主观意图对商标混淆可能性判定的作用与适用
|
摘要
商标侵权的判定标准是混淆可能性,主观意图并非商标侵权的必要条件。本文针对我国司法实践关于主观意图的作用的理解偏差,研究主观意图对商标混淆可能性判定的作用及其适用规则。主观意图虽然影响商标混淆可能性的判定,但它仅仅是判定商标混淆可能性的参考因素,这与以主观过错为要件的一般侵权行为的构成明显不同。主观意图包括混淆意图和善意意图。混淆意图可以从被告主观知道与商标的近似、原告与被告的业务联系、侵权警告后的持续使用、注册拒绝后的持续使用进行判定。善意意图可以从商标近似的合理解释、自由竞争的意图、滑稽模仿的意图进行判定。商标检索与法律咨询对主观意图的证明效力,应结合案件的其他事实综合判定。
The standard for judging trademark confusion is the likelihood of confusion, subjective intent is not the essential requirement for judging trademark infringement. The paper studies the impact of subjective intent in judging the likelihood of trademark confusion and the relevant application rules, to address the comprehending deviation regarding the impact of subjective intent among Chinese practitioners. Although subjective intent may impact the judgement of trademark confusion, it is only a factor for reference, which is clearly different from ordinary infringement behavior, which takes subjective fault as a major legal requirement.Subjective intent includes confusing intent and bona fide intent. Confusing intent may be judged by the proof of knowledge and trademark similarity, the business relationship between plaintiff and defendant, the continuous use after trademark infringement warning, and the continuous use after trademark registration rejection. The bona fide intent may be judged by reasonable explanation of trademark similarity, the intent of free competition and the intent of parody. The probative effectiveness of trademark retrieval and legal consultation for subjective intent should be judged in combination with other facts of specific cases.
The standard for judging trademark confusion is the likelihood of confusion, subjective intent is not the essential requirement for judging trademark infringement. The paper studies the impact of subjective intent in judging the likelihood of trademark confusion and the relevant application rules, to address the comprehending deviation regarding the impact of subjective intent among Chinese practitioners. Although subjective intent may impact the judgement of trademark confusion, it is only a factor for reference, which is clearly different from ordinary infringement behavior, which takes subjective fault as a major legal requirement.Subjective intent includes confusing intent and bona fide intent. Confusing intent may be judged by the proof of knowledge and trademark similarity, the business relationship between plaintiff and defendant, the continuous use after trademark infringement warning, and the continuous use after trademark registration rejection. The bona fide intent may be judged by reasonable explanation of trademark similarity, the intent of free competition and the intent of parody. The probative effectiveness of trademark retrieval and legal consultation for subjective intent should be judged in combination with other facts of specific cases.
引文
(1)《最高人民法院关于审理不正当竞争民事案件应用法律若干问题的解释》(法释[2007]2号)第1条。
(2)相关案例详见:最高人民法院(2014)民提字第168号民事判决书(客观上不会使相关公众对广天赛克思公司商品的来源产生混淆和误认,主观上广天赛克思公司也不具有攀附邵文军商标声誉的恶意……并未侵害邵文军的注册商标专用权);最高人民法院(2014)民提字第24号民事判决书(不具有攀附王碎永“歌力思”商标知名度的主观意图,亦不会为普通消费者正确识别被诉侵权商品的来源制造障碍……销售被诉侵权商品的行为亦不为法律所禁止)。
(3)魏振瀛主编:《民法》,北京大学出版社、高等教育出版社2000年版,第691页。
(4)J. Thomas McCarthy, McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition(Fourth Edition), Eagan:Thomson/West, 2011,§23:110, pp.23-350.
(5)My-T Fine Corp. v. Samuels,69 F. 2d 76(2d Cir. 1934).
(6)Resource Developers Inc. v. Statue of Liberty-Ellis Island Foundation,Inc.,926 F. 2d 134(2d Cir. 1991).
(7)American Home Products Corp. v. Barr Laboratories, Inc.,834 F. 2d 368(3d Cir. 1987).
