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。
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.
引文
① Moseley v. V Secret Catalogue, Inc., 537 U.S.418, 123 S. Ct. 1115 (2003).
① Restatement Third, Unfair Competition §25, Comment i. (1995).
① Thomson v. Vinchester , 36 Mass. (19 pick) 214 (1837), see Tony Martino ,Trademark Dilution , Ch. 4, n.14, Oxford University Press, 1996.
② Taylor v. Carpenter ,23 F. cas 742 (No.13, 784) (CCD Mass 1844), Tony Martino, id.
③ Amoskeag Mfg Co. v. Spear, 4 NY Super Ct. (2 sand) 599 (NY Super Ct. 1849), Tony Martino, id.
④ Federal Trademark Act of 1946, as amended (Lanham act), SEC. 43(a), (15 U.S.C.A. 1125).
⑤ Restatement (Third) of Unfair Competition, §20(1) (1995).
① Tony Martino, at 5.
② Eastman Photographic Materials Co. v. John Griffith’s Cycle Corp., 15 R.P.C.105 (1898), see Tony Martino, at 10.
③ David S. Welkowitz, Trademark dilution: federal, state, and international law, published by the Bureau of National Affairs , Inc., 2002, at 9.
④ Frank I. Schechter, The Rational Basis for Trademark Protection, 40 Harv. L. Rev. 813 (1927), reprinted 60 TMR 334 (1970).
⑤ Federal Trademark Act 1946, as Amended (The Lanham Act), SEC. 45(15 U.S.C.A. 1127).
① Tiffany & Co. v. Tiffany Productions, Inc.,264 N.Y.S. 459(1932), aff’d, 262 N.Y. 4821(1933). ②Vogue Co. v. Thompson-Hudson Co., 300 F. 509 (6th Cir. 1924).
③ Wall v. Rolls-Royce of America, Inc., 4 F. 2d 333 (3d Cir. 1925).
④ Alfred Dunhill of London, Inc. v. Dunhill Shirt Shop, 3F. Supp 487(SDNY 1929).
⑤ Philadelphia Storage Battery Co. v. Mindlin, 296 N.Y.S. 176(1937).
⑥ Bulova Watch Co. v. Stolzberg, 69 F. Supp. 543 (D. Mass. 1947). ⑦Stork Restaurant v. Sahati, 166 F. 2d 348, 76 U.S.P.Q. 374 (9th Cir. 1948).
⑧ id.
①California Fruit Growers Exchange v. Sunkist Bakery Co., 166 F 2d 971(7th Cir.1948).
② G. B. Kent & Sons, Ltd. v. P. Lorillard Co., 114 F. Supp. 621, 98 U.S.P.Q.404 (S.D.N.Y. 1953).
③ 纽约州于 1955 年颁布反淡化法。
④ Cue Publishing Co. v. Colgate-Palmolive Co., 256 NYS 2d 239 (Sup. Ct), 144 U.S.P.Q. 371 (1965).
⑤ 指纽约州反淡化法。
⑥ Girl Scouts of United States v. Personality Posters Mfg. Co., 304 F. Supp. 1228. 163 U.S.P.Q. 505 (S.D.N.Y.1969). ⑦Carter-Wallace, Inc. v. Procter & Gamble Co., 434 F. 2d 794, 167 U.S.P.Q713 (9th Cir. 1970).
⑧ Norm Thompson Qutfitters, Inc. v. General Motors Corp., 448 F. 2d 1293, 171 U.S.P.Q.328 (9th Cir. 1971).
⑨ 伊利诺州于 1953 年颁布反淡化法,是继马萨诸塞之后第二个颁布反淡化法的州。
① Polaroid Corp. v. Polaraid Inc., 319 F.2d 830 , 138 U.S.P.Q. 265 (7th Cir. 1963).
② Allied Maintenance Corp. v. Allied Mechanical Trades, Inc., 18 U.S.P.Q. 418 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1977). ③Hyatt Corp. v. Hyatt Legal Services, 736 F. 2d 1153, 222 U.S.P.Q. 669 (7th Cir. 1984).
④ Ringling Bros.-Barnum & Bailey Combined Shows, Inc. v. Celozi-Ettelson Chevrolet, Inc., 855 F. 2d 480, 8 U.S.P.Q.2d 1072 (7th Cir. 1988).
