反向假冒之研究
|
摘要
1994年发生的“枫叶”诉“鳄鱼”一案,堪称在我国发生的首例涉及反向假冒的案件。由于当时我国的法律法规没有对此类行为的明确规定,对此行为应适用什么法律来认定,成为人们关注的焦点。自此,我国知识产权界展开了一场对反向假冒理论这一“舶来品”的深入、持久的讨论。尤其是反向假冒行为的定性问题及在我国对该行为的法律适用问题一直是学者们争论的热点。2001年我国新修正的《商标法》第52条第(4)项规定:“未经商标注册人同意,更换其注册商标并将该更换商标的商品又投入市场的”,属于侵犯注册商标专用权的行为。该条规定明确了商标反向假冒行为是一种侵犯商标专用权的侵权行为,将商标反向假冒行为纳入了我国法律的调控范围,避免了司法机关在今后处理此类案件时出现无法可依的尴尬局面。但反向假冒理论在我国的发展还不尽完善,而各种反向假冒行为则在我国社会生活中频繁发生,因此有必要全面、深入地研究、认识反向假冒行为,尽可能多地提出建议完善反向假冒理论,以有效地打击这种行为。
以美国为代表的西方国家反向假冒的学说及其判例甚为发达,近年来更有较大发展。在评价、借鉴我国当前反向假冒所遇问题之前,多方位地研究美国司法实践的历史、理论基础与具体制度的形成,这样既可以反思本国法律制度存在的问题,又可以启迪本国法律制度的改革。从二十世纪初,反向假冒在版权领域的产生;到二十世纪八九十年代反向假冒规制中对著作权领域的扩张与回撤;再到对于有体商品的反向假冒规制讨论,反向假冒问题开始逐步受到人们的关注。众多关于反向假冒诉讼案件审理过程的积累,确定了反向假冒侵权的构成要件等理论与具体制度框架的构建。
对于商标反向假冒行为的性质的认定。从原商标权人的角度看,商标反向假冒行为有可能侵害了商标权;从消费者权益的角度看,商标反向假冒行为有可能是一种欺诈消费者的行为;从市场竞争的角度看,商标反向假冒行为又有可能构成不正当竞争。无论采取何种法律对商标反向假冒予以规制,要明确对待反向假冒所产生的后果,应该一分为二地看待。在看到反向假冒行为存在一定合理性的同时,也应该看到其行为所带来的社会危害性。因此对于反向假冒行为采取法律规制是必须的,同时规制强度的选择也必须是在适度的范围内进行。
商标反向假冒行为的法律适用的问题,各个国家采用的规制方式各有不同。比较设权模式与不正当竞争模式的优缺点,联系中国禁止商标反向假冒的立法、司法现状,评析现行商标法第52条(4)有关商标反向假冒的规定,提出对我国商标反向假冒立法制度进一步完善的建议。
The“Maple leaf”&"Crocodile"case,which took place in 1994, can be rated as in the first involving reverse passing-off in our country. Because no laws and regulations can be used to regulate this kind of behavior at that time, how to deal it become the focus that people pay close attention to. Since then,a deepening and lasting discuss has launched in intellectual property field to reverse passing-off. Especially the nature of reverse passing-off and the legal application to this behavior has been focuses disputed of scholars all the time in our country. Item 4 of article 52 of”Trademark Law”revised newly in 2001 says: "without trademark registrar's consent , change registered trademark and then put the goods into market”infringe the register's exclusive right to use a trademark. It shows clearly that this behavior is a kind of infringement exclusive right to use a trademark, and the behavior has been included in the law of our country. The judicial authority will avoid the presenting awkward situation that there are no laws to abide by while dealing with this kind of case in the future. In our country, the theory of reverse passing-off is still not perfect,but various kinds of reverse passing-off behavior take place frequently among our country social life,so author think it is necessary to study deeply it,to propose as many as possible that the suggestion perfects it,in order to regulate it effectively.
