商标侵权判定的实证分析
|
摘要
商标侵权的判定是商标权制度的核心,正确把握商标侵权的判定是合理保护注册商标专用权人的利益和社会大众利益的平衡点。在当今市场经济竞争日益激烈的情况下,商标权作为一种无形的巨型资产,其地位和重要性日益突出。伴随着层出不穷、纷繁复杂商标侵权现象,如何把握商标侵权的判定已成为司法机关审理商标侵权纠纷案件的关键。当前学术理论界对商标侵权判定问题的研究争议给执法者带来了困惑。从司法审判实务的角度出发,重新审视相关法律对商标侵权行为规定的合理性,找出立法上对商标侵权判定规定的不足之处,这是解决商标侵权判定问题的根源。因此文中以中美商标侵权审判实践为基础,探索了司法实践中执法者对商标侵权判定标准、判定主体及其判定因素的具体运用。分析了中美在不同立法体制下对商标侵权判定运用的差异,以及在此基础上对完善我国商标侵权判定的理论研究提出了自己的一些观点。
文章首先从理论上介绍在当前的学术理论研究中,对商标侵权判定诸多问题存在的分歧。归纳起来主要集中在对商标侵权判定标准、判定主体及其判定因素的考虑。美国传统商标保护理论采取“混淆可能性”判定标准,并对判定主体从售中消费者扩大到售前、售后消费者。美国各个巡回法院在自己审判经验的基础上总结出一套判定因素的参考标准。诸多学者也有论及我国已采用“混淆可能性”判定标准,以相关公众的一般注意力为标准判定商标的相同或近似,理论基础是我国《商标法》及司法解释的相关规定。
接着对中美商标侵权典型案例进行了分析,发现我国对商标侵权行为的判定并不像美国那样完全走向了“混淆可能性”的判定标准。“列举式”判定标准是我国商标侵权判定的主要标准,混淆可能性判定标准只是在个案的基础上进行。我国司法实践中对判定主体的运用,出现了多样化的发展,“消费者”、“相关消费者”、“相关公众”的混合使用,导致我国商标侵权判定的主体变得模糊。
最后,为避免理论研究与现实状况的脱节,建议从司法实践的基础上出发对商标侵权判定的理论研究重新构造。即我国商标侵权判定标准应采用“二元结构”,严格规范“相关公众”判定主体的含义,在商标侵权类型的基础上判定商标侵权的因素。
Determination of trademark infringement is the core of system of trademark right, Correctly grasp the determination of trademark infringement is reasonably protect the interests of registered trademark rights and balance of interests of the community. In today's increasingly competitive circumstances of market economy, trademark giant as an intangible asset, increasing their status and importance. Accompanied by new and complicated trademark infringement, how to grasp of trademark infringement judgment has become the key to judicial organs in the trial of cases of trademark infringement dispute.The current research of academic theoretical circles on the issue of trademark infringement judgment disputed brought confusion to the law enforcement agencies. From the perspective of judicial practice, re - examining the rationality of the law on trademark infringement of regulations, Identify the Legislative Council on the deficiencies of trademark infringement judgment regulations, it is resolve trademark infringement to determine the root of the problem. Therefore the article on the basis of the Sino - US trade mark infringement trial practice and exploration of law enforcement on trademark infringement judgment standards, determination of subject and determine factors in the judicial practice and application. Analysis on the United States in different legislative system on trademark infringement judgment application of difference, and on the basis of theoretical studies on the improvement of trademark infringement judgment put forward their views.
Article first theoretically introduced in the current academic study, many problems exist differences on trademark infringement judgment. Sum up the main focus on trademark infringement judgment standards, determine the subject and judgement factors for consideration. The Heritage protection of trademark theory of“Likelihood of confusion”of judging standard, and to determine the main consumers expanding from the sale to the pre - sale, after - sales of consumers. The US Circuit Court on his trial basis of the experience concluded of a reference standard for the determination factors. Many scholars also discussed China has adopted the“Likelihood of confusion”of judging standards, with related public attention as the standard to determine trademark identical or similar, Theory is the basis of“china's Trademark Law”and the judicial interpretation of the relevant provisions.
Analysis to the United States trademark infringement cases found in China on trademark infringement judgment is not completely like the United States used“Likelihood of confusion”judging standards.“listed”of criteria is china's trademark infringement judgment standards,“Likelihood of confusion”of the criteria is on the basis of just case. china's judicial practice of application for determination of the main, appears diversified development,“Consumer”,“Consumer”,“public”mixed - use, make fuzzy on judgment of mainstay in china's trademark infringement.
finally, to avoid out of theoretical research and practical conditions, suggestions proceed on the basis of judicial practice for trademark infringement judgment theory of restructuring. china's trademark infringement judgment standards should be adopted“dual structure”, strictly regulate the“public”of meaning and decision of trademark infringement facts on the basis of trademark infringement types.