⑤ McDonald’s Corp. v. Arche Technologies, 17 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1557 (N.D.Cal. 1990).
⑥ Nabisco, Inc. v. PF Brands, Inc., 191 F.3d 208, 51 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1882 (2d Cir. 1999).
⑦ Sally Gee, Inc. v. Myra Hogan, Inc., 699 F. 2d 621, 217 U.S.P.Q. 658 (2d Cir. 1983).
⑧ Id.
① Mead Data Cent., Inc. v. Toyota Motor Sales, Inc., 875 F.2d 1026, 10 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1961 (2d Cir. 1989).
② See Walter J. Derenberg, The problem of trademark dilution and the antidilution statutes, 44 CAL. L. Rev. 439. 449 & n55 (1956).
① See S. Rep. No. 100-515, 100th Cong., 2d Sess.1.
② See H. R. Rep. No. 100-1028, 100th Cong., 2d Sess.2.
① Chamberlin, The Theory of Monopolistic Competition, at 59,62, Appendix E, 270-1.
② Chamberlin, The Theory of Monopolistic Competition, at 94, 110-13, 214-15.
③ Chamberlin, Towards a More General Theory of Value (1957), at 93-99, cited in Glynn, S. Lunney, Jr., Trademark Monopolies, 48 Emory L. J. 367.
④ P. A. Samuelson, Economics, at 488 (10th ed.1976).
⑤ Pickering, at 77.
⑥ R. S .Brown, at 1169.
⑦ See Pickering, at 78-80.
① R.S.Brown, at 187.
② Pickering, at 78-80.
③ Id.
④ 保罗??A?萨缪尔森,威廉?D?诺德豪斯:《经济学》,第 16 版,机械工业出版社 1998 年影印版,第 161 页。
⑤该学派的主要代表人物及其代表作包括:William Landes 和 Richard Posner 及其《商标法的经济分析》,载《法律和经济学杂志》1987 年第 30 卷;L. Akazaki 及其《英美商标政策中的产源理论和保证理论:一个批判法学的研究》,载《专利商标局协会杂志》1990 年第 72 卷; W.R .Cornish 和 J. Phillips 及其《商标的经济功能:特别针对发展中国家的分析》,载 IIC 杂志 1982 年卷;N.S. Economides 及其《商标经济学》,载《商标评论》1988 年第 78 卷。参见 C.D.G. Pickering:《商标理论与实践》,哈特出版社 1998 年版,第 85 页,注 85。
⑥ A. Alchian & W.R. Allen, Exchange and Production : Competition, Coordination and Control 294-95(2d ed. 1977), cited in McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition, at 2-7, westgroup Rel.#17,3/2001(TRU).
① McCarthy, at 2-69.
② Id.
③ Federal Trade Comm’n v. Procter & Gamble co., 386 U.S. 568, 18 L. Ed 2d 303.
④ McCarthy, at 2-21.
⑤ Eastern Wine Corp, v. Winslow-Warren, Ltd, 137F. 2d 955.
⑥ Roger, Goodwill, Trademarks and Unfair Trading 50-52 (1914), cited in McCarthy, at 2-24.
⑦ Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350.
① Craswell Report, 13(1979) (FTC Policy Planning Issues Paper: Trademarks, consumer Information and Barriers to Competition, FTC office of Policy Planning), see McCarthy, at 2-27.
② Craswell Report, at 15.
③ McCarthy, at 2-27.
④ 参见威廉??M?兰德斯,理查德?A?波斯纳著,金海军译:《知识产权法的经济结构》,北京大学出版社 2005年 5 月版,第 216-217 页。在该书中,作者建立了一个数学模型:π=P+H(T,Y,W)。其中 π 为消费者购买商品 X 的完整价格(full price),P 为金钱价格(money price),H 为消费者为了解 X 的相关特征所承担的搜寻成本,T 指商标(实为商标的强弱程度),Y 为商标 T 之外的其他因素,如广告支出、竞争者的数量等,W 指企业可以将其用作商标的文字与其他符号的可能性指数。通过对这一模型的分析,作者得出结论:对商标的法律保护会鼓励生产更高质量的产品。参见该书第 225-230 页。
⑤ 波斯纳:《法律的经济分析》,中信出版社 2003 年影印版,第 385 页。
⑥ Eastern Wine Corp. v. Winslow-Warren, Ltd., 137 F.2d 955.