To the United States as the representative of the Western countries fake reverse doctrine and its jurisprudence is developed, and more substantial development in recent years. In the evaluation and draw on the reverse before the current problems encountered fake, multi-faceted study of the American judicial history, theoretical basis and the formation of specific systems, so that there would be a reflection of its legal system, the problems also inspire its legal system reform. From the early 20th century, fake reverse in the field of copyright returned; the 80s and 90s of the 20th century fake reverse Regulation on the expansion of the field of copyright and removing areas; then for a body commodities reverse fake and regulation discussions, the reverse problem of fake and began to be of concern. On the fake reverse many cases the accumulation of proceedings, Reverse identified as fake and infringing the constituent elements of the establishment of the theory with concrete frame construction system.
For trademark counterfeiting reverse the nature of the finds. From the original trademark angle, reverse trademark counterfeiting may infringe on a trademark; From the perspective of the interests of consumers, Reverse counterfeit trademark act is likely a consumer fraud act. Competition from the market point of view, reverse trademark counterfeiting is likely to constitute unfair competition. Whatever the legal right to be counterfeit trademark reverse Regulation to clarify treated by reverse fake and the consequences, I should be divided into two treatment. Seeing the reverse counterfeiting there is a certain rationality at the same time, we should also be aware of their behavior brought about by the social harm. Because fake reverse to take legal regulation is necessary, Regulation of strength while the choice must also be appropriate in the context.
Counterfeit trademark reverse the application of the law, all countries have adopted regulatory system in different ways. Comparison based ownership pattern and unfair competition the advantages and disadvantages linked China bans counterfeit trademark reverse the legislative, judicial status quo, Analysis of the existing Trademark Law Article 52 (4) of the trademark reverse fake, My right to make counterfeit trademark reverse the legislative system to further improve the proposal.
以美国为代表的西方国家反向假冒的学说及其判例甚为发达,近年来更有较大发展。在评价、借鉴我国当前反向假冒所遇问题之前,多方位地研究美国司法实践的历史、理论基础与具体制度的形成,这样既可以反思本国法律制度存在的问题,又可以启迪本国法律制度的改革。从二十世纪初,反向假冒在版权领域的产生;到二十世纪八九十年代反向假冒规制中对著作权领域的扩张与回撤;再到对于有体商品的反向假冒规制讨论,反向假冒问题开始逐步受到人们的关注。众多关于反向假冒诉讼案件审理过程的积累,确定了反向假冒侵权的构成要件等理论与具体制度框架的构建。
对于商标反向假冒行为的性质的认定。从原商标权人的角度看,商标反向假冒行为有可能侵害了商标权;从消费者权益的角度看,商标反向假冒行为有可能是一种欺诈消费者的行为;从市场竞争的角度看,商标反向假冒行为又有可能构成不正当竞争。无论采取何种法律对商标反向假冒予以规制,要明确对待反向假冒所产生的后果,应该一分为二地看待。在看到反向假冒行为存在一定合理性的同时,也应该看到其行为所带来的社会危害性。因此对于反向假冒行为采取法律规制是必须的,同时规制强度的选择也必须是在适度的范围内进行。
商标反向假冒行为的法律适用的问题,各个国家采用的规制方式各有不同。比较设权模式与不正当竞争模式的优缺点,联系中国禁止商标反向假冒的立法、司法现状,评析现行商标法第52条(4)有关商标反向假冒的规定,提出对我国商标反向假冒立法制度进一步完善的建议。
The“Maple leaf”&"Crocodile"case,which took place in 1994, can be rated as in the first involving reverse passing-off in our country. Because no laws and regulations can be used to regulate this kind of behavior at that time, how to deal it become the focus that people pay close attention to. Since then,a deepening and lasting discuss has launched in intellectual property field to reverse passing-off. Especially the nature of reverse passing-off and the legal application to this behavior has been focuses disputed of scholars all the time in our country. Item 4 of article 52 of”Trademark Law”revised newly in 2001 says: "without trademark registrar's consent , change registered trademark and then put the goods into market”infringe the register's exclusive right to use a trademark. It shows clearly that this behavior is a kind of infringement exclusive right to use a trademark, and the behavior has been included in the law of our country. The judicial authority will avoid the presenting awkward situation that there are no laws to abide by while dealing with this kind of case in the future. In our country, the theory of reverse passing-off is still not perfect,but various kinds of reverse passing-off behavior take place frequently among our country social life,so author think it is necessary to study deeply it,to propose as many as possible that the suggestion perfects it,in order to regulate it effectively.
