566081.html访问时间:2010年7月27日。
[6]http://www.law-lib.com/cpws/cpws_view.asp?id=200401151158访问时间:2010年7月27日。
[7]台湾台北高等行政法院判决95年度诉字第00949号判决,http://fyjud.lawbank.com.tw/list.aspx,访问日期2010年9月28日。
[8]浙江省高级人民法院(2007)浙民三终字第74号民事判决书。
[1]J.Thomas McCarthy,:McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competitions,Fourth Edition (2002).
[2] Jeremy Phillips:Trade Mark Law:APracticalAnatomy,Oxford University Press(2003).
[1]Thad G. Long、Alfred M. Marks:Reverse confusion: fundamentals and limits,The Trademark Reporter(1994).
[2]Joel R. Feldman:Reverse Confusion in Trademarks: Balancing the Interests of the Public, the Trademark Owner, and the Infringer,Journal of Technology Law & Policy(2003)
[3]Michael Swygert,Katherine Yanes,:A Primer on the Coase Theorem: Making Law in a World of Zero Transaction Costs, 11 DEPAUL BUS. L.J. 1, 2 (1998).
[4] Leah L. Scholer:Righting the wrong in reverse confusion, Hastings Law Journal(2004).
[5] Anthony L. Fletcher:The curious doctrine of reverse confusion–getting it right in reverse, The Trademark Reporter(2005)
[6] Daniel D. Domenico:Mark Madness: How brent musburger and the miracle bra may have led to a more equitable and efficient understanding of the reverse confusion doctrine in trademark law,Virginia Law Review(2000).
[7] Richard E. Stanley, Jr:Reverse confusion as applied in Dream Team Collectibles, Harlem Wizards Enterainment Basketball, and Illinois High School Association,Baylor Law Review(1998).
[8] Jeffrey B. Samuels & Linda B. Samuels: Recent Developments in Trademark Law and Practice, 79 J. PAT. & TRADEMARK OFF. SOC'Y 181, 182 (1997).
[9] Symposium: First Amendment and the Media: Regulating Interactive Communications on the Information Highway, Fordham Intell. Prop., Media & Ent. L.J. 235, 262 & n.75 (1995))
[10] Molly S. Cusson:Reverse confusion: Modifying the Polaroid factors to achieve consistent results Fordham Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal(1995)
[11] Nancy Del Pizzo:Developing a uniform test for "reverse confusion " trademark cases in the sports & entertainment industries. Seton Hall Journal of Sports and Entertainment Law(2004).
[12] Guido Calabresi、A. Douglas Melamed:Property rules, liability rules, and inalienability: one view of the cathedral. Harvard Law Review April(1972).
[1]Ameritech, Inc. v.American Information Technologies Ccrporation.,1 U.S.P.Q.2d 1861(6thcir.1987)
[2]International News Service v. Associated Press, 248 U.S. 215, 247 (1918).
[3]Westward Coach Manufacturing co,Inc. V. Ford Motor co,Inc,156 U.S.P.Q. 437 (7thcir. 1968).
[4] Big O Tire Dealers, Inc. v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co,195 U.S.P.Q. 417(10thcir.1977).
[5] Banff, Ltd. v. Federated Department Stores, Inc., and Bloomingdale's, 6 U.S.P.Q.(2ndcir.1988).
[6] Ameritech, Inc. v.American Information Technologies Ccrporation.,1 U.S.P.Q.2d 1861(6thcir.1987).
[8] Dreamwerks Prod. Group, Inc. v. SKG Studio, 142 F.3d 1127, 1129 (9th Cir. 1998).
[9] James Burrough Ltd. v. Sign of the Beefeater, Inc., 540 F.2d 266, 274 (7th Cir. 1976).
[10] Ill. High Sch. Ass'n v. GTE Vantage, Inc., 99 F.3d 244, 247 (7th Cir. 1996).
[11] A&H Sportswear, Inc. v. Victoria's Secret Stores, Inc., 167 F. Supp. 2d 770, 793 (E.D. Pa. 2001).