① Eastern Wine Corp. v. Winslow-Warren, Ltd., 137 F.2d 955. Similar opinion can be found in cases such as National Fruit Product Co. v. Dwinell-wright Co., 47 F. Supp. 499; Artype, Inc. v. Zappulla, 228 F. 2d 695; standard Brands, Inc. v. Smidler, 151F.2d 34; Clorox Co. v. Sterling Winthrop, Inc., 117 F. 3d 50, etc..
② Glynn, S. Lunney Jr., Trademark monopolies,48 Emory L.J, 367,n8.
③ 40/70 [1971] ECR,69.
④ Schechter, id.
① Tony Martino, Ch. 5, n. 21.
② 沈晓雷:《驰名商标法律保护的比较研究》,《科技与法律》1996 年第 11 期。
③ 参见刘茂林:《知识产权法的经济分析》,法律出版社 1996 版,第 101-102 页;另参见冯晓青等:《知识产权法热点问题研究》,中国人民公安大学出版社 2002 年版,第 466-467 页。
④ Tony Martino, at 10.
③ McCarthy, at 24-160.
④ I.P.Lund Trading Aps. v. Kohler Co., 163 F. 3d 27, 49 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1225 (1st Cir. 1998).
⑤ Report of the T.R.C.,77 Trademark Rep. 375, 461 (1987).
① USTA Report , 77 Trademark Rep., at 460; 1995 House Rep., at 7, see David S. Welkowitz, Trademark dilution: federal, state, and international law, published by BNA books, 2002, at 203, n. 182.
② Welkowitz, id, n.183.
③ TCPIP Holding Co., Inc. v. Haar Communications, Inc., 244 F. 3d 88, 57 U.S.P.Q.2d 1969(2d Cir. 2001).
④ See McCarthy, at 24-171.
⑤ See W. Von Meibom and F. R?diger , “Reputed Trade Mark”, in European community Trade Mark , at 212, Kluwer Law International, 1997.
⑥ Id, at 218, n43 and accompanying text.
② USTA. Report, 77 Trademark Rep., at 461.
③ Restatement (Third) of Unfair Competition §25, Comment e( 1995).
④ Times Mirror Magazines Inc. v. Las Vegas Sports News, L.L.C., 212 F. 3d 157.
① Id. (Barry, J., dissenting).
② McCarthy, at 24-242, see also Welkowitz, at 210.
③ Mead Data Cent., Inc. v. Toyota Motor Sales, Inc., 875 F.2d 1026, 10 U.S.P.Q.2d 1961(2d Cir. 1989).
④ See McCarthy, at 24-175.
⑤ See W. Von Meibom and F. R?diger , “Reputed Trade Mark”, in European community Trade Mark , at 218,Kluwer Law International, 1997.
① General Motors Corporation v. Yplon SA. C-375/97.
② General Motors Corporation v. Yplon SA. C-375/97, at para. 24.
① The relevant words of FTDA are “The owner of a famous mark shall be entitled...... to an injunction......”.
② McCarthy at 24-159.
③ Report of the T.R.C., 77 Trademark Rep. 375, 460 (1987).
④ Times Mirror Magazines, Inc. v. Las Vegas Sports News, L.L.C. , 212 F.3d 157, 54 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1577 (3d Cir. 2000).
⑤ Nabisco Inc. v. PF Brands, Inc., 191 F. 3d 208, 51 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1882 (2d Cir. 1999).
⑥ TCPIP Holding Co. v. Haar Communications, Inc.,224 F. 3d 88, 57 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1969(2d Cir. 2001).
⑦ 法院所举的驰名但不具有显著性的例子包括:American, National, Federal, Federated, First, United, Acme, Merit, Ace 等。
⑧ V Secret Catalogue, Inc. v. Moseley, 259 F.3d 464, 59 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1650 (6th Cir. 2001).
① McCarthy, at 24-163.
③ Sabel BV v. Puma AG, Rudoff Dassler Sport, C-251/95, at para. 24.
① See Restatement(Third) of Unfair Competition, §25, Comment e(1995).