To the United States as the representative of the Western countries fake reverse doctrine and its jurisprudence is developed, and more substantial development in recent years. In the evaluation and draw on the reverse before the current problems encountered fake, multi-faceted study of the American judicial history, theoretical basis and the formation of specific systems, so that there would be a reflection of its legal system, the problems also inspire its legal system reform. From the early 20th century, fake reverse in the field of copyright returned; the 80s and 90s of the 20th century fake reverse Regulation on the expansion of the field of copyright and removing areas; then for a body commodities reverse fake and regulation discussions, the reverse problem of fake and began to be of concern. On the fake reverse many cases the accumulation of proceedings, Reverse identified as fake and infringing the constituent elements of the establishment of the theory with concrete frame construction system.
For trademark counterfeiting reverse the nature of the finds. From the original trademark angle, reverse trademark counterfeiting may infringe on a trademark; From the perspective of the interests of consumers, Reverse counterfeit trademark act is likely a consumer fraud act. Competition from the market point of view, reverse trademark counterfeiting is likely to constitute unfair competition. Whatever the legal right to be counterfeit trademark reverse Regulation to clarify treated by reverse fake and the consequences, I should be divided into two treatment. Seeing the reverse counterfeiting there is a certain rationality at the same time, we should also be aware of their behavior brought about by the social harm. Because fake reverse to take legal regulation is necessary, Regulation of strength while the choice must also be appropriate in the context.
Counterfeit trademark reverse the application of the law, all countries have adopted regulatory system in different ways. Comparison based ownership pattern and unfair competition the advantages and disadvantages linked China bans counterfeit trademark reverse the legislative, judicial status quo, Analysis of the existing Trademark Law Article 52 (4) of the trademark reverse fake, My right to make counterfeit trademark reverse the legislative system to further improve the proposal.
引文
①张玉敏,王法强 论商标反向假冒的性质—兼谈商标的使用权[J].知识产权 ,2004,14(79):31-35
①韦之,白洪娟 反向假冒质疑[J],知识产权 ,2004,14(79):36-39
① 参见北京市第一中级人民法院民事判决书(1994)中经知初字第 566 号,载《知识产权研究》(第六卷)1998年。
② 罗东川 审理“枫叶”诉“鳄鱼”的几个问题[J] ,中华商标 ,1998,4:30
③ 刘春田 商标与商标权辨析[J] 知识产权, 1998( 8):10-14
④ 注:郑成思著,《知识产权论》,法律出版社,1998 年版,第 218 页
①刘春田 商标与商标权辨析[J] 知识产权, 1998( 8):10-14
①郑成思.商标中的“创作性”与反向假冒[J].知识产权,1996(5):3-5
② Tohn T. Cross, Gross,Giving credit where credit is due: revisiting the doctrine of Reverse passing off in trademark law,72Wash.L.Rev.738_742
③ 金勇军 评“枫叶”诉“鳄鱼”不正当竞争案[J] 法学 ,1999(12):60
④ 罗东川 审理“枫叶”诉“鳄鱼”的几个问题[J] ,中华商标 ,1998,4:30
①张玉敏,王法强 论商标反向假冒的性质—兼谈商标的使用权[J].知识产权 ,2004,14(79):31-35
②韦之,白洪娟 反向假冒质疑[J],知识产权 ,2004,14(79):36-39
① 248U.S(Supreme court 215)
② 33F .2d 412(7th .Cir 1929)
① INS.248U. S. at 247-248(Holmes, J,concurning)
② 33F .2d 412(7th .Cir 1929)
③ 248U.S(Supreme court 215)
④ 33F .2d 412(7th .Cir 1929)
⑤ Smith v.Montoro, 648 F .2d 602(9th cir.1981
① 对于与反向假冒无关的,案件中其他相关被告情况内容,本文中暂不赘述 Dastar Corporation v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation 539 U. S. 23( 2003)
① 《兰哈姆法》第 43 条(a)项
② 王玫 反向假冒不可滥用-美国商标法中的反向假冒原则最新发展[J] 中华商标 2004(4):56
③ Singh v. Xytel Corp.,1 U.S.P.Q.2d 1741 (N.D. Ill. 1986).