[12] Sands, Taylor & Wood Co. v. Quaker Oats Co., No. 84-C-8075, 1995 WL 221871, at *3 (N.D. Ill. April 12, 1995).
[13] Victory Pipe Craftsmen, Inc. v. Faberge, Inc. 582 F. Supp. 551 (N.D. Ill. 1984)
[14] Plus Products v. Plus Discount Foods, Inc 722 F.2d 999 (2ndcir.1983).
[15] Opticians Association of America v. Independent Opticians of America 920 F.2d 187 (3rd cir. 1990).
[16] Abercrombie & Fitch Co. v. Hunting World,Inc.,537 F.2d 4 (2nd cir. 1976).
[17] Polaroid Corp. v. Polaroid Electronics Corp.287 F. 2d 492(2nd cir.1961).
[18] Sunenblick v. Harrell and MCA, Inc. 895 F. Supp.(S.D.N.Y.1995).
[20] The Sports Auth. Inc. v. Prime Hospitality Corp., 89 F.3d 955 (2nd cir. 1996)
[21] Fisons Horticulture, Inc. v. Vigoro Industries., Inc., 30 F.3d 466 (3rd cir. 1994).
[22] Dream Team Collectibles, Inc. v. NBA Properties, Inc., 958 F. Supp. 1401 (E.D.Mo. 1997).
[23] Prime Media, Inc. v. Primedia, Inc., 33 F. Supp. (D.Kan. 1998).
[24] Lang v. Retirement Living Publishing Co., 949 F.2d.(2nd Cir. 1991).
[25] Harlem Wizards Entertainment Basketball, Inc. v. NBA Properties, Inc. 952 F. Supp(D.N.J.1997).
[26] In re Shell Oil Co. 992 F.2d (Fed. cir. 1993)
[27] Sports Auth. Inc. v. Prime Hospitality Corp., 89 F.3d 955 (2d Cir. 1996).
[28] Reed Union Corp. v. Turtle Wax, Inc. 869 F. Supp. 1304 (N.D. Ill. 1994)
[29] Trovan,Ltd.v.Pfizer,inc.F.Supp.2d,2000WL709149(C.D.Cal.2000)
[30] W.W.W. Pharmaceutical Co. v. Gillette Co., 984 F.2d 567, 575 (2ndcir.1993).
[31] Champion Spark Plug Co. v. Sanders.331.U.S.125.67S.Ct.1136(U.S.1947).
2李明德:“美国商标法中的“反向混淆””,《中华商标》,2002年第6期,第28页。
3彭学龙:“商标反向混淆探微——以“‘蓝色风暴’商标侵权案”为切入点”,《法商研究》,2007年第5期,第140页;张爱国:“商标“反向混淆”理论初探——以案例为视角”,《电子知识产权》,2007年第8期,第51页。
4Ameritech, Inc. v.American Information Technologies Ccrporation.,1 U.S.P.Q.2d 1861(6thcir.1987).
5J.Thomas McCarthy,:McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competitions,Fourth Edition (2002).
6International News Service v. Associated Press, 248 U.S. 215, 247 (1918).
7Westward Coach Manufacturing co,Inc. V. Ford Motor co,Inc,156 U.S.P.Q. 437 (7thcir. 1968).
8Ibid.
9Ibid.at441.
10Ibid.
11Westward Coach Manufacturing co,Inc. V. Ford Motor co,Inc,156 U.S.P.Q. 437 (7thcir. 1968).
12Thad G. Long、Alfred M. Marks:Reverse Confusion: Fundamentals and limits, The Trademark Reporter(1994).
13Big O Tire Dealers, Inc. v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co,195 U.S.P.Q. 417(10thcir.1977).