① Restatement (Third) of Unfair Competition, §25,Comment f (1995).
① Davidoff & Cie SA. and Zino Davidoff SA v. Gofkid Ltd., c-292/00.
② Opinion of A.G. Jacobs, ECR 2003, Page I-00389.
③ Davidoff & Cie SA. and Zino Davidoff SA v. Gofkid Ltd., c-292/00.
① Coca-Cola Co. v. Gemini Rising, Inc., 346 F. Supp.1183.
② Steinway & Sons v. Demars & Friends, 210 U.S.P.Q. 954 (C.D. Cal. 1981).
③ American Express Co. v. Vibra Approved Laboratories Corp., 10 U.S.P.Q. 2d 2006(S.D.N.Y.(1989).
④ Anheuser-Bushe , Inc. v. Andy’s Sportswear, Inc.,40 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1542(N.D.Cal.1996).
⑤ Warner-Lambert Co. v. Northside Dev. Corp., 86 F. 3d 3.
⑥ Deere & Co. v. MTD Prods., 41 F.3d 39.
① 周枏:《罗马法原论》,商务印书馆 1994 年版,第 783 页。
② 参见王家福等:《民法债权》,法律出版社 1991 年版,第 409 页。 ③Black’s Law Dictionary, 7th ed, ST. Paul, Minn. at 439, west group 1999.
④ Id, at 1110.
⑤ [意]桑德罗?斯索巴尼选编:《债?私犯之债(Ⅱ)和犯罪》,徐国栋译,中国政法大学出版社 1998 年版,第 93 页。
①Black’s Law Dictionary, 7th ed, ST. Paul, Minn. at 1108, west group 1999.
②参见王家福等:《民法债权》,法律出版社 1991 年版,第 408 页。
③ Prosser & Keeton on Torts, at 2. ④Black’s Law Dictionary, 7th ed, ST. Paul, Minn. at 439, west group 1999.
⑤ Steven H. Gifis, Law Dictionary, Barron’s Educational Series, Inc., Woodbury, New York,1975, at 210.
① Mead Data central, Inc. v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., 875 F. 2d 1026. 10 U.S.P.Q. 1961(2d Cir. 1989).
② See Tony Martino, at 103.
③ Id.
④ Id.
① Nabisco, Inc. v. PF Brands, Inc., 191 F. 3d 208, 51 U.S. P.Q. 2d 1882 (2d Cir. 1999).
① Times Mirror Magazines , Inc. v. Las Vegas Sports News, L.L.C., 212 F. 3d 157, 54 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1577 (3d Cir. 2000).
②Eli Lilly & Co. v. Natural Answers, Inc., 233 F. 3d 456, 56 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1942 (7th Cir. 2000).
③ Hasbro, Inc. v. Clue Computing, Inc., 66F. Supp. 2d 117, 52 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1402 (D. Mass. 1999).
① See McCarthy, at 24-220.
② Lighthawk, Environmental Air Force v. Robertson, 812 F. Supp. 1095.
③ CPC Intern., Inc. v. Skippy Inc., 214 F.3d 456, 55 U.S.P.Q.2d 1033(4th Cir. 2000).
① 参见吴汉东等著:《走向知识经济时代的知识产权法》,法律出版社 2002 年版,第 382 页。
① 参薛虹:《域名与知识产权》,载唐广良主编:《知识产权研究》第八卷,方正出版社 1999 年版,第 156页。
① 参见金灵:《商标所有权并不等于域名所有权》,载陶鑫良等主编:《域名与知识产权保护》,知识产权出版社 2001 年版,第 187 页。
② David S. Welkowitz, Trademark Dilution, at 224.
③ Ringling Bros.-Barnum & Bailey Combined Shows, Inc. v. Utah Division of Travel Development 170 F. 3d 449, 50 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1065 (4th Cir.), Cert. Denied, 528 U.S. 923 (1999).
①170 F. 3d 449 , 50 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1065(4th Cir. 1999).
② Nabisco, Inc. v. PF Brands. Inc., 191 F. 3d 208, 51 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1882 (2d Cir. 1999).
③V Secret Catalogue v. Moseley Inc., 259 F.3d 464 (6th Cir. 2001).
④ Moseley v. V Secret Catalogue, Inc., 537 U.S.418, 123 S. Ct. 1115 (2003).