(8)《最高人民法院关于审理商标授权确权行政案件若干问题的规定》(法释[2017] 2号)第12条。
(9)程啸著:《侵权责任法》(第二版),法律出版社2015年版,第208-209页。
(10)李雨峰著:《侵害商标权判定标准研究》,知识产权出版社2016年版,第80页。
(11)郑成思著:《WTO知识产权协议逐条讲解》,中国方正出版社2001年版,第159页。
(12)Daddy's Junky Music Stores,Inc. v. Big Daddy's Family Music Center,109 F. 3d 275(6th Cir. 1997).
(13)广东省高级人民法院(2015)粤高法民三终字第145号民事判决书。
(14)H.Lubovsky,Inc. v. Esprit de Corp., 627 F. Supp. 483(S.D.N.Y. 1986).
(15)Shoe Corp. of America v. Juvenile Shoe Corp.,266 F.2d 793, 796(C.C.P.A. 1959).
(16)李明德著:《知识产权法》(第二版),法律出版社2014年版,第252页。
(17)Sands, Taylor&Wood Co. v. Quaker Oats Co., 978 F. 2d 947(7th Cir. 1992).
(18)Richard L. Kirkpatrick, Likelihood of Confusion in Trademark Law(Second Edition), Practising Law Institution Press, 2017, pp.8-12.
(19)Toys“R” Us, Inc. v. Canarsie Kiddle Shop, Inc. 559 F. Supp. 1189(E.D.N.Y. 1983).
(20)Mobil Oil Corp. v. Pegasus Petroleum Corp.,818 F. 2d 254(2d Cir. 1987).
(21)天津市高级人民法院(2015)津高民三终字第0005号民事判决书。
(22)AutoZone, Inc. v. Strick, 543 F. 3d 923(7th Cir. 2008).
(23)同注释18。
(24)AmBrit, Inc. v. Kraft, Inc., 812 F. 2d 1531(11th Cir. 1986).
(25)Angel Flight of Ga., Inc. v. Angel Flight Am., Inc., 522 F. 3d 1200(11th Cir. 2008).
(26)Straus v. Notaseme Hosiery Co., 240 U.S. 179 60 L. Ed. 590, 36 S. Ct. 288(1916).
(27)J. Thomas McCarthy, McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition(Fourth Edition), Eagan:Thomson/West, 2009,§23:120, pp.23-371.
(28)Kiki Undies Corp. v. Promenade Hosiery Mills, Inc., 411 F. 2d 1097(2d Cir. 1969).
(29)当时美国专利局同时受理专利和商标的申请。随着商标和商标注册的日益重要,美国国会于1975年将美国专利局更名为美国专利商标局,以更为准确地反映其同时受理专利申请和商标申请的职责。
(30)Nalpac, Ltd. v. Coming Glass Works, 784 F. 2d 752(6th Cir. 1986).
(31)J. Thomas McCarthy, McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition(Fourth Edition), Eagan:Thomson/West, 2009,§23:121, pp.23-373.
(32)参见北京市高级人民法院(2006)高行终字第94号行政判决书(西安小肥羊烤肉馆申请注册“小肥羊”商标,但由于缺乏显著性而被拒绝注册。后来,内蒙古小肥羊公司通过实际使用,使得“小肥羊”能够指示商品或服务的来源,进而获得商标注册)。
(33)Sears Roebuck&Co. v. Johnson, 219 F. 2d 590(3d Cir. 1955).
(34)Tana v. Dantanna's, 611 F. 3d 767(11th Cir. 2010).
(35)Caesars World, Inc. v. Caesar's Palace,490 F.Supp. 818(D.N.J. 1980).
(36)李明德著:《美国知识产权法》(第二版),法律出版社2014年版,第13页。
(37)Fun-Damental Too, Ltd. v. Gemmy Industries, Inc.,111 F. 3d 993(2d Cir. 1997).
(38)Libman Co. v. Vining Industries, Inc., 69 F. 3d 1360(7th Cir. 1995).