文章首先从理论上介绍在当前的学术理论研究中,对商标侵权判定诸多问题存在的分歧。归纳起来主要集中在对商标侵权判定标准、判定主体及其判定因素的考虑。美国传统商标保护理论采取“混淆可能性”判定标准,并对判定主体从售中消费者扩大到售前、售后消费者。美国各个巡回法院在自己审判经验的基础上总结出一套判定因素的参考标准。诸多学者也有论及我国已采用“混淆可能性”判定标准,以相关公众的一般注意力为标准判定商标的相同或近似,理论基础是我国《商标法》及司法解释的相关规定。
接着对中美商标侵权典型案例进行了分析,发现我国对商标侵权行为的判定并不像美国那样完全走向了“混淆可能性”的判定标准。“列举式”判定标准是我国商标侵权判定的主要标准,混淆可能性判定标准只是在个案的基础上进行。我国司法实践中对判定主体的运用,出现了多样化的发展,“消费者”、“相关消费者”、“相关公众”的混合使用,导致我国商标侵权判定的主体变得模糊。
最后,为避免理论研究与现实状况的脱节,建议从司法实践的基础上出发对商标侵权判定的理论研究重新构造。即我国商标侵权判定标准应采用“二元结构”,严格规范“相关公众”判定主体的含义,在商标侵权类型的基础上判定商标侵权的因素。
Determination of trademark infringement is the core of system of trademark right, Correctly grasp the determination of trademark infringement is reasonably protect the interests of registered trademark rights and balance of interests of the community. In today's increasingly competitive circumstances of market economy, trademark giant as an intangible asset, increasing their status and importance. Accompanied by new and complicated trademark infringement, how to grasp of trademark infringement judgment has become the key to judicial organs in the trial of cases of trademark infringement dispute.The current research of academic theoretical circles on the issue of trademark infringement judgment disputed brought confusion to the law enforcement agencies. From the perspective of judicial practice, re - examining the rationality of the law on trademark infringement of regulations, Identify the Legislative Council on the deficiencies of trademark infringement judgment regulations, it is resolve trademark infringement to determine the root of the problem. Therefore the article on the basis of the Sino - US trade mark infringement trial practice and exploration of law enforcement on trademark infringement judgment standards, determination of subject and determine factors in the judicial practice and application. Analysis on the United States in different legislative system on trademark infringement judgment application of difference, and on the basis of theoretical studies on the improvement of trademark infringement judgment put forward their views.
Article first theoretically introduced in the current academic study, many problems exist differences on trademark infringement judgment. Sum up the main focus on trademark infringement judgment standards, determine the subject and judgement factors for consideration. The Heritage protection of trademark theory of“Likelihood of confusion”of judging standard, and to determine the main consumers expanding from the sale to the pre - sale, after - sales of consumers. The US Circuit Court on his trial basis of the experience concluded of a reference standard for the determination factors. Many scholars also discussed China has adopted the“Likelihood of confusion”of judging standards, with related public attention as the standard to determine trademark identical or similar, Theory is the basis of“china's Trademark Law”and the judicial interpretation of the relevant provisions.
Analysis to the United States trademark infringement cases found in China on trademark infringement judgment is not completely like the United States used“Likelihood of confusion”judging standards.“listed”of criteria is china's trademark infringement judgment standards,“Likelihood of confusion”of the criteria is on the basis of just case. china's judicial practice of application for determination of the main, appears diversified development,“Consumer”,“Consumer”,“public”mixed - use, make fuzzy on judgment of mainstay in china's trademark infringement.
finally, to avoid out of theoretical research and practical conditions, suggestions proceed on the basis of judicial practice for trademark infringement judgment theory of restructuring. china's trademark infringement judgment standards should be adopted“dual structure”, strictly regulate the“public”of meaning and decision of trademark infringement facts on the basis of trademark infringement types.
引文
①邓宏光.论商标侵权的判断标准—兼论《中华人民共和国商标法》第52条的修改[J].法商研究, 2010(1):135.
①S.Rep. No. 1333,79th Cong., 2d Sess.3(1946).
②黄晖.驰名商标与著名商标的法律保护[M].北京:法律出版社,2001:61.
③S.Rep.No.100-515,at 40(1988),reprinted in1988 U.S.C.C.A.N.5577,5603.
①黄晖.驰名商标与著名商标的法律保护[M].北京:法律出版社,2001:488.
①黄晖.驰名商标与著名商标的法律保护[M].北京:法律出版社,2001:63.
①黄晖.驰名商标与著名商标的法律保护[M].北京:法律出版社,2001:60.
②C-210/96 Gut Springenheide v.Tusky[1998] ECR I-4657,第31段.
①黄晖.驰名商标与著名商标的法律保护[M].北京:法律出版社,2001:458.
②广州中院(2007)穗中法民三初字第130号民事判决书.
③AMF lnc.v.Sleekcraft Boats.599 F.2d 341,(9th cir.1979).
④Polaroid Corp. v. Polarad Elecs. Corp., 287 F.2d 492, 495 (2d Cir. 1961).
①酒泉中院(2010)酒民三初字01号民事判决书.
②黄晖.驰名商标与著名商标的法律保护[M].北京:法律出版社,2001:160.
③曾陈明汝.商标法原理[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社,2003:131.
④黄晖.驰名商标与著名商标的法律保护[M].北京:法律出版社,2001:79.
①S.Rep.No.100-515,at 40(1988),reprinted in1988 U.S.C.C.A.N.5577,5603.
②354 F.3d 1020 (9th Cir. 2004).
①174 F.3d 1036 (9th Cir. 1999).
①Sullivan v. CBS Corp., 385 F.3d 772, 778 (7th Cir. 2004).
②J. Thomas McCarthy, 3 McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition§24:30 (4th ed.2006).
③Sally Beauty Co. v. Beautyco, Inc., 304 F.3d 964, 972 (10th Cir. 2002).
④Helene Curtis Indus., Inc., v. Church & Dwight Co., 560 F.2d 1325, 1330 (7th Cir. 1977).
⑤The Fourth, Fifth, and Eleventh Circuits also typically use a seven-factor test.
⑥Polaroid Corp. v. Polarad Elecs. Corp., 287 F.2d 492, 495 (2d Cit. 1961).