14 Big O Tire Dealers, Inc. v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co,195 U.S.P.Q. 417(10thcir.1977).
15 Ibid.
16 Banff, Ltd. v. Federated Department Stores, Inc., and Bloomingdale's, 6 U.S.P.Q.(2ndcir.1988).
17 Ibid.
18 Ameritech, Inc. v.American Information Technologies Ccrporation.,1 U.S.P.Q.2d 1861(6thcir.1987).
19 http://www.cta315.com/fa_gui_vewe.asp?infor_id=651&class1_id=8,访问日期2010年9月28日。
20 Jeremy Phillips:Trade Mark Law:APractical Anatomy,Oxford University Press(2003).
21台湾台北高等行政法院判决95年度诉字第00949号判决,http://fyjud.lawbank.com.tw/list.aspx,访问日期2010年9月28日。
22程立显:“论社会公正-平等与效率”,北京大学学报(哲学社会科学版),1999年第3期,第60页。
23刘作翔:“权利平等保护的几个理论问题”,甘肃政法学院学报,2010年总第108期,第5页。
24 Joel R. Feldman:Reverse Confusion in Trademarks: Balancing the Interests of the Public, the Trademark Owner,and the Infringer,Journal of Technology Law & Policy(2003) 25 Ibid.
26 Michael Swygert、Katherine Yanes,:A Primer on the Coase Theorem: Making Law in a World of Zero Transaction Costs, 11 DEPAUL BUS. L.J. 1, 2 (1998).
27 Joel R. Feldman:Reverse Confusion in Trademarks: Balancing the Interests of the Public, the Trademark Owner,and the Infringer,Journal of Technology Law & Policy(2003)
28晏辉:“作为生活方式的消费与消费主义”,求是学刊, 2007年第2期,第29页。
29 Dreamwerks Prod. Group, Inc. v. SKG Studio, 142 F.3d 1127, 1129 (9th Cir. 1998).
30 James Burrough Ltd. v. Sign of the Beefeater, Inc., 540 F.2d 266, 274 (7th Cir. 1976).
31 S. Rep. No. 1333, 79th Cong., 2d Sess. 3 (1946) (Senate Committee on Patents), reprinted in 1946
32 S. Rep. No. 1333, 79th Cong., 2d Sess. 3 (1946) (Senate Committee on Patents), reprinted in 1946 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1274, 1274-75.
33 Ill. High Sch. Ass'n v. GTE Vantage, Inc., 99 F.3d 244, 247 (7th Cir. 1996).
34 ibid.
35 J. Thomas McCarthy,:McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competitions,Fourth Edition (2002).
36 ibid.
37 Leah L. Scholer:Righting the wrong in reverse confusion,Hastings Law Journal(2004).
38 Ameritech, Inc. v.American Information Technologies Ccrporation.,1 U.S.P.Q.2d 1861(6thcir.1987).
39浙江省高级人民法院(2007)浙民三终字第74号民事判决书。
40同上注。
41 Barton Beebe , Search and Persuasion in Trademark Law , 103 Michigan L. Rev. 2020 (2005)转引自彭学龙:《商标法的符号学分析》,北京:法律出版社,2007年版,第112页。
42 Banff, Ltd. v. Federated Department Stores, Inc.,and Bloomingdale's, 6 U.S.P.Q.(2ndcir.1988).
43彭学龙:“商标反向混淆探微---以蓝色风暴商标侵权案为切入点”,《法商研究》,2007年第5期,第145页。
44 Westward Coach Manufacturing co,Inc. V. Ford Motor co,Inc,156 U.S.P.Q. 437 (7thcir. 1968).
45 Thad G. Long、Alfred M. Marks:Reverse Confusion: Fundamentals and limits,The Trademark Reporter(1994).
46 Leah L. Scholer:Righting the wrong in reverse confusion,Hastings Law Journal(2004).
47 A&H Sportswear, Inc. v. Victoria's Secret Stores, Inc., 167 F. Supp. 2d 770, 793 (E.D. Pa. 2001).
48 Sands, Taylor & Wood Co. v. Quaker Oats Co., No. 84-C-8075, 1995 WL 221871, at *3 (N.D. Ill. April 12,1995).
49 Big O Tire Dealers, Inc. v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co,195 U.S.P.Q. 417(10thcir.1977).
50 Anthony L. Fletcher:The curious doctrine of reverse confusion--getting it right in reverse,The Trademark Reporter(2005).