② Cliffs Notes , Inc. v. Bantam Doubleday Dell publishing group, 886 F. 2d 490; 12 U.S.P.Q.2d 1289 (2d Cir. 1989).
③ L. L. Bean, Inc. v. Drake Publishing, Inc., 811 F. 2d 26, U.S.P.Q.2d 1753 (1st Cir. 1987).
① The parody was entitled “L.L.Bean’s Back-To-School-Sex-Catalogue”, as against plaintiff’s “L. L. Bean’s catalogue”.
② Jordache Enterprises, Inc., v. Hogg Wyld, Ltd., 828 F. 2d 1482, 4 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1216 (10th Cir. 1987).
③ Dallas Cowboys Cheerleaders, Inc. v. Pussycat Cinema, Ltd., 604 F.2d 200 (2d Cir. 1979).
④ Coca-Cola Co. v. Gemini Rising, Inc., 346 F. Sup 1183, 175 U.S.P.Q. 56 (E.D.N.Y. 1972).
⑤ American Express Co. v. Vibra Approved Laboratories Corp., 10 U.S.P.Q. 2d 2006 (S.D.N.Y. 1989).
⑥ Chemical Corporation of America V. Anheuser-Busch, Inc., 306 F. 2d 433, 134 U.S.P.Q. 524 (5th Cir. 1962).
⑦ See Fredley & Maniatis : Parody: A Fatal Attraction? Part Ⅱ: Trade Mark Parodies, [1997] 8 E.I.P.R. 412.
① 参见黄晖:《驰名商标和著名商标的法律保护》,法律出版社 2001 版,第 283 页。
② 张广良:《知识产权侵权民事救济》,法律出版社 2003 年版,第 41 页。
① 曾陈明汝:《商标法原理》,中国人民大学出版社 2003 年版,第 324 页。
② Trans Union LLC v. Credit Research, Inc., 142 F. Supp. 2d 1029 (N.D. Ill. 2001).
① Federal Express Corp. v. Federal Espressso, Inc., 201 F. 3d 168, 53 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1345 (2d Cir. 2000).
① Landgraf v. USI Film Prod., 511 U.S. 244, 114 S. Ct. 1483 (1994).
② Hasbro, Inc. v. Clue Computing, Inc., 66 F. Supp. 2d 117, 52 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1402 (D. Mass. 1999).
① 参见李明德:《美国知识产权法》,法律出版社 2003 年版,第 326 页。
① 吴汉东等著:《知识产权基本问题研究》,中国人民大学出版社 2005 年版,第 598 页。
1.王利明主编:《民法 侵权行为法》,中国人民大学出版社 1993 年 7 月版。
2.张新宝:《中国侵权行为法》,中国社会科学出版社 1998 年 8 月第 2 版。
3.杨立新:《侵权法论》,吉林人民出版社 2000 年 3 月版。
4.[美]理查德 A 波斯纳著,蒋兆康、林毅夫译:《法律的经济分析》,中国大百科全书出版社 1997 年 6 月版。
5.[美]罗伯特 考特、托马斯 尤伦著,张军等译:《法和经济学》,上海三联书店、上海人民出版社 1994 年 12 月版。
6.刘茂林:《知识产权的经济分析》,法律出版社 1996 年版。
7.孔祥俊:《WTO 知识产权协定及其国内适用》,法律出版社 2002 年 1 月版。
8.郑成思:《世界贸易组织与贸易有关的知识产权》,中国人民大学出版社 1996年 10 月版。
9. 郑成思:《知识产权论》,法律出版社 1998 年版。
10. 郑成思:《知识产权法——新世纪的若干研究重点》,法律出版社 2004年 4 月版。
11. [荷兰]博登浩森著,汤宗舜译:《保护工业产权巴黎公约解说》,专利文献出版社 1984 年 3 月版。
12. 薛虹:《网络时代的知识产权法》,法律出版社 2000 年 7 月版。
13. 薛虹:《知识产权与电子商务》,法律出版社 2003 年 5 月版。
14. 蒋志培主编:《网络与电子商务法》,法律出版社 2001 年 5 月版。
15. 中国国际经济贸易仲裁委员会域名争议解决中心:《中国国际经济贸易仲裁委员会域名争议解决中心裁决书汇编》(2001-2002),法律出版社 2003 年8 月版。