⑦AMF, Inc. v. Sleekcrafi Boats, 599 F.2d 341, 348-49 (9th Cir. 1979).
⑧The First, Sixth, and D.C. Circuits also typically use an eight-factor test. For the First Circuit,see I.P. Lund Trading ApS v. Kohler Co., 163 F.3d 27, 43 (1st Cir. 1998); For the Sixth Circuit, see Frisch's Rests., Inc. v. Elby's BigBoy, 670 F.2d 642, 648 (6th Cir. 1982).
⑨Interpace Corp. v. Lapp, Inc., 721 F.2d 460, 462-63 (3d Cir. 1983). As with the Fourth,the Third Circuit's name for the multifactor test varies.
⑩In re E. 1. Du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 1361 (C.C.P.A. 1973). 11 infra PartⅢ.
①Sun-Fun Prods., Inc. v. Suntan Research & Dev., Inc., 656 F.2d 186, 189 (5th Cir.1981).
②Playmakers, LLC v. ESPN, Inc., 297 F. Supp. 2d 1277, 1282 (W.D. Wash. 2003)("Without similarity, there can be no confusion.").
③Kirkpatrick, supra note 14, at§4:1 ("Without a threshold similarity of themarks that might result in confusion, it may even be unnecessary to weigh the other factors.").
④Wynn Oil Co. v. Thomas, 839 F.2d 1183, 1191 (6th Cir. 1988).
⑤Henri's Food Prods. Co., Inc. v. Kraft, Inc., 717 F.2d 352,355 (7th Cir. 1983).
⑥Sweetwater Brewing Co. v. Great Am. Restaurants, Inc., 266 F. Supp. 2d 457, 462 (E.D. Va.2003) (discussing the "anti-dissection" rule in trademark infringement doctrine).
⑦Universal Money Ctrs., Inc. v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co., 22 F.3d 1527, 1531 (10th Cir. 1994)(stating that, in evaluating a trademark infringement claim, "similarities between marks should be givenmore weight than differences").
⑧Samara Bros., Inc. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 165 F.3d 120, 127 (2d Cir. 1998).
⑨Blue Bell Bio-Med. v. Cin-Bad, Inc., 864 F.2d 1253, 1259 (5th Cir. 1989) .
⑩Kendall-Jackson Winery Ltd. v. E. & J. Gallo Winery, 150 F.3d 1042, 1052 n.1 I(9th Cir. 1998) . 11 Lois Sportswear, U.S.A., Inc. v. Levi Strauss & Co., 799 F.2d 867, 875 (2d Cir. 1986).
①Perfumania, Inc. v. Perfulandia, Inc., 279 F. Supp. 2d 86, 101 (D.P.R. 2003).
②Amstar Corp. v. Domino's Pizza, Inc., 615 F.2d 252, 263 (5th Cir. 1980).
③Computer Care v. Serv. Sys. Enters., Inc. 982 F.2d 1063, 1070-1071 (7th Cir. 1992).
④Gaylord Entm't Co. v. Gilmore Entm't Group, 187 F. Supp. 2d 926, 949 (M.D. Tenn. 2001).
⑤Checkpoint Sys., Inc. v. Check Point Software Techs., Inc., 269 F.3d 270, 286 (3d Cir. 2001).
⑥Homeowners Group, Inc. v. Home Mktg. Specialists, Inc., 931 F.2d 1100, 1109 (6th Cir.1991).
⑦Playmakers, LLC v. ESPN, Inc., 297 F. Supp. 2d 1277, 1282 (W.D. Wash. 2003).
⑧Vitarroz Corp. v. Borden, Inc., 644 F.2d 960, 967 (2d Cir. 1981) (citation omitted).
⑨Brennan's, Inc. v. Brennan's Rest., L.L.C., 360 F.3d 125, 131 (2d Cir. 2004).
①Rodeo Collection, Ltd. v. W. Seventh, 812 F.2d 1215, 1218 (9th Cir. 1987)
②Edward George Epstein, Surveys: Growing Admissibility But Narrow Utilization,83 Trademark Rep. 863 (1993).
③Government Employees Ins. Co. v. Google, Inc., No. 1:04CV507, 2005WL 1903128, at *5 (E.D. Va. Aug. 8, 2005)
④See generally Sandra Edelman, Failure to Conduct a Survey in Trademark InfringementCases: A Critique of the Adverse Inference, 90 Trademark Rep. 746 (2000).
⑤AMF lnc.v.Sleekcraft Boats.599 F.2d 341,(9th cir.1979).
①黄晖.驰名商标与著名商标的法律保护[M].北京:法律出版社,2001:75.
②黄晖.驰名商标与著名商标的法律保护[M].北京:法律出版社,2001:76-77.
③Avery Dennnison Corp v.Sumpton 99 F. Supp.1337(C .D .Cal. 1998),reversed,189 F. 3d 868(9thCir. 1999) .
①Avery Dennnison Corp v.Sumpton 99 F. Supp.1337(C .D .Cal. 1998),reversed,189 F. 3d 868(9thCir. 1999) .
①廊坊中院(2010)廊民三初字第76号判决书.
①上海中院(2009)沪一中民五(知)终字第112号判决书.
②北京中院(2007)二中民初字第2431号判决书.
①兰州中院(2010)兰法民三初字第091号判决书.
②北京中院(2008)二中民初字第9910号判决书.
①合肥中院(2006)合民三初字第90号判决书.
①刘维.我国商标侵权的法律构造研究———以混淆可能性为中心[J].研究生法学: 2010,(25):5.