51 Sands, Taylor & Wood Co. v. Quaker Oats Co., No. 84-C-8075, 1995 WL 221871, at *3 (N.D. Ill. April 12, 1995).
52 Daniel D. Domenico:Mark Madness: How brent musburger and the miracle bra may have led to a more equitable and efficient understanding of the reverse confusion doctrine in trademark law,Virginia Law Review(2000).
53 J. Thomas McCarthy,:McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competitions,Fourth Edition (2002).
54邓宏光:《商标法的理论基础——以商标显著性为中心》,北京:法律出版社,2008年版,第169页。
55 Victory Pipe Craftsmen, Inc. v. Faberge, Inc. 582 F. Supp. 551 (N.D. Ill. 1984).
56 Plus Products v. Plus Discount Foods, Inc 722 F.2d 999 (2ndcir.1983).
57 Opticians Association of America v. Independent Opticians of America 920 F.2d 187 (3rd cir. 1990).
58 F.Schechter,The rational basis of trade mark protection,40Harvard L.R.,1927,p.813,p.831转引自邓宏光:《商标法的理论基础——以商标显著性为中心》,北京:法律出版社,2008年版,第49页。
59 Abercrombie & Fitch Co. v. Hunting World,Inc.,537 F.2d 4 (2nd cir. 1976).
60彭学龙:《商标法的符号学分析》,北京:法律出版社,2007年版,第130页。
61 IHSA自1940年开始,在其赞助的篮球巡演赛和该巡演赛的相关产品上使用MARCH MADNESS商标。1982年,CBS广播电台的播音员开始在其播报的NCAA的篮球冠亚军争夺赛使用MARCH MADNESS。此后,大量的媒体开始使用MARCH MADNESS来形容NCAA的冠亚军争夺赛。其后,NCAA许可Vantage在其电脑游戏中使用MARCH MADNESS,IHSA据此以提起反向混淆诉讼。
62 Illinois High Sch. Ass'n. v. GTE Vantage, Inc., 99 F.3d 244, 245 (7th cir. 1996).
63 Richard E. Stanley, Jr:Rerverse confusion as applied in Dream Team collectibles, Harlem Wizards Entertainment Basketball, and Illinois High School Assoctation,Baylor Law Review(1998).
64 Jeffrey B. Samuels & Linda B. Samuels: Recent Developments in Trademark Law and Practice, 79 J. PAT. & TRADEMARK OFF. SOC'Y 181, 182 (1997).
65 J. Thomas McCarthy,:McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competitions,Fourth Edition (2002).
66 Polaroid Corp. v. Polaroid Electronics Corp.287 F. 2d 492(2nd cir.1961).
67 Symposium: First Amendment and the Media: Regulating Interactive Communications on the Information Highway, Fordham Intell. Prop., Media & Ent. L.J. 235, 262 & n.75 (1995)).
68 Plus Products v. Plus Discount Foods, Inc 722 F.2d 999 (2ndcir.1983).
69 Sunenblick v. Harrell and MCA, Inc. 895 F. Supp.(S.D.N.Y.1995).
70 Thad G. Long、Alfred M. Marks:Reverse confusion: fundamentals and limits,The Trademark Reporter(1994).
71 bright line rules规定了7种常见的商标侵权方式:(1)在后商标使用人明知对该受保护商标有在先使用情形,依然采用足以导致混淆的相似标志,在先商标使用人通常情况下会胜诉;(2)在先商标使用人先于在后商标使用人首次使用前对争议商标进行了联邦范围内的注册,其通常会胜诉……