(39)J. Thomas McCarthy, McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition(Fourth Edition),Eagan:Thomson/West,2009,§23:121,pp.23-374.
(40)黄晖著:《商标法》(第二版),法律出版社2016年版,第177-178页。
(41)Richard L. Kirkpatrick, Likelihood of Confusion in Trademark Law(Second Edition), Practising Law Institution Press, 2017, pp.8-36.
(42)Anheuser-Busch.Inc. v. L&L Wings, Inc., 962 F. 2d 316(4th Cir. 1992).
(43)广东省高级人民法院(2015)粤高法民三终字第145号民事判决书(美的公司抗辩认为,其在使用“五谷丰登”字样前进行了商标查询,并未查询到“五谷丰登”为注册商标)。
(44)International Star Class Yacht Racing Ass'n. v. Tommy Hilfiger U.S.A. 80 F. 3d 749(2d Cir. 1996).
(45)George&Co. L.L.C. v. Imagination Entertainment Ltd., 575 F. 3d 383(4th Cir. 2009).
(46)Star Industries, Inc. v. Bacardi&Co. Ltd., 412 F. 3d 373(2d Cir. 2005).
(47)Chevron Chemical Co. v. Voluntary Purchasing Groups, Inc., 659 F. 2d 695(5th Cir. 1981).
(48)Takecare Corp. v. Takecare of Oklahoma, Inc., 889 F. 2d 955(10th Cir. 1989).
(2)相关案例详见:最高人民法院(2014)民提字第168号民事判决书(客观上不会使相关公众对广天赛克思公司商品的来源产生混淆和误认,主观上广天赛克思公司也不具有攀附邵文军商标声誉的恶意……并未侵害邵文军的注册商标专用权);最高人民法院(2014)民提字第24号民事判决书(不具有攀附王碎永“歌力思”商标知名度的主观意图,亦不会为普通消费者正确识别被诉侵权商品的来源制造障碍……销售被诉侵权商品的行为亦不为法律所禁止)。
(3)魏振瀛主编:《民法》,北京大学出版社、高等教育出版社2000年版,第691页。
(4)J. Thomas McCarthy, McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition(Fourth Edition), Eagan:Thomson/West, 2011,§23:110, pp.23-350.
(5)My-T Fine Corp. v. Samuels,69 F. 2d 76(2d Cir. 1934).
(6)Resource Developers Inc. v. Statue of Liberty-Ellis Island Foundation,Inc.,926 F. 2d 134(2d Cir. 1991).
(7)American Home Products Corp. v. Barr Laboratories, Inc.,834 F. 2d 368(3d Cir. 1987).
(8)《最高人民法院关于审理商标授权确权行政案件若干问题的规定》(法释[2017] 2号)第12条。
(9)程啸著:《侵权责任法》(第二版),法律出版社2015年版,第208-209页。
(10)李雨峰著:《侵害商标权判定标准研究》,知识产权出版社2016年版,第80页。
(11)郑成思著:《WTO知识产权协议逐条讲解》,中国方正出版社2001年版,第159页。
(12)Daddy's Junky Music Stores,Inc. v. Big Daddy's Family Music Center,109 F. 3d 275(6th Cir. 1997).
(13)广东省高级人民法院(2015)粤高法民三终字第145号民事判决书。
(14)H.Lubovsky,Inc. v. Esprit de Corp., 627 F. Supp. 483(S.D.N.Y. 1986).
(15)Shoe Corp. of America v. Juvenile Shoe Corp.,266 F.2d 793, 796(C.C.P.A. 1959).
(16)李明德著:《知识产权法》(第二版),法律出版社2014年版,第252页。
(17)Sands, Taylor&Wood Co. v. Quaker Oats Co., 978 F. 2d 947(7th Cir. 1992).
(18)Richard L. Kirkpatrick, Likelihood of Confusion in Trademark Law(Second Edition), Practising Law Institution Press, 2017, pp.8-12.
(19)Toys“R” Us, Inc. v. Canarsie Kiddle Shop, Inc. 559 F. Supp. 1189(E.D.N.Y. 1983).