②黄晖.驰名商标与著名商标的法律保护[M].北京:法律出版社, 2001:11.
③黄晖.驰名商标与著名商标的法律保护[M].北京:法律出版社,2001:58.
①174 F.3d 1036 (9th Cir. 1999).
②354 F.3d 1020 (9th Cir. 2004).
①北京中院(2007)二中民初字第2431号判决书.
①合肥中院(2006)合民三初字第90号判决书,
②上海中院(2007)沪一中民五(知)初字第93号判决书
①中北京中院(2000)一中知初字第11号判决书.
①四川高院(2010)川民终字第419号判决书.
①哈尔滨中院(2005)哈民五初字第23号判决书.
②四川高院(2010)川民终字第229号判决书.
①山东高院(2007)鲁民三终字第70号判决书.
②孔祥俊.商标法与与不正当竞争法———原理和判例[M],北京:法律出版社, 2009: 238.
③孔祥俊.商标法与与不正当竞争法———原理和判例[M],北京:法律出版社, 2009: 240.
①北京市高级人民法院知识产权庭.专利商标案件审理中的若干问题[J],中国专利与商标,2007(3).
[1]黄晖.驰名商标与著名商标的法律保护[M].北京:法律出版社,2001.
[2]北京市高级人民法院民三庭编.知识产权经典案例上册[M].北京:知识产权出版社,2003.
[3]孔祥俊.商标法与不正当竞争法——原理和判例[M].北京:法律出版社,2009.
[4]祝铭山.商标权纠纷[M].北京:中国法制出版社,2004.
[5]程永顺.商标权纠纷案件法官点评[M].北京:知识产权出版社, 2004.
[6]刘春田主编.知识产权法[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社, 2009.
[7]曾陈明汝.商标法原理[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社,2003.
[1]《中华人民共和国商标法》
[2]《最高人民法院关于审理商标民事纠纷案件适用法律若干问题的解释》
[3]《中华人民共和国商标法实施条例》
[4]《最高人民法院关于审理涉及驰名商标保护的民事纠纷案件应用法律若干问题的解释》
[5]《最高人民法院关于审理涉及计算机网络域名民事纠纷案件适用法律若干问题的解释》
[1]邓宏光.论商标侵权的判断标准—兼论《中华人民共和国商标法》第52条的修改[J].法商研究, 2010:135(1).
[2]王太平.商标概念的符号学分析——兼论商标权和商标侵权的实质[J].湘潭大学学报(哲学社会科学版):2007:31(3).
[3]刘维.我国商标侵权的法律构造研究——以混淆可能性为中心[J].研究生法学, 2010:25(5).
[4]北京市高级人民法院知识产权庭.“专利商标案件审理中的若干问题”[J].中国专利与商标, 2007:(3).
[5]蒋志培.如何理解和适用<最高人民法院关于审理商标权民事纠纷案件适用法律若干问题的解释>[J].中国人民大学复印报刊资料《民商法学》,2003:(3).
[6]刘春田.商标与商标权辨析[J].知识产权,1998:(1).
[7]邓宏光.商标混淆理论的扩张[J].电子知识产权,2007:(10).
[8]蒋尉.从混淆理论、反淡化理论到联想理论[J].学术论坛, 2007:(8).
[9]汤跃.禁止混淆—确立商标权利范围的底线[J].贵州师范大学学报,2002:(6).
[10]彭学龙.论“混淆可能性”—兼评<中华人民共和国商标法修改草案>(征求意见稿)[J].法律科学(西北政法大学学报),2008:(1).
[1]余晖.商标侵权中混淆的司法判定[D].湘潭.湖南湘潭大学.2005.
[2]郭婷婷.商标侵权中混淆的司法判定[D].重庆.西南政法大学.2007.
[3]王玉.论商标侵权中的混淆理论[D].上海.华东政法大学.2008.
[4]颜林.双重相同下商标侵权行为认定研究[D].上海.华东政法大学.2009.
[5]项晴.论商标侵权行为的认定[D].北京.中国政法大学.2010.
[1]广州中院(2007)穗中法民三初字第130号民事判决书
[2]酒泉中院(2010)酒民三初字01号民事判决书
[3]廊坊中院(2010)廊民三初字第76号判决书
[4]上海中院(2009)沪一中民五(知)终字第112号判决书
[5]北京中院(2007)二中民初字第2431号判决书
[6]兰州中院(2010)兰法民三初字第091号判决书
[7]北京中院(2008)二中民初字第9910号判决书
[8]成都中院(2010)成民初字第295号判决书
[9]合肥中院(2006)合民三初字第90号判决书,
[10]上海中院(2007)沪一中民五(知)初字第93号判决书
[11]中北京中院(2000)一中知初字第11号判决书
[12]四川高院(2010)川民终字第419号判决书
[13]哈尔滨中院(2005)哈民五初字第23号判决书
[14]四川高院(2010)川民终字第229号判决书
[15]山东高院(2007)鲁民三终字第70号判决书
[1]中国知识产权文书网:http://ipr.chinacourt.org/more.php?sub=10
[2]判决书网址:http://www.panjueshu.com/
[1] See S.Rep. No. 1333,79th Cong., 2d Sess.3(1946).
[2] S.Rep.No.100-515,at 40(1988),reprinted in1988 U.S.C.C.A.N.5577,5603.
[3] C-210/96 Gut Springenheide v.Tusky[1998] ECR I-4657.
[4] AMF lnc.v.Sleekcraft Boats.599 F.2d 341,(9th cir.1979).