72 Thad G. Long、Alfred M. Marks:Reverse confusion:fundamentals and limits,The Trademark Reporter(1994).
73 The Sports Auth. Inc. v. Prime Hospitality Corp., 89 F.3d 955 (2nd cir. 1996).
74 Sands, Taylor & Wood Co. v. Quaker Oats Co, 978 F2d947(7thcir.1992).
75 Fisons Horticulture, Inc. v. Vigoro Industries., Inc., 30 F.3d 466 (3rd cir. 1994).
76 Dream Team Collectibles, Inc. v. NBA Properties, Inc., 958 F. Supp. 1401 (E.D.Mo. 1997).
77 Sunenblick v. Harrell and MCA, Inc. 895 F. Supp.(S.D.N.Y.1995).
78 Prime Media, Inc. v. Primedia, Inc., 33 F. Supp. (D.Kan. 1998).
79 Molly S. Cusson:Reverse confusion: modifying the Polaroid factors to achieveconsistent results. Fordham Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal(1995).
80 Plus Products v. Plus Discount Foods, Inc 722 F.2d 999 (2ndcir.1983).
81 Dream Team Collectibles, Inc. v. NBA Properties, Inc., 958 F. Supp. 1401 (E.D.Mo. 1997).
82 Plus Prods. v. Plus Discount Foods, Inc., 564 F. Supp. (S.D.N.Y. 1983).
83 Richard E. Stanley, Jr.:Reverse confusion as applied in Dream Team Collectilbes, Harlem Wizards Entertainment Basketball,and Illinois High School Association. Baylor Law Review(1998).
84 Harlem Wizards Entertainment Basketball, Inc. v. NBA Properties, Inc. 952 F. Supp(D.N.J.1997).
85 ibid.
86 Lang v. Retirement Living Publishing Co., 949 F.2d.(2nd Cir. 1991).
87 Plus Prods. v. Plus Discount Foods, Inc., 564 F. Supp. (S.D.N.Y. 1983).
88 Harlem Wizards Entertainment Basketball, Inc. v. NBA Properties, Inc. 952 F. Supp(D.N.J.1997).
89 Dream Team Collectibles, Inc. v. NBA Properties, Inc.,958 F.Supp.1401(E.D.Mo. 1997).
90 In re Shell Oil Co. 992 F.2d (Fed. cir. 1993)
91 Sports Auth. Inc. v. Prime Hospitality Corp., 89 F.3d 955 (2d Cir. 1996).
92 J.Thomas McCarthy,:McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competitions,Fourth Edition (2002).
93 Restatement (Third) of Unfair Competition§21 (1995).
94 Nancy Del Pizzo:Developing a uniform test for "reverse confusion" trademark cases in the sports & entertainment industries. Seton Hall Journal of Sports and Entertainment Law(2004).
95 Restatement (Third) of Unfair Competition§21 (1995).
96 J.Thomas McCarthy,:McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competitions,Fourth Edition (2002).
97 J.Thomas McCarthy,:McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competitions,Fourth Edition (2002).
98 Plus Prods. v. Plus Discount Foods, Inc., 564 F. Supp. (S.D.N.Y. 1983).
99 Big O Tire Dealers, Inc. v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co,195 U.S.P.Q. 417(10thcir.1977).
100 Reed Union Corp. v. Turtle Wax, Inc. 869 F. Supp. 1304 (N.D. Ill. 1994).
101 Sports Auth. Inc. v. Prime Hospitality Corp., 89 F.3d 955 (2nd cir. 1996).
102 Trovan,Ltd.v.Pfizer,inc.F.Supp.2d,2000WL709149(C.D.Cal.2000).
103 Big O Tire Dealers, Inc. v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co,195 U.S.P.Q. 417(10thcir.1977).
104 Sands, Taylor & Wood Co. v. Quaker Oats Co, 978 F.2d947(7thcir.1992).
105 J.Thomas McCarthy,:McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competitions,Fourth Edition (2002).
106 Restatement (Third) of Unfair Competition§21 (1995).
107 Richard E. Stanley, Jr.: Reverse confusion as applied in Dream Team Collectibles,Harlem Wizards Entertainment Basketball,and Illinois High School Associtation.Baylor Law Review(1998).