① Roho, Inc. v. Marquis, 902 F.2d 356 (5th Cir. 1990)
② 7 F.3d 1434 (9th Cir. 1993)
① 248U.S(Supreme court 215)
② 33F .2d 412(7th .Cir 1929)
① Smith v.Montoro, 648 F .2d 602(9th cir.1981
② 123 S.Ct.2041
③ 王太平 美国 Dastar 案:区分商标与著作权法,捍卫公共领域[J] .电子知识产权 , 2006,(2)
① Daniel Gervais The TRIPS Greement—Drafting History and Analysis is Sweet&Maxwell,(1996),88-90
② Singh v. Xytel Corp., 1 U.S.P.Q.2d 1741 (N.D. Ill. 1986).
③ Roho, Inc. v. Marquis, 902 F.2d 356 (5th Cir. 1990)
④ 7 F.3d 1434 (9th Cir. 1993)
① Lori H. Freedman ,Reverse Passing Off:A Great Deal of Confusion 83 Trademark Reporter :335-336(1993)
② In re Shapely, Inc.,231 U.S.P.Q.(BNA)72. 73(T . T A.B. 1986) (interpreting word “deceptive" in 2 of Lan ham Act, 15 U.S. C. 1052(1982)) ;In re Quady winery, Inc .,221 U.S. P. Q.(BNA)1213. 1214( T. T.A.B. 1984(same);
③ Tohn T. Cross, Gross,Giving credit where credit is due: revisiting the doctrine of passing off in trademark law,72Wash.L.Rev.738_742
① Catherine Romero Wright Reverse Passing Off:Preventing Healthy competition ,785 Seattle Univ.L.R:(14)1997
② Pioneer Hi-Bred International v Holden Foundation Seeds, Lnc 35 F .3d 1226 (8th cir .1994)
① John T . Cross: Giving Credit Where Credit Is Due : Revisiting The Doctrine of Passing Off in Trademark Law , Washington Law Review, July,1997
①王玫 反向假冒不可滥用-美国商标法中的反向假冒原则最新发展[J] 中华商标 2004(4):54-55
① 韦之,白洪娟 反向假冒质疑[J],知识产权 ,2004,14(79):39.
② Catherine Romero Wright .Reverse Passing Off: Preventing Healthy Competition[J]. The Seattle University Law Review,1997
① Rudolf Callmann, Unfair Competition, Trademarks and Monopolies, 2.09 at 32 (Louis Altman ed., 4th ed. 1995).