[5] Polaroid Corp. v. Polarad Elecs. Corp. 287 F.2d 492. 495 (2d Cir. 1961).
[6] Avery Dennnison Corp v.Sumpton 99 F. Supp.1337(C .D .Cal. 1998).reversed.189 F. 3d 868(9thCir. 1999) .
[7] 523 F.2d 1331 (2d Cir. 1975).
[8] 818 F.2d 254, 260 (2d Cir. 1987).
[9] 354 F.3d 1020 (9th Cir. 2004).
[10] 174 F.3d 1036 (9th Cir. 1999).
[11] S.Rep.No.100-515,at 40(1988),reprinted in1988 U.S.C.C.A.N.5577,5603.
[12] Sullivan v. CBS Corp., 385 F.3d 772, 778 (7th Cir. 2004).
[13] J.Thomas McCarthy, 3 McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition§24:30 (4th ed.2006)
[14] See Sally Beauty Co. v. Beautyco, Inc., 304 F.3d 964, 972 (10th Cir. 2002);
[15] See Helene Curtis Indus., Inc., v. Church & Dwight Co., 560 F.2d 1325, 1330 (7th Cir. 1977).
[16] The Fourth, Fifth, and Eleventh Circuits also typically use a seven-factor test.
[17] The First, Sixth, and D.C. Circuits also typically use an eight-factor test. For the First Circuit,see I.P. Lund Trading ApS v. Kohler Co., 163 F.3d 27, 43 (1st Cir. 1998); For the Sixth Circuit, see Frisch's Rests., Inc. v. Elby's BigBoy, 670 F.2d 642, 648 (6th Cir. 1982).
[18] Interpace Corp. v. Lapp, Inc., 721 F.2d 460, 462-63 (3d Cir. 1983). As with the Fourth,the Third Circuit's name for the multifactor test varies.
[19] See In re E. 1. Du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 1361 (C.C.P.A. 1973).
[20] See infra Part 1ll.
[21] See, e.g., Sun-Fun Prods., Inc. v. Suntan Research & Dev., Inc., 656 F.2d 186, 189 (5th Cir.1981)
[22] See Playmakers, LLC v. ESPN, Inc., 297 F. Supp. 2d 1277, 1282 (W.D. Wash. 2003)("Without similarity, there can be no confusion."). [23.Kirkpatrick, supra note 14, at§4:1 ("Without a threshold similarity of themarks that might result in confusion, it may even be unnecessary to weigh the other factors.").
[24] Henri's Food Prods. Co., Inc. v. Kraft, Inc., 717 F.2d 352,355 (7th Cir. 1983).
[25] Sweetwater Brewing Co. v. Great Am. Restaurants, Inc., 266 F. Supp. 2d 457, 462 (E.D. V a.2003)
[26] See Universal Money Ctrs., Inc. v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co., 22 F.3d 1527, 1531 (10th Cir. 1994)
[27] Samara Bros., Inc. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 165 F.3d 120, 127 (2d Cir. 1998),
[28] Blue Bell Bio-Med. v. Cin-Bad, Inc., 864 F.2d 1253, 1259 (5th Cir. 1989)
[29] Kendall-Jackson Winery Ltd. v. E. & J. Gallo Winery, 150 F.3d 1042, 1052 n.1 I(9th Cir. 1998)
[30] Lois Sportswear, U.S.A., Inc. v. Levi Strauss & Co., 799 F.2d 867, 875 (2d Cir. 1986).
[31] Perfumania, Inc. v. Perfulandia, Inc., 279 F. Supp. 2d 86, 101 (D.P.R. 2003).
[32] Amstar Corp. v. Domino's Pizza, Inc., 615 F.2d 252, 263 (5th Cir. 1980).
[33] ee, e.g., Computer Care v. Serv. Sys. Enters., Inc. 982 F.2d 1063, 1070-1071 (7th Cir. 1992)
[34] Gaylord Entm't Co. v. Gilmore Entm't Group, 187 F. Supp. 2d 926, 949 (M.D. Tenn. 2001).
[35] Checkpoint Sys., Inc. v. Check Point Software Techs., Inc., 269 F.3d 270, 286 (3d Cir. 2001).
[36] Homeowners Group, Inc. v. Home Mktg. Specialists, Inc., 931 F.2d 1100, 1109 (6th Cir.1991).
[37] Vitarroz Corp. v. Borden, Inc., 644 F.2d 960, 967 (2d Cir. 198
①S.Rep. No. 1333,79th Cong., 2d Sess.3(1946).
②黄晖.驰名商标与著名商标的法律保护[M].北京:法律出版社,2001:61.
③S.Rep.No.100-515,at 40(1988),reprinted in1988 U.S.C.C.A.N.5577,5603.
①黄晖.驰名商标与著名商标的法律保护[M].北京:法律出版社,2001:488.
①黄晖.驰名商标与著名商标的法律保护[M].北京:法律出版社,2001:63.
①黄晖.驰名商标与著名商标的法律保护[M].北京:法律出版社,2001:60.
②C-210/96 Gut Springenheide v.Tusky[1998] ECR I-4657,第31段.
①黄晖.驰名商标与著名商标的法律保护[M].北京:法律出版社,2001:458.
②广州中院(2007)穗中法民三初字第130号民事判决书.
③AMF lnc.v.Sleekcraft Boats.599 F.2d 341,(9th cir.1979).
④Polaroid Corp. v. Polarad Elecs. Corp., 287 F.2d 492, 495 (2d Cir. 1961).
①酒泉中院(2010)酒民三初字01号民事判决书.