108 ibid.
109 W.W.W. Pharmaceutical Co. v. Gillette Co., 984 F.2d 567, 575 (2ndcir.1993). .
110 Restatement (Third) of Unfair Competition§21 (1995).
111Guido Calabresi、A. Douglas Melamed:Property rules,liability rules,and inalienability: one view of thecathedral.Harvard Law Review April(1972).
112 Guido Calabresi、A. Douglas Melamed:Property rules,liability rules,and inalienability: one view of the cathedral.Harvard Law Review April(1972).
113 [美]威廉?M?兰德斯、查理德?A?波斯纳:《知识产权法的经济结构》,金海军译,北京:北京大学出版社,2007年版,第49页。
114 Saul Levmore:Explaining Restitution.71 Va. L. Rev. 65, 80 (1985).
115 Plus Products v. Plus Discount Foods, Inc 722 F.2d 999 (2ndcir.1983).
116 Daniel D. Domenico: Mark Madness:How brent musburger and the miracle bra may have led to a more equitable and efficient understanding of the reverse confusion dotrine in trademark law.Virginia Law Review(2000).
117 ibid.
118 Champion Spark Plug Co. v. Sanders.331.U.S.125.67S.Ct.1136(U.S.1947).
119 Leah L. Scholer: Righting the wrong in reverse confusion. Hastings Law Journal(2004).
120 Leah L. Scholer: Righting the wrong in reverse confusion. Hastings Law Journal(2004).
121 Minn. Pet Breeders, Inc. v. Schell & Kampeter, Inc., 41 F.3d 1242, 1247 (8thcir.1994).
122 Banff, Ltd. v. Federated Department Stores, Inc.,and Bloomingdale's, 6 U.S.P.Q.(2ndcir.1988).
123 Minn. Pet Breeders, Inc. v. Schell & Kampeter, Inc.41 F.3d 1242, 1247 (8thcir.1994).
124 Big O Tire Dealers, Inc. v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co,195 U.S.P.Q. 417(10thcir.1977).
125 MasterCard Intern, Inc. v. Arbel Corp.13U.S.P.Q.2d (S.D.N.Y. 1989).
126 Universal Motor Oils, Co., v. Amoco Oil Co., 809 F. Supp. 816(D.Kan. 1992).
127 A&H Sportswear Co., Inc., et al. v. Victoria's Secret Stores, Inc.,etal., 167 F.Supp.2d 770 (E.D.Pa. 2001).
128 Leah L. Scholer: Righting the wrong reverse confusion.Hastings Law Journal(2004).
129 A&H Sportswear Co., Inc., et al. v. Victoria's Secret Stores, Inc.,etal., 167 F.Supp.2d 770 (E.D.Pa. 2001).
130 Ibid.
131 Leah L. Scholer: Righting the wrong reverse confusion.Hastings Law Journal(2004).
132 Panduit Corp. v. Stahlin Bros. Fibre Works, 575 F.2d 1152 (6th cir. 1978).
133 Ibid.
134 Sands, Taylor & Wood Co. v. Quaker Oats Co, 978 F.2d947(7thcir.1992).
135 Leah L. Scholer:Righting the wrong reverse confusion.Hastings Law Journal(2004).
136吴志强:“百事可乐“蓝色风暴”败诉”,《浙江市场导报》,2007年5月29日。
[1]彭学龙:《商标法的符号学分析》,北京:法律出版社,2007年版。
[2]邓宏光:《商标法的理论基础——以商标显著性为中心》,北京:法律出版社,2008年版,第169页。
[3][美]威廉?M?兰德斯、查理德?A?波斯纳:《知识产权法的经济结构》,金海军译,北京:北京大学出版社,2007年版,第49页。
[4]张文显:《二十世纪西方法哲学思潮研究》,北京:法律出版社,2006年版。
[5]谢鹏程:《基本法律价值》,山东:山东人民出版社,2000年版。
[6]张玉敏:《知识产权法》,北京:法律出版社,2005年版。
[7]黄晖:《驰名商标和著名商标的法律保护》,北京:法律出版社,2001年版。
[1]李明德:“美国商标法中的“反向混淆””,《中华商标》,2002年第6期。