16. 姜一春:《IT 法判例研究——美国 IT 判例、制度与问题》,中国方正出版社 2004 年 7 月版。
17. 陶鑫良、程永顺、张平主编:《域名与知识产权保护》,知识产权出版社2001 年 1 月版。
18. 张玉瑞:《互联网上的知识产权——诉讼与法律》,人民法院出版社 2000年 11 月版。
19. 李明德:《美国知识产权法》,法律出版社 2003 年 10 月版。
20. 南振兴、刘春霖:《知识产权学术前沿问题研究》,中国书籍出版社 2003年 1 月版。
21. 吴汉东、胡开忠等著:《走向知识经济时代的知识产权法》,法律出版社2002 年 10 月版。
22. 张广良:《知识产权侵权民事救济》,法律出版社 2003 年 6 月版。
23. 蒋志培:《入世后我国知识产权法律保护研究》,中国人民大学出版社2002 年 11 月版。
24. 黄晖:《驰名商标和著名商标的法律保护》,法律出版社 2001 年 5 月版。
25. 黄晖:《商标法》,法律出版社 2004 年 9 月版。
26. 曾陈明汝:《商标法原理》,中国人民大学出版社 2003 年 3 月版。
27. 宿迟主编:《商标与商号的权力冲突问题研究》,中国人民公安大学出版社 2003 年 10 月版。
28. 唐德华、孙秀君主编:《商标法及配套规定新释新解》,人民法院出版社2003 年 1 月版。
29. 卞耀武主编:《当代外国商标法》,人民院出版社 2003 年 4 月版。
30. 黄晖:《法国知识产权法典》,商务印书馆 1999 年 7 月版。
31. 曹中强主编:《中国商标报告》(1-5 卷),中信出版社。
1.刘春田:《商标与商标权辨析》,《中国专利与商标》1998 年第 1 期。
2.黄晖:《诚实信用原则在商标法中的适用──兼论“欺诈毁灭一切”》,《中华商标》1999 年第 5 期。
3.侯瑞雪:《关于商标转化为商品通用名称的思考》,《商业研究》2002 年第 7期。
4.胡梦云:《论反不正当竞争法对商标权的扩大保护》,《湘潭大学社会科学学报》第 27 卷第 2 期。
5.魏占杰:《论商标法的观念变迁——财产观念的增强》,《商业研究》2002 年第 9 期。
6.张今:《论商标法上的权利限制》,《法商研究》1999 年第 3 期。
7.陈智伦等:《论与注册商标有关的在先权利》,《四川大学学报》(哲社版)2001年第 2 期。
8.王春燕:《商标保护法律框架的比较研究》,《法商研究》2001 年第 4 期。
9.傅钢:《商标的合理使用及其判断标准——从〈商标法实施条例〉的有关规定谈起》,《中华商标》2002 年第 12 期。
10. 邱平荣、张大成:《试论商标法中在先权的保护与限制》,《法制与社会发展》2002 年第 3 期。
11. 吕岩峰、马军立:《未注册商标法律保护制度之国际比较及对我国的借鉴意义》,《社会科学战线》1998 年第 6 期。
12. 华鹰:《新商标法中的诉前临时禁令制度》,《中华商标》2002 年第 4 期。
13. 陈建彬、李爱荣:《新型商标侵权行为及其法律对策》,《广西政法管理干部学院学报》第 15 卷第 1 期。
14. 姜军贤:《TRIPS 协议与我国驰名商标的保护》,《行政与法》2000 年第 4期。
15. 张晓远、刘立峰:《驰名商标的界定及制度价值分析》,《法学杂志》2003年第 2 期。
16. 金多才:《驰名商标特殊保护制度比较研究》,《河南省政法管理干部学院学报》2002 年第 1 期。
17. 普翔:《对驰名商标界定的思考——兼评修订后的〈商标法〉对驰名商标的规定》,《中华商标》2002 年第 1 期。
18. 郝斯特-彼得、高亭著,桂嬗译:《欧洲和美国对未注册驰名商标的保护》,《中华商标》2003 年第 2 期。
19. 张玉敏、黄汇:《我国驰名商标保护中存在的几个问题及其完善》,《甘肃政法学院学报》2003 年第 8 期。
20. [美]苏珊·瑟拉德著,张今译:《美国联邦商标反淡化法的立法与实践》,《外国法译评》1998 年第 4 期。
21. 蒋怡:《商标淡化案例分析》,《中华商标》1999 年第 5 期。
22. 刘晓军:《商标淡化的若干问题研究》,《电子知识产权》2002 年第 4 期。
23. 周中琦:《商标淡化:提供证据而非“可能性”》,《中华商标》2003 年第 7期。
24. 吕晓东:《网络环境下的驰名商标反淡化保护问题》,《上海社会科学院学术季刊》2002 年第 4 期。
25. 李玉香:《著名商标保护的屏障──商标“反淡化”理论的探索》,《武汉大学学报》(哲社版)1999 年第 5 期。
1. W. P age Keeton et. al., Prosser and Keeton on torts, 5th ed., West Publishing Co.
2. Richard A. Epstein, Cases and Materials on Torts, 7th ed., Aspen Law & Business, 2000.
3. JDan B. Dobbs, Law of Remedies, westgroup 1993.
4. Dan B. Dobbs, the Law of Torts, westgroup,2000.
5. Peter Drahos, A Philosophy of Intellectual Property, Dartmouth Publishing Company Ltd.,1996.