②黄晖.驰名商标与著名商标的法律保护[M].北京:法律出版社,2001:160.
③曾陈明汝.商标法原理[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社,2003:131.
④黄晖.驰名商标与著名商标的法律保护[M].北京:法律出版社,2001:79.
①S.Rep.No.100-515,at 40(1988),reprinted in1988 U.S.C.C.A.N.5577,5603.
②354 F.3d 1020 (9th Cir. 2004).
①174 F.3d 1036 (9th Cir. 1999).
①Sullivan v. CBS Corp., 385 F.3d 772, 778 (7th Cir. 2004).
②J. Thomas McCarthy, 3 McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition§24:30 (4th ed.2006).
③Sally Beauty Co. v. Beautyco, Inc., 304 F.3d 964, 972 (10th Cir. 2002).
④Helene Curtis Indus., Inc., v. Church & Dwight Co., 560 F.2d 1325, 1330 (7th Cir. 1977).
⑤The Fourth, Fifth, and Eleventh Circuits also typically use a seven-factor test.
⑥Polaroid Corp. v. Polarad Elecs. Corp., 287 F.2d 492, 495 (2d Cit. 1961).
⑦AMF, Inc. v. Sleekcrafi Boats, 599 F.2d 341, 348-49 (9th Cir. 1979).
⑧The First, Sixth, and D.C. Circuits also typically use an eight-factor test. For the First Circuit,see I.P. Lund Trading ApS v. Kohler Co., 163 F.3d 27, 43 (1st Cir. 1998); For the Sixth Circuit, see Frisch's Rests., Inc. v. Elby's BigBoy, 670 F.2d 642, 648 (6th Cir. 1982).
⑨Interpace Corp. v. Lapp, Inc., 721 F.2d 460, 462-63 (3d Cir. 1983). As with the Fourth,the Third Circuit's name for the multifactor test varies.
⑩In re E. 1. Du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 1361 (C.C.P.A. 1973). 11 infra PartⅢ.
①Sun-Fun Prods., Inc. v. Suntan Research & Dev., Inc., 656 F.2d 186, 189 (5th Cir.1981).
②Playmakers, LLC v. ESPN, Inc., 297 F. Supp. 2d 1277, 1282 (W.D. Wash. 2003)("Without similarity, there can be no confusion.").
③Kirkpatrick, supra note 14, at§4:1 ("Without a threshold similarity of themarks that might result in confusion, it may even be unnecessary to weigh the other factors.").
④Wynn Oil Co. v. Thomas, 839 F.2d 1183, 1191 (6th Cir. 1988).
⑤Henri's Food Prods. Co., Inc. v. Kraft, Inc., 717 F.2d 352,355 (7th Cir. 1983).
⑥Sweetwater Brewing Co. v. Great Am. Restaurants, Inc., 266 F. Supp. 2d 457, 462 (E.D. Va.2003) (discussing the "anti-dissection" rule in trademark infringement doctrine).
⑦Universal Money Ctrs., Inc. v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co., 22 F.3d 1527, 1531 (10th Cir. 1994)(stating that, in evaluating a trademark infringement claim, "similarities between marks should be givenmore weight than differences").
⑧Samara Bros., Inc. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 165 F.3d 120, 127 (2d Cir. 1998).
⑨Blue Bell Bio-Med. v. Cin-Bad, Inc., 864 F.2d 1253, 1259 (5th Cir. 1989) .
⑩Kendall-Jackson Winery Ltd. v. E. & J. Gallo Winery, 150 F.3d 1042, 1052 n.1 I(9th Cir. 1998) . 11 Lois Sportswear, U.S.A., Inc. v. Levi Strauss & Co., 799 F.2d 867, 875 (2d Cir. 1986).
①Perfumania, Inc. v. Perfulandia, Inc., 279 F. Supp. 2d 86, 101 (D.P.R. 2003).
②Amstar Corp. v. Domino's Pizza, Inc., 615 F.2d 252, 263 (5th Cir. 1980).
③Computer Care v. Serv. Sys. Enters., Inc. 982 F.2d 1063, 1070-1071 (7th Cir. 1992).
④Gaylord Entm't Co. v. Gilmore Entm't Group, 187 F. Supp. 2d 926, 949 (M.D. Tenn. 2001).
⑤Checkpoint Sys., Inc. v. Check Point Software Techs., Inc., 269 F.3d 270, 286 (3d Cir. 2001).
⑥Homeowners Group, Inc. v. Home Mktg. Specialists, Inc., 931 F.2d 1100, 1109 (6th Cir.1991).
⑦Playmakers, LLC v. ESPN, Inc., 297 F. Supp. 2d 1277, 1282 (W.D. Wash. 2003).
⑧Vitarroz Corp. v. Borden, Inc., 644 F.2d 960, 967 (2d Cir. 1981) (citation omitted).
⑨Brennan's, Inc. v. Brennan's Rest., L.L.C., 360 F.3d 125, 131 (2d Cir. 2004).
①Rodeo Collection, Ltd. v. W. Seventh, 812 F.2d 1215, 1218 (9th Cir. 1987)
②Edward George Epstein, Surveys: Growing Admissibility But Narrow Utilization,83 Trademark Rep. 863 (1993).
③Government Employees Ins. Co. v. Google, Inc., No. 1:04CV507, 2005WL 1903128, at *5 (E.D. Va. Aug. 8, 2005)
④See generally Sandra Edelman, Failure to Conduct a Survey in Trademark InfringementCases: A Critique of the Adverse Inference, 90 Trademark Rep. 746 (2000).