① 李琛 论知识产权法的体系化[M],北京大学出版社:168
② 曾世雄:民法总则之现代与未来[M],中国政法大学出版社 2001 年版:62
[1].郑成思.知识产权法[M],北京:法律出版社 1997:208
[2].中华人民共和国商标法,2001 年第二次修正
[3].张玉敏,王法强. 论商标反向假冒的性质—兼谈商标的使用权[J].知识产权 ,2004,14(79):31-35
[4].韦之,白洪娟. 反向假冒质疑[J],知识产权 ,2004,14(79):36-39
[5].梁小民译,曼昆. 经济学原理[M],北京:北京大学出版社 2003.08:230
[6].高山行,范陈泽. 反向假冒的经济学分析[J],预测,2004.01,23(1):26-29
[7].王太平. 美国 Dastar 案:区分商标与著作权法,捍卫公共领域[J] .电子知识产权 , 2006,(2)
[8].兰哈姆法.美国法典第十五编, 1946
[9].张文显.法理学[M].北京:法律出版社,1999
[10].《 Giving credit where credit is due revisiting the doctrine of reverse passing off in trade mark law》. University of Washington Schoole of law,Vo1.72:709,1997
[11]. Deceptive Marketing, Chapter 2 of Restatement of the Law, Third, Unfair Competition, Copyright(c)1995, The American Law Institute
[12].Reverse Passing Off: Preventing Healthy Competition Catherine Romero Wright The Seattle University Law Review Spring, 1997 20 Seattle Univ. L. R. 785
[13].马翔,余文凯 .试论反不正当竞争法与知识产权法的关系[J],北京:政法学习,1994.4(3):26
[14].丁乐超,李静,于宏伟.关于新(商标法)反向假冒规定的几点认识[J],烟台:烟台大学学报,2003.10(2):26
[15].袁晓东,李晓桃.美国商标法中的反向假冒理论[J],北京:知识产权,2000.3(1):32
[16].袁晓东,李晓桃.商标反向假冒理论与我国商标法[J],当代法学, 2002. 2:45
[17].郑成思.知识产权法(第六卷)[M],方正出版社,2001
[18].吴汉东.知识产权法[M],中国政法大学出版社,2002
[19].王玫.反向假冒不可滥用—美国商标法中的反向假冒原则新发展[J],中华商标 2004. 4(4):66
[20].郑成思.浅议反不正当竞争法与商标法的交叉与重叠[J],中国专利与商标 1998. 4:54
[21].王建东.论对反向假冒商标行为的法律调整[J],黑龙江政法管理干部学院学报 2003. 2:31
[22].黄勤南,段广平.反向假冒商标行为法律研究[J],政法论坛,1999. 1:71
[23].黎泽国.再谈反向假冒,中国民商法律网. www.civillaw.com.cn
[24].朱伯玉.再析商标反向假冒[J],商业研究,2001. 10:25
[25].林华.再论商标反向假冒[J],中华商标,2002. 7 :13
[26].周郑屹.试论反不正当竞争法与知识产权法的关系[J],行政与法,2001.4:55
[27].王先林.试论反不正当竞争法对商标的保护[J],知识产权,1995.5:56
[28].栾娈.反向假冒的经济分析及立法建议[J],当代法学,2003. 6 :17.
[29].马伟华.浅析商标反向假冒——我国商标立法缺失与对策[J],菏泽师专学报,2002. 2(5):63
[30].孙昊亮,郑艳馨.论新<商标法)修正案中的商标反向假冒问题[J],当代法学,2002.8:19.