6. J. Thomas McCarthy , McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition. Westgroup 2003.
7. Beverly W. Pattishall et. al., Trademarks and Unfair Competition, 4th ed., Mathew Bender & Company, Inc., 2000.
8. Terence P. Ross, Intellectual Property Law: Damages and Remedies, Law Journal Press, 2003.
9. W. R. Cornish, Intellectual Property: Patents, Copyright , Trademarks and Allied Rights. 1996,Sweet & Maxwell.
10. Tony Martino, Trademark Dilution, Clarendon Press, 1996.
11. David S. Welkowitz, Trademark Dilution, The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc., 2002.
12. Daniel Gervais, The TRIPS Agreement: Drafting History and Analysis. Sweet & Maxwell, 1998.
13. David Kitchin, James Mellor, Trade Marks Act 1994, Sweet & Maxwell, 1995.
14. Ruth E. Annand, Helen E. Norman, Blackstone’s Guide to the Trade Marks Act 1994. Blackstone Press Ltd., 1994.
15. C. D. G. Pickering, Trade Marks in Theory and Practice, Hart Publishing, 1998.
16. Julian Gyngell et. al., ed, The Community Trade Mark: Regulations, Practice and Procedures, 2nd ed., International Trademark Association, 2000.
17. Ruth E. Annand, Helen E. Norman, Guide to the Community Trade Mark, Blackstone Press Ltd.1998.
1. Wiliam M. Landes, Richard A. Posner, Trademark Law: An Economic Perspective. Journal of Law & Economics, vol. XXX(October 1987).
2. Gary Myers, Statutory Interpretation, Property Rights, and Boundaries: TheNature and Limits of Protection in Trademark Dilution, Trade Dress, and Product Configuration Cases. 23 Colum.-VLA J.L. & Arts 241
3. Willajeanne F. McLean, The Birth , Death, and Renaissance of the Doctrine of Secondary Meaning in the Making. 42 Am. U.L. Rev. 737.
4. Jeffrey J. Look, The Virtual Wild, Wild, West (WWW): Intellectual Property Issues in Cyberspace-trademarks, Service Marks, Copyrights and Domain Names.
22 U. Ark. Little Rock L. Rev. 49
5. John A. Tessensohn, May You Live in Interesting Times-European trademark Law in the Wake of Sabel BV v. Puma AG. 6 J. Intell. Prop. L. 217.
6. William G. Barber et. al., Recent Developments in Trademark Law: Cybersquaters Run for Cover, While Copycats Breathe a Sigh of Relief. 9 Tex. Intell. Prop. L.J. 231.
7. Simone A. Rose, Will Atlas Shrug? Dilution Protection for “Famous” Trademarks: Anti-Competition “Monopoly” or Earned “Property” Right? 47 Fla. L. Rev. 653.