⑤AMF lnc.v.Sleekcraft Boats.599 F.2d 341,(9th cir.1979).
①黄晖.驰名商标与著名商标的法律保护[M].北京:法律出版社,2001:75.
②黄晖.驰名商标与著名商标的法律保护[M].北京:法律出版社,2001:76-77.
③Avery Dennnison Corp v.Sumpton 99 F. Supp.1337(C .D .Cal. 1998),reversed,189 F. 3d 868(9thCir. 1999) .
①Avery Dennnison Corp v.Sumpton 99 F. Supp.1337(C .D .Cal. 1998),reversed,189 F. 3d 868(9thCir. 1999) .
①廊坊中院(2010)廊民三初字第76号判决书.
①上海中院(2009)沪一中民五(知)终字第112号判决书.
②北京中院(2007)二中民初字第2431号判决书.
①兰州中院(2010)兰法民三初字第091号判决书.
②北京中院(2008)二中民初字第9910号判决书.
①合肥中院(2006)合民三初字第90号判决书.
①刘维.我国商标侵权的法律构造研究———以混淆可能性为中心[J].研究生法学: 2010,(25):5.
②黄晖.驰名商标与著名商标的法律保护[M].北京:法律出版社, 2001:11.
③黄晖.驰名商标与著名商标的法律保护[M].北京:法律出版社,2001:58.
①174 F.3d 1036 (9th Cir. 1999).
②354 F.3d 1020 (9th Cir. 2004).
①北京中院(2007)二中民初字第2431号判决书.
①合肥中院(2006)合民三初字第90号判决书,
②上海中院(2007)沪一中民五(知)初字第93号判决书
①中北京中院(2000)一中知初字第11号判决书.
①四川高院(2010)川民终字第419号判决书.
①哈尔滨中院(2005)哈民五初字第23号判决书.
②四川高院(2010)川民终字第229号判决书.
①山东高院(2007)鲁民三终字第70号判决书.
②孔祥俊.商标法与与不正当竞争法———原理和判例[M],北京:法律出版社, 2009: 238.
③孔祥俊.商标法与与不正当竞争法———原理和判例[M],北京:法律出版社, 2009: 240.
①北京市高级人民法院知识产权庭.专利商标案件审理中的若干问题[J],中国专利与商标,2007(3).
[1]黄晖.驰名商标与著名商标的法律保护[M].北京:法律出版社,2001.
[2]北京市高级人民法院民三庭编.知识产权经典案例上册[M].北京:知识产权出版社,2003.
[3]孔祥俊.商标法与不正当竞争法——原理和判例[M].北京:法律出版社,2009.
[4]祝铭山.商标权纠纷[M].北京:中国法制出版社,2004.
[5]程永顺.商标权纠纷案件法官点评[M].北京:知识产权出版社, 2004.
[6]刘春田主编.知识产权法[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社, 2009.
[7]曾陈明汝.商标法原理[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社,2003.
[1]《中华人民共和国商标法》
[2]《最高人民法院关于审理商标民事纠纷案件适用法律若干问题的解释》
[3]《中华人民共和国商标法实施条例》
[4]《最高人民法院关于审理涉及驰名商标保护的民事纠纷案件应用法律若干问题的解释》
[5]《最高人民法院关于审理涉及计算机网络域名民事纠纷案件适用法律若干问题的解释》
[1]邓宏光.论商标侵权的判断标准—兼论《中华人民共和国商标法》第52条的修改[J].法商研究, 2010:135(1).
[2]王太平.商标概念的符号学分析——兼论商标权和商标侵权的实质[J].湘潭大学学报(哲学社会科学版):2007:31(3).
[3]刘维.我国商标侵权的法律构造研究——以混淆可能性为中心[J].研究生法学, 2010:25(5).
[4]北京市高级人民法院知识产权庭.“专利商标案件审理中的若干问题”[J].中国专利与商标, 2007:(3).
[5]蒋志培.如何理解和适用<最高人民法院关于审理商标权民事纠纷案件适用法律若干问题的解释>[J].中国人民大学复印报刊资料《民商法学》,2003:(3).
[6]刘春田.商标与商标权辨析[J].知识产权,1998:(1).
[7]邓宏光.商标混淆理论的扩张[J].电子知识产权,2007:(10).
[8]蒋尉.从混淆理论、反淡化理论到联想理论[J].学术论坛, 2007:(8).
[9]汤跃.禁止混淆—确立商标权利范围的底线[J].贵州师范大学学报,2002:(6).
[10]彭学龙.论“混淆可能性”—兼评<中华人民共和国商标法修改草案>(征求意见稿)[J].法律科学(西北政法大学学报),2008:(1).
[1]余晖.商标侵权中混淆的司法判定[D].湘潭.湖南湘潭大学.2005.
[2]郭婷婷.商标侵权中混淆的司法判定[D].重庆.西南政法大学.2007.
[3]王玉.论商标侵权中的混淆理论[D].上海.华东政法大学.2008.
[4]颜林.双重相同下商标侵权行为认定研究[D].上海.华东政法大学.2009.
[5]项晴.论商标侵权行为的认定[D].北京.中国政法大学.2010.