(20)Mobil Oil Corp. v. Pegasus Petroleum Corp.,818 F. 2d 254(2d Cir. 1987).
(21)天津市高级人民法院(2015)津高民三终字第0005号民事判决书。
(22)AutoZone, Inc. v. Strick, 543 F. 3d 923(7th Cir. 2008).
(23)同注释18。
(24)AmBrit, Inc. v. Kraft, Inc., 812 F. 2d 1531(11th Cir. 1986).
(25)Angel Flight of Ga., Inc. v. Angel Flight Am., Inc., 522 F. 3d 1200(11th Cir. 2008).
(26)Straus v. Notaseme Hosiery Co., 240 U.S. 179 60 L. Ed. 590, 36 S. Ct. 288(1916).
(27)J. Thomas McCarthy, McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition(Fourth Edition), Eagan:Thomson/West, 2009,§23:120, pp.23-371.
(28)Kiki Undies Corp. v. Promenade Hosiery Mills, Inc., 411 F. 2d 1097(2d Cir. 1969).
(29)当时美国专利局同时受理专利和商标的申请。随着商标和商标注册的日益重要,美国国会于1975年将美国专利局更名为美国专利商标局,以更为准确地反映其同时受理专利申请和商标申请的职责。
(30)Nalpac, Ltd. v. Coming Glass Works, 784 F. 2d 752(6th Cir. 1986).
(31)J. Thomas McCarthy, McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition(Fourth Edition), Eagan:Thomson/West, 2009,§23:121, pp.23-373.
(32)参见北京市高级人民法院(2006)高行终字第94号行政判决书(西安小肥羊烤肉馆申请注册“小肥羊”商标,但由于缺乏显著性而被拒绝注册。后来,内蒙古小肥羊公司通过实际使用,使得“小肥羊”能够指示商品或服务的来源,进而获得商标注册)。
(33)Sears Roebuck&Co. v. Johnson, 219 F. 2d 590(3d Cir. 1955).
(34)Tana v. Dantanna's, 611 F. 3d 767(11th Cir. 2010).
(35)Caesars World, Inc. v. Caesar's Palace,490 F.Supp. 818(D.N.J. 1980).
(36)李明德著:《美国知识产权法》(第二版),法律出版社2014年版,第13页。
(37)Fun-Damental Too, Ltd. v. Gemmy Industries, Inc.,111 F. 3d 993(2d Cir. 1997).
(38)Libman Co. v. Vining Industries, Inc., 69 F. 3d 1360(7th Cir. 1995).
(39)J. Thomas McCarthy, McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition(Fourth Edition),Eagan:Thomson/West,2009,§23:121,pp.23-374.
(40)黄晖著:《商标法》(第二版),法律出版社2016年版,第177-178页。
(41)Richard L. Kirkpatrick, Likelihood of Confusion in Trademark Law(Second Edition), Practising Law Institution Press, 2017, pp.8-36.
(42)Anheuser-Busch.Inc. v. L&L Wings, Inc., 962 F. 2d 316(4th Cir. 1992).
(43)广东省高级人民法院(2015)粤高法民三终字第145号民事判决书(美的公司抗辩认为,其在使用“五谷丰登”字样前进行了商标查询,并未查询到“五谷丰登”为注册商标)。
(44)International Star Class Yacht Racing Ass'n. v. Tommy Hilfiger U.S.A. 80 F. 3d 749(2d Cir. 1996).
(45)George&Co. L.L.C. v. Imagination Entertainment Ltd., 575 F. 3d 383(4th Cir. 2009).
(46)Star Industries, Inc. v. Bacardi&Co. Ltd., 412 F. 3d 373(2d Cir. 2005).
(47)Chevron Chemical Co. v. Voluntary Purchasing Groups, Inc., 659 F. 2d 695(5th Cir. 1981).
(48)Takecare Corp. v. Takecare of Oklahoma, Inc., 889 F. 2d 955(10th Cir. 1989).