[2]彭学龙:“商标反向混淆探微——以“‘蓝色风暴’商标侵权案”为切入点”,《法商研究》,2007年第5期。
[3]张爱国:“商标“反向混淆”理论初探——以案例为视角”,《电子知识产权》,2007年第8期。
[4]程立显:“论社会公正-平等与效率”,北京大学学报(哲学社会科学版),1999年第3期。
[5]刘作翔:“权利平等保护的几个理论问题”,甘肃政法学院学报,2010年总第108期。
[6]晏辉:“作为生活方式的消费与消费主义”,求是学刊, 2007年第2期。
[7]张玉敏,李杨:“商标反向混淆探微——由“蓝色风暴”商标侵权案引起的思考”,《江西社会科学》,2008年第5期。
[1]黄凰:“浙江民企诉百事商标侵权案开庭”,《中国知识产权报》,2006年4月7日。
[2]吴志强:“百事可乐“蓝色风暴”败诉”,《浙江市场导报》,2007年5月29日。
[3]http://www.cta315.com/fa_gui_vewe.asp?infor_id=651&class1_id=8,访问日期2010年9月28日。
[4]http://www.fsou.com/html/text/fnl/1174888/117488817.html访问时间:2010年7月27日。
[5]http://www.fsou.com/html/text/fnl/1175660/117566081.html访问时间:2010年7月27日。
[6]http://www.law-lib.com/cpws/cpws_view.asp?id=200401151158访问时间:2010年7月27日。
[7]台湾台北高等行政法院判决95年度诉字第00949号判决,http://fyjud.lawbank.com.tw/list.aspx,访问日期2010年9月28日。
[8]浙江省高级人民法院(2007)浙民三终字第74号民事判决书。
[1]J.Thomas McCarthy,:McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competitions,Fourth Edition (2002).
[2] Jeremy Phillips:Trade Mark Law:APracticalAnatomy,Oxford University Press(2003).
[1]Thad G. Long、Alfred M. Marks:Reverse confusion: fundamentals and limits,The Trademark Reporter(1994).
[2]Joel R. Feldman:Reverse Confusion in Trademarks: Balancing the Interests of the Public, the Trademark Owner, and the Infringer,Journal of Technology Law & Policy(2003)
[3]Michael Swygert,Katherine Yanes,:A Primer on the Coase Theorem: Making Law in a World of Zero Transaction Costs, 11 DEPAUL BUS. L.J. 1, 2 (1998).
[4] Leah L. Scholer:Righting the wrong in reverse confusion, Hastings Law Journal(2004).
[5] Anthony L. Fletcher:The curious doctrine of reverse confusion–getting it right in reverse, The Trademark Reporter(2005)
[6] Daniel D. Domenico:Mark Madness: How brent musburger and the miracle bra may have led to a more equitable and efficient understanding of the reverse confusion doctrine in trademark law,Virginia Law Review(2000).
[7] Richard E. Stanley, Jr:Reverse confusion as applied in Dream Team Collectibles, Harlem Wizards Enterainment Basketball, and Illinois High School Association,Baylor Law Review(1998).
[8] Jeffrey B. Samuels & Linda B. Samuels: Recent Developments in Trademark Law and Practice, 79 J. PAT. & TRADEMARK OFF. SOC'Y 181, 182 (1997).
[9] Symposium: First Amendment and the Media: Regulating Interactive Communications on the Information Highway, Fordham Intell. Prop., Media & Ent. L.J. 235, 262 & n.75 (1995))
[10] Molly S. Cusson:Reverse confusion: Modifying the Polaroid factors to achieve consistent results Fordham Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal(1995)
[11] Nancy Del Pizzo:Developing a uniform test for "reverse confusion " trademark cases in the sports & entertainment industries. Seton Hall Journal of Sports and Entertainment Law(2004).