[1]广州中院(2007)穗中法民三初字第130号民事判决书
[2]酒泉中院(2010)酒民三初字01号民事判决书
[3]廊坊中院(2010)廊民三初字第76号判决书
[4]上海中院(2009)沪一中民五(知)终字第112号判决书
[5]北京中院(2007)二中民初字第2431号判决书
[6]兰州中院(2010)兰法民三初字第091号判决书
[7]北京中院(2008)二中民初字第9910号判决书
[8]成都中院(2010)成民初字第295号判决书
[9]合肥中院(2006)合民三初字第90号判决书,
[10]上海中院(2007)沪一中民五(知)初字第93号判决书
[11]中北京中院(2000)一中知初字第11号判决书
[12]四川高院(2010)川民终字第419号判决书
[13]哈尔滨中院(2005)哈民五初字第23号判决书
[14]四川高院(2010)川民终字第229号判决书
[15]山东高院(2007)鲁民三终字第70号判决书
[1]中国知识产权文书网:http://ipr.chinacourt.org/more.php?sub=10
[2]判决书网址:http://www.panjueshu.com/
[1] See S.Rep. No. 1333,79th Cong., 2d Sess.3(1946).
[2] S.Rep.No.100-515,at 40(1988),reprinted in1988 U.S.C.C.A.N.5577,5603.
[3] C-210/96 Gut Springenheide v.Tusky[1998] ECR I-4657.
[4] AMF lnc.v.Sleekcraft Boats.599 F.2d 341,(9th cir.1979).
[5] Polaroid Corp. v. Polarad Elecs. Corp. 287 F.2d 492. 495 (2d Cir. 1961).
[6] Avery Dennnison Corp v.Sumpton 99 F. Supp.1337(C .D .Cal. 1998).reversed.189 F. 3d 868(9thCir. 1999) .
[7] 523 F.2d 1331 (2d Cir. 1975).
[8] 818 F.2d 254, 260 (2d Cir. 1987).
[9] 354 F.3d 1020 (9th Cir. 2004).
[10] 174 F.3d 1036 (9th Cir. 1999).
[11] S.Rep.No.100-515,at 40(1988),reprinted in1988 U.S.C.C.A.N.5577,5603.
[12] Sullivan v. CBS Corp., 385 F.3d 772, 778 (7th Cir. 2004).
[13] J.Thomas McCarthy, 3 McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition§24:30 (4th ed.2006)
[14] See Sally Beauty Co. v. Beautyco, Inc., 304 F.3d 964, 972 (10th Cir. 2002);
[15] See Helene Curtis Indus., Inc., v. Church & Dwight Co., 560 F.2d 1325, 1330 (7th Cir. 1977).
[16] The Fourth, Fifth, and Eleventh Circuits also typically use a seven-factor test.
[17] The First, Sixth, and D.C. Circuits also typically use an eight-factor test. For the First Circuit,see I.P. Lund Trading ApS v. Kohler Co., 163 F.3d 27, 43 (1st Cir. 1998); For the Sixth Circuit, see Frisch's Rests., Inc. v. Elby's BigBoy, 670 F.2d 642, 648 (6th Cir. 1982).
[18] Interpace Corp. v. Lapp, Inc., 721 F.2d 460, 462-63 (3d Cir. 1983). As with the Fourth,the Third Circuit's name for the multifactor test varies.
[19] See In re E. 1. Du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 1361 (C.C.P.A. 1973).
[20] See infra Part 1ll.
[21] See, e.g., Sun-Fun Prods., Inc. v. Suntan Research & Dev., Inc., 656 F.2d 186, 189 (5th Cir.1981)
[22] See Playmakers, LLC v. ESPN, Inc., 297 F. Supp. 2d 1277, 1282 (W.D. Wash. 2003)("Without similarity, there can be no confusion."). [23.Kirkpatrick, supra note 14, at§4:1 ("Without a threshold similarity of themarks that might result in confusion, it may even be unnecessary to weigh the other factors.").
[24] Henri's Food Prods. Co., Inc. v. Kraft, Inc., 717 F.2d 352,355 (7th Cir. 1983).
[25] Sweetwater Brewing Co. v. Great Am. Restaurants, Inc., 266 F. Supp. 2d 457, 462 (E.D. V a.2003)
[26] See Universal Money Ctrs., Inc. v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co., 22 F.3d 1527, 1531 (10th Cir. 1994)
[27] Samara Bros., Inc. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 165 F.3d 120, 127 (2d Cir. 1998),
[28] Blue Bell Bio-Med. v. Cin-Bad, Inc., 864 F.2d 1253, 1259 (5th Cir. 1989)
[29] Kendall-Jackson Winery Ltd. v. E. & J. Gallo Winery, 150 F.3d 1042, 1052 n.1 I(9th Cir. 1998)
[30] Lois Sportswear, U.S.A., Inc. v. Levi Strauss & Co., 799 F.2d 867, 875 (2d Cir. 1986).
[31] Perfumania, Inc. v. Perfulandia, Inc., 279 F. Supp. 2d 86, 101 (D.P.R. 2003).
[32] Amstar Corp. v. Domino's Pizza, Inc., 615 F.2d 252, 263 (5th Cir. 1980).
[33] ee, e.g., Computer Care v. Serv. Sys. Enters., Inc. 982 F.2d 1063, 1070-1071 (7th Cir. 1992)
[34] Gaylord Entm't Co. v. Gilmore Entm't Group, 187 F. Supp. 2d 926, 949 (M.D. Tenn. 2001).
[35] Checkpoint Sys., Inc. v. Check Point Software Techs., Inc., 269 F.3d 270, 286 (3d Cir. 2001).
[36] Homeowners Group, Inc. v. Home Mktg. Specialists, Inc., 931 F.2d 1100, 1109 (6th Cir.1991).
[37] Vitarroz Corp. v. Borden, Inc., 644 F.2d 960, 967 (2d Cir. 198