[31].温世扬,邱永清.惩罚性赔偿与知识产权保护,中国法律信息网. www.law-star.com
[32].江海昌.反向假冒商标行为犯罪化研究,中国法律信息网. www.law-star.com
[33].许其勇.商标反向假冒行为的犯罪化[M],中国知识产权报,2004.6:16
[34].王作富,赵永红.“入世”后我国商标犯罪的立法完善[J],现代法学,2001.4:76
[35].朱强.浅析对商品生产者的反向假冒与法律适用问题[J],知识产权,2000.5:83
[36].郭小燕,王云.反向假冒企业名称法律研究[J],学术探索,2004.3:35
[37].中华人民共和国民法通则
[38].中华人民共和国消费者权益保护法
[39].中华人民共和国反不正当竞争法
[40].金海军译,威廉.M.兰德斯,理查德.A.波斯纳.知识产权法的经济结构[M],北京:北京大学出版社,2005.5
[41].郑成思.审理“枫叶”诉“鳄鱼”案的几个问题,知识产权研究第六卷[M],北京:方正出版社 1998
[42].李琛.论知识产权法的体系化[M],北京:北京大学出版社
[43].刘春田.商标与商标权辨析[J] 知识产权, 1998( 8):10-14
[44].郑成思.商标执法 15 年及需要研究的新问题[J].知识产权,1998,(2):3-6
[45].童怀.吞食几片“枫叶”,“鳄鱼”惹上官司[N],光明日报,1994-08-02(4)
[46].童怀.“枫叶”状告“鳄鱼”,是非众人评说[N],光明日报,1994-08-03(2)
[47].郑成思.中国首例“反向假冒”案评析,知识产权研究(第六卷)[M],1998
[48].[美]阿瑟.R.米勒,迈克尔.H.戴维斯.知识产权法概要[M],孙建红,张灏译,北京:中国社会科学出版社,1998
[49].闫桂贞.商标领域的反向假冒行为[J], 经济与法,1999(7):10
[50].余鹏飞.商标反向假冒之浅见[N],中国工商报,2002-01-24(B3)
①韦之,白洪娟 反向假冒质疑[J],知识产权 ,2004,14(79):36-39
① 参见北京市第一中级人民法院民事判决书(1994)中经知初字第 566 号,载《知识产权研究》(第六卷)1998年。
② 罗东川 审理“枫叶”诉“鳄鱼”的几个问题[J] ,中华商标 ,1998,4:30
③ 刘春田 商标与商标权辨析[J] 知识产权, 1998( 8):10-14
④ 注:郑成思著,《知识产权论》,法律出版社,1998 年版,第 218 页
①刘春田 商标与商标权辨析[J] 知识产权, 1998( 8):10-14
①郑成思.商标中的“创作性”与反向假冒[J].知识产权,1996(5):3-5
② Tohn T. Cross, Gross,Giving credit where credit is due: revisiting the doctrine of Reverse passing off in trademark law,72Wash.L.Rev.738_742
③ 金勇军 评“枫叶”诉“鳄鱼”不正当竞争案[J] 法学 ,1999(12):60
④ 罗东川 审理“枫叶”诉“鳄鱼”的几个问题[J] ,中华商标 ,1998,4:30
①张玉敏,王法强 论商标反向假冒的性质—兼谈商标的使用权[J].知识产权 ,2004,14(79):31-35
②韦之,白洪娟 反向假冒质疑[J],知识产权 ,2004,14(79):36-39
① 248U.S(Supreme court 215)
② 33F .2d 412(7th .Cir 1929)
① INS.248U. S. at 247-248(Holmes, J,concurning)
② 33F .2d 412(7th .Cir 1929)
③ 248U.S(Supreme court 215)
④ 33F .2d 412(7th .Cir 1929)
⑤ Smith v.Montoro, 648 F .2d 602(9th cir.1981
① 对于与反向假冒无关的,案件中其他相关被告情况内容,本文中暂不赘述 Dastar Corporation v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation 539 U. S. 23( 2003)
① 《兰哈姆法》第 43 条(a)项
② 王玫 反向假冒不可滥用-美国商标法中的反向假冒原则最新发展[J] 中华商标 2004(4):56
③ Singh v. Xytel Corp.,1 U.S.P.Q.2d 1741 (N.D. Ill. 1986).