8. Glynn S. Lunney, Jr., Trademark Monopolies. 48 Emory L.J. 367
9. William G. Barber, Recent Developments in Trademark Law: Disrobing Trade Dress, Confounding Dilution, and Condemning Cybersquatting. 10 Tex. Intell. Prop. L.J. 245.
10. Mark Alan Thurmon, The Rise and Fall of Trademark law’s Functionality Doctrine. 56 Fla. L. Rev. 243.
11. Steven M. Cordero, Cocaine-Cola, the Velvet Elvis, and Anti-Barbie: Defending the Trademark and Publicity Rights to Cultural Icons. 8 Fordham Intell. Prop. Media & Ent. L.J. 599
12. Melanie M. Routh, Trademark Dilution and the Effect of the Federal Trademark Dilution Act. 50 Rutgers L. Rev. 253
13. Anthony Pearson, Commercial Trademark Parody, The Federal Trademark Dilution Act, and the First Amendment. 32 Val. U.L. Rev. 973
14. Mark A. Lemley, The Modern Lanham Act and the Death of Common Sense. 108 Yale L.J. 1687.
15. Brian A. Jacobs, Trademark Dilution on the Constitutional Edge. 104 Colum. L. Rev. 161.
16. William T. Vuk, Protecting Baywatch and Wagamama: Why the European Union Should Revise the 1989 Trademark Directive to Mandate Dilution Protection for Trademarks. 21 Fordham Int'l L.J. 861
17. Michael B. Landau, Problems Arising out of the Use of "WWW.TRADEMARK.COM": The Application of Principles of Trademark Law to Internet Domain Name Disputes. 13 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 455
18. Gerard N. Magliocca, One and Inseparable: Dilution and Infringement in Trademark Law. 85 Minn. L. Rev. 949
19. Michael G. Frey, Is It Fair to Confuse? An Examination of Trademark Protection, the Fair Use Defense, and the First Amendment. 65 U. Cin. L. Rev. 1255.
20. Steve Meleen, Susan J. Hightower, and Martin Hernandez, Recent Developments in Trademark Law: Elusive Dilution and Sorting the Resulting Confusion. 11 Tex.Intell. Prop. L.J. 351
21. Robert N. Klieger, Trademark Dilution: The Whittling Away of the Rational Basis for Trademark Protection. 58 U. Pitt. L. Rev. 789
22. Kenneth Sutherlin Dueker, Trademark Law Lost in Cyberspace: Trademark Protection for Internet Address. 9 Harv. J. Law & Tec 483.
23. Mathias Strasser, The Rational Basis of Trademark Protection Revisited: Putting the Dilution Doctrine into Context. 10 Fordham Intell. Prop. Media & Ent. L.J. 375
24. Kenneth L. Port, The "Unnatural" Expansion of Trademark Rights: Is a Federal Dilution Statute Necessary? 18 Seton Hall Legislative Journal 433.
25. Lynda J. Oswald, "Tarnishment” And "Blurring” Under the Federal Trademark Dilution Act of 1995. 36 American Business Law Journal 255.
26. William Marroletti, Dilution, Confusion, or Delution? The Need for a International Standard to Determine Trademark Dilution. Brooklyn Journal of International Law 1999
27. ByJennifer Golinveaux, What’s in a Domain Name: Is “Cybersquatting” Trademark Dilution? University of San Francisco Law Review, Summer 1999.
28. Michael Blakeney, ‘Well-known’ Marks. [1994]EIPR 481.
29. Anselm Kamperman Sanders, The Wagamama Decision: Back to the Dark Age of Trade Mark Law. [1996]EIPR 3.
30. Anselm Kamperman Sanders, The Return to Wagamama. [1996] EIPR 521.
31. Heidi Hurdle, Domain Name—The Scope of a Trade Mark Proprietor’s Monopoly. [1998] EIPR 74.
32. Sabine Casparie-Kerdel, Dilution Disguised: Has the Concept of Trade Mark Dilution Made its Way into the Law of Europe? [2001] EIPR 185.
33. BNA., Trademark Dilution Act Requires Proof of Actual Dilution, but Not Lost Sales. WIPR(vol.17) 17.
34. Rebecca Harrison, What Constitutes Distinctiveness? Recent European Decisions. WIPR(15)6.
35. Thomas Heide, Trade Marks and Competition Law after Davidoff. [2003]EIPR 163.