[12] Guido Calabresi、A. Douglas Melamed:Property rules, liability rules, and inalienability: one view of the cathedral. Harvard Law Review April(1972).
[1]Ameritech, Inc. v.American Information Technologies Ccrporation.,1 U.S.P.Q.2d 1861(6thcir.1987)
[2]International News Service v. Associated Press, 248 U.S. 215, 247 (1918).
[3]Westward Coach Manufacturing co,Inc. V. Ford Motor co,Inc,156 U.S.P.Q. 437 (7thcir. 1968).
[4] Big O Tire Dealers, Inc. v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co,195 U.S.P.Q. 417(10thcir.1977).
[5] Banff, Ltd. v. Federated Department Stores, Inc., and Bloomingdale's, 6 U.S.P.Q.(2ndcir.1988).
[6] Ameritech, Inc. v.American Information Technologies Ccrporation.,1 U.S.P.Q.2d 1861(6thcir.1987).
[8] Dreamwerks Prod. Group, Inc. v. SKG Studio, 142 F.3d 1127, 1129 (9th Cir. 1998).
[9] James Burrough Ltd. v. Sign of the Beefeater, Inc., 540 F.2d 266, 274 (7th Cir. 1976).
[10] Ill. High Sch. Ass'n v. GTE Vantage, Inc., 99 F.3d 244, 247 (7th Cir. 1996).
[11] A&H Sportswear, Inc. v. Victoria's Secret Stores, Inc., 167 F. Supp. 2d 770, 793 (E.D. Pa. 2001).
[12] Sands, Taylor & Wood Co. v. Quaker Oats Co., No. 84-C-8075, 1995 WL 221871, at *3 (N.D. Ill. April 12, 1995).
[13] Victory Pipe Craftsmen, Inc. v. Faberge, Inc. 582 F. Supp. 551 (N.D. Ill. 1984)
[14] Plus Products v. Plus Discount Foods, Inc 722 F.2d 999 (2ndcir.1983).
[15] Opticians Association of America v. Independent Opticians of America 920 F.2d 187 (3rd cir. 1990).
[16] Abercrombie & Fitch Co. v. Hunting World,Inc.,537 F.2d 4 (2nd cir. 1976).
[17] Polaroid Corp. v. Polaroid Electronics Corp.287 F. 2d 492(2nd cir.1961).
[18] Sunenblick v. Harrell and MCA, Inc. 895 F. Supp.(S.D.N.Y.1995).
[20] The Sports Auth. Inc. v. Prime Hospitality Corp., 89 F.3d 955 (2nd cir. 1996)
[21] Fisons Horticulture, Inc. v. Vigoro Industries., Inc., 30 F.3d 466 (3rd cir. 1994).
[22] Dream Team Collectibles, Inc. v. NBA Properties, Inc., 958 F. Supp. 1401 (E.D.Mo. 1997).
[23] Prime Media, Inc. v. Primedia, Inc., 33 F. Supp. (D.Kan. 1998).
[24] Lang v. Retirement Living Publishing Co., 949 F.2d.(2nd Cir. 1991).
[25] Harlem Wizards Entertainment Basketball, Inc. v. NBA Properties, Inc. 952 F. Supp(D.N.J.1997).
[26] In re Shell Oil Co. 992 F.2d (Fed. cir. 1993)
[27] Sports Auth. Inc. v. Prime Hospitality Corp., 89 F.3d 955 (2d Cir. 1996).
[28] Reed Union Corp. v. Turtle Wax, Inc. 869 F. Supp. 1304 (N.D. Ill. 1994)
[29] Trovan,Ltd.v.Pfizer,inc.F.Supp.2d,2000WL709149(C.D.Cal.2000)
[30] W.W.W. Pharmaceutical Co. v. Gillette Co., 984 F.2d 567, 575 (2ndcir.1993).
[31] Champion Spark Plug Co. v. Sanders.331.U.S.125.67S.Ct.1136(U.S.1947).