① Roho, Inc. v. Marquis, 902 F.2d 356 (5th Cir. 1990)
② 7 F.3d 1434 (9th Cir. 1993)
① 248U.S(Supreme court 215)
② 33F .2d 412(7th .Cir 1929)
① Smith v.Montoro, 648 F .2d 602(9th cir.1981
② 123 S.Ct.2041
③ 王太平 美国 Dastar 案:区分商标与著作权法,捍卫公共领域[J] .电子知识产权 , 2006,(2)
① Daniel Gervais The TRIPS Greement—Drafting History and Analysis is Sweet&Maxwell,(1996),88-90
② Singh v. Xytel Corp., 1 U.S.P.Q.2d 1741 (N.D. Ill. 1986).
③ Roho, Inc. v. Marquis, 902 F.2d 356 (5th Cir. 1990)
④ 7 F.3d 1434 (9th Cir. 1993)
① Lori H. Freedman ,Reverse Passing Off:A Great Deal of Confusion 83 Trademark Reporter :335-336(1993)
② In re Shapely, Inc.,231 U.S.P.Q.(BNA)72. 73(T . T A.B. 1986) (interpreting word “deceptive" in 2 of Lan ham Act, 15 U.S. C. 1052(1982)) ;In re Quady winery, Inc .,221 U.S. P. Q.(BNA)1213. 1214( T. T.A.B. 1984(same);
③ Tohn T. Cross, Gross,Giving credit where credit is due: revisiting the doctrine of passing off in trademark law,72Wash.L.Rev.738_742
① Catherine Romero Wright Reverse Passing Off:Preventing Healthy competition ,785 Seattle Univ.L.R:(14)1997
② Pioneer Hi-Bred International v Holden Foundation Seeds, Lnc 35 F .3d 1226 (8th cir .1994)
① John T . Cross: Giving Credit Where Credit Is Due : Revisiting The Doctrine of Passing Off in Trademark Law , Washington Law Review, July,1997
①王玫 反向假冒不可滥用-美国商标法中的反向假冒原则最新发展[J] 中华商标 2004(4):54-55
① 韦之,白洪娟 反向假冒质疑[J],知识产权 ,2004,14(79):39.
② Catherine Romero Wright .Reverse Passing Off: Preventing Healthy Competition[J]. The Seattle University Law Review,1997
① Rudolf Callmann, Unfair Competition, Trademarks and Monopolies, 2.09 at 32 (Louis Altman ed., 4th ed. 1995).
① 李琛 论知识产权法的体系化[M],北京大学出版社:168
② 曾世雄:民法总则之现代与未来[M],中国政法大学出版社 2001 年版:62
[1].郑成思.知识产权法[M],北京:法律出版社 1997:208
[2].中华人民共和国商标法,2001 年第二次修正
[3].张玉敏,王法强. 论商标反向假冒的性质—兼谈商标的使用权[J].知识产权 ,2004,14(79):31-35
[4].韦之,白洪娟. 反向假冒质疑[J],知识产权 ,2004,14(79):36-39
[5].梁小民译,曼昆. 经济学原理[M],北京:北京大学出版社 2003.08:230
[6].高山行,范陈泽. 反向假冒的经济学分析[J],预测,2004.01,23(1):26-29
[7].王太平. 美国 Dastar 案:区分商标与著作权法,捍卫公共领域[J] .电子知识产权 , 2006,(2)
[8].兰哈姆法.美国法典第十五编, 1946
[9].张文显.法理学[M].北京:法律出版社,1999
[10].《 Giving credit where credit is due revisiting the doctrine of reverse passing off in trade mark law》. University of Washington Schoole of law,Vo1.72:709,1997
[11]. Deceptive Marketing, Chapter 2 of Restatement of the Law, Third, Unfair Competition, Copyright(c)1995, The American Law Institute
[12].Reverse Passing Off: Preventing Healthy Competition Catherine Romero Wright The Seattle University Law Review Spring, 1997 20 Seattle Univ. L. R. 785
[13].马翔,余文凯 .试论反不正当竞争法与知识产权法的关系[J],北京:政法学习,1994.4(3):26
[14].丁乐超,李静,于宏伟.关于新(商标法)反向假冒规定的几点认识[J],烟台:烟台大学学报,2003.10(2):26
[15].袁晓东,李晓桃.美国商标法中的反向假冒理论[J],北京:知识产权,2000.3(1):32
[16].袁晓东,李晓桃.商标反向假冒理论与我国商标法[J],当代法学, 2002. 2:45
[17].郑成思.知识产权法(第六卷)[M],方正出版社,2001
[18].吴汉东.知识产权法[M],中国政法大学出版社,2002
[19].王玫.反向假冒不可滥用—美国商标法中的反向假冒原则新发展[J],中华商标 2004. 4(4):66
[20].郑成思.浅议反不正当竞争法与商标法的交叉与重叠[J],中国专利与商标 1998. 4:54
[21].王建东.论对反向假冒商标行为的法律调整[J],黑龙江政法管理干部学院学报 2003. 2:31
[22].黄勤南,段广平.反向假冒商标行为法律研究[J],政法论坛,1999. 1:71
[23].黎泽国.再谈反向假冒,中国民商法律网. www.civillaw.com.cn
[24].朱伯玉.再析商标反向假冒[J],商业研究,2001. 10:25
[25].林华.再论商标反向假冒[J],中华商标,2002. 7 :13
[26].周郑屹.试论反不正当竞争法与知识产权法的关系[J],行政与法,2001.4:55
[27].王先林.试论反不正当竞争法对商标的保护[J],知识产权,1995.5:56
[28].栾娈.反向假冒的经济分析及立法建议[J],当代法学,2003. 6 :17.
[29].马伟华.浅析商标反向假冒——我国商标立法缺失与对策[J],菏泽师专学报,2002. 2(5):63
[30].孙昊亮,郑艳馨.论新<商标法)修正案中的商标反向假冒问题[J],当代法学,2002.8:19.
[31].温世扬,邱永清.惩罚性赔偿与知识产权保护,中国法律信息网. www.law-star.com
[32].江海昌.反向假冒商标行为犯罪化研究,中国法律信息网. www.law-star.com
[33].许其勇.商标反向假冒行为的犯罪化[M],中国知识产权报,2004.6:16
[34].王作富,赵永红.“入世”后我国商标犯罪的立法完善[J],现代法学,2001.4:76
[35].朱强.浅析对商品生产者的反向假冒与法律适用问题[J],知识产权,2000.5:83
[36].郭小燕,王云.反向假冒企业名称法律研究[J],学术探索,2004.3:35
[37].中华人民共和国民法通则
[38].中华人民共和国消费者权益保护法
[39].中华人民共和国反不正当竞争法
[40].金海军译,威廉.M.兰德斯,理查德.A.波斯纳.知识产权法的经济结构[M],北京:北京大学出版社,2005.5
[41].郑成思.审理“枫叶”诉“鳄鱼”案的几个问题,知识产权研究第六卷[M],北京:方正出版社 1998
[42].李琛.论知识产权法的体系化[M],北京:北京大学出版社
[43].刘春田.商标与商标权辨析[J] 知识产权, 1998( 8):10-14
[44].郑成思.商标执法 15 年及需要研究的新问题[J].知识产权,1998,(2):3-6
[45].童怀.吞食几片“枫叶”,“鳄鱼”惹上官司[N],光明日报,1994-08-02(4)
[46].童怀.“枫叶”状告“鳄鱼”,是非众人评说[N],光明日报,1994-08-03(2)
[47].郑成思.中国首例“反向假冒”案评析,知识产权研究(第六卷)[M],1998
[48].[美]阿瑟.R.米勒,迈克尔.H.戴维斯.知识产权法概要[M],孙建红,张灏译,北京:中国社会科学出版社,1998
[49].闫桂贞.商标领域的反向假冒行为[J], 经济与法,1999(7):10
[50].余鹏飞.商标反向假冒之浅见[N],中国工商报,2002-01-24(B3)