商标违法犯罪行为将被严惩——透视商标法实施条例有关商标保护条款的修改

注册商标是经商标局核准注册的商标。注册商标的规范使用与“注册商标”字样或注册标记注、是分不开的。实施条件(以下简称条例)不仅规定了注册商标在实际使用时不得擅自改变其文字、图形或组合。另一方面也不得随意使用“注册商标”字样或注册标记注、 否则可能构成冒充注册商标行为．也可能构成商标侵权行为。关于“注册商标”字样或注册标记注、 的使用，     

“乔丹”商标权与姓名权纠纷一案专家采访

EIP:最近,迈克尔·乔丹以“侵犯姓名权”为诉由起诉乔丹体育公司.在什么情况下注册商标会涉嫌侵犯他人的姓名权? 杨叶璇:未经他人允许,在文字商标或者文字和图形组合的商标中,使用与他人姓名相同的文字,会使人直接联想到拥有姓名权的那个人的,姓名权人可以指责对方侵犯其姓名权,依据商标法要求对该商标不予核准注册,或者将已注册的商标予以撤销.有一种特殊情况,不是按照姓名权予以保护的:当某个姓名在公众中具有十分特殊的影响力,应当被列入不得作为商标使用的,即使该姓名权人没有主张其姓名权,国家商标主管机关也可以在商标审查时,依据《商标法》第10条第1款(八)项,以“有害于社会主义道德风尚或者有其他不良影响”,直接驳回该商标注册申请,或者撤销其注册.     

“避风塘”茶楼胜诉不正当竞争案

原告美国知名制药企业辉瑞产品有限公司诉称。自1995年起，其在中国注册了“辉瑞”、“辉瑞产品有限公司”、“辉瑞及HUIRUI”、“Pfizer”等文字及图形商标。被告北京辉瑞生物技术有限公司于2004年12月将原告的商标和字号作为其企业名称，注册设立公司，并在其网页上突出使用“辉瑞”商标标识，宣传该公司及其经销的产品“辉瑞维格排毒基”。     

使用地名商标有哪些特别规定?

在一些文字商标或组合商标中会带有地名,我们可以把这些商标统称为“地名商标”,例如,兰州拉面、沙县小吃、金华火腿、舟山带鱼等。有时,地名商标在注册和使用的过程中会产生一些争议,最常见的是地名属于公共资源,凭什么被某一个经营者“占为己有”?     

论商标的显著性

我国《商标法》第7条规定:“商标使用的文字、图形或其组合应当具有显著特征”。《商标法实施细则》第16条规定:“凡符合《商标法》有关规定并具有显著性的商标,予以初步审定,并予以公告”。由此可见,显著性是商标注册的必要条件。对什么是商标的显著性,为什么商标要求显著性,怎样的商标才有显著性,什么样的商标没有显著性,有关论著很少涉及。笔者试就这些问题谈一些浅见。 一 对什么是商标的显著性,有人认为是指:“商标的独特性或可识别性。”有人认为是指:“一个商标区别于其他商标的独特性与新颖     

反向混淆侵权的认定

反向混淆一般发生在注册商标权人实力弱,而商标侵权使用人实力雄厚,对消费者而言,其不太可能会认为商标侵权使用人提供的商品或服务来源于注册商标权人,反而可能会误以为注册商标权人提供的商品或服务来源于商标侵权使用人。反向混淆遏制了实力较弱的注册商标权人增强自己商标声誉的能力,属于商标侵权行为。我国反不正当竞争法对商标权、商号权的保护以国内地域性为标准,域外商标、商号在中国大陆地区范围内没有形成商誉的,不构成在先权利,不予保护。     

“杰克·琼斯”商标侵权案

[案情] 绫致公司是“杰克·琼斯”商标的注册人,同时经许可在中国生产、经销和出售“JACK&JONES”商品,两商标均注册于第25类服装等商品上.绫致公司发现一个域名为jackjonescn.net,自称为“JACK&JONES中文官方网站”、“杰克琼斯中文网”的网站,利用上述商标进行搜索竞价排名,并在网站内大量使用上述商标销售服装,并声称为专柜正品.该网站的经营者为崔焕所,域名注册者为杜兴华.     

使用自己的注册商标也有可能构成侵权——“恒升”诉“恒生”案的法律评析

案情简介本案原告北京恒升电子计算机集团(下文简称“恒升集团”)的“恒升”商标于1993年2月20日获得国家商标局注册,取得注册商标专用权,其核定使用的商品为第9类,即计算机类。本案被告北京恒生科技发展公司(下文简称“恒生公司”)在1998年9月21日向商标局注册了“恒生”商标。原告恒升集团在1999年6月24日以恒生公司注册使用的“恒生”商标与自己注册商标“恒升”相近似为由,向商标局提出异议。商标局认为,被异议商标“恒生”与异议人商标“恒升”发音虽相同,但异议人商标“恒升”为美术体,被异议人商标“恒生”为黑体,两商标字体、含义有…     

关于著名与知名商标行政特殊保护制度的冷思考(下)

二、小众抑或广众：小众声誉的非正当性 显然,商标行政特别保护制度基于商标享有的小众声誉（niche fame）。本文使用“小众”概念,基于该制度所确立的商标声誉认知对象为“相关公众”与享有声誉的地域范围为当地行政区域。根据许多地方性著名与知名商标认定与保护法规规定的权利内容,对在相同或相似商品或服务上使用的,容易导致消费者误认或可能损害著名与知名商标所有人、使用人权益的与其相同或近似的商品名称、包装、装潢、未注册商标、     

商标注册中的反不正当竞争

随着市场经济的发展和经营者法律意识的提高，越来越多的经营者懂得利用商标注册来获取专有使用权，以维护竞争优势。目前我国的商标权授与实行的是注册制，不要求商标申请人有商标使用行为，也不保护商标文字或图形的实际使用人。所以，对某文字、图形已具有经营上使用利益的当事人，就可能因该文字或图形被他人以商标注册而受损，如公司的名称、标识或未注册的商标被他人抢先以商标注册，原使用人将被迫与商标人分享其苦心创出的商品或企业标识，还可能被诉侵犯商标人的商标权。虽然我国商标不保护未注册的商标有其合理性。但商标抢注尤其…     

Is consent required to use registered trade marks on model replica cars?

A car manufacturer that is a proprietor of a trade mark registeredfor toys cannot prohibit use by a third party of its trade markon model replica cars unless such use affects the functionsof the trade mark or takes unfair advantage of, or is detrimentalto, the distinctive character or repute of the mark.     

Dishonestly and without due cause

Legal context: UK trade mark law was harmonised with the laws of other EU memberstates pursuant to the Trade Marks Directive (89/104/EEC) withthe coming into force of the Trade Marks Act 1994. Since then,the English courts have sought to absorb into English jurisprudencecontinental concepts of unfair competition, and a new code relatingto the use of another's trade mark in comparative advertising.Traditionally, the English approach has been more liberal andless protective of a trade mark owner's rights than that ofcontinental jurisdictions, but since 1994 the ECJ has been calledupon to provide frequent guidance on the interpretation of expressionssuch as the "essential function" of a trade mark and the "dutyto act fairly" in relation to the legitimate interests of thetrade mark proprietor. Key points: This article examines the way in which some recent decisionsof the ECJ have led to the English courts having greater regardto the property interests of the trade mark owner and less regardto the concepts of free market competition and consumer protection.In the recent High Court case of L'Oréal and others vBellure NV and others, Lewison J made findings of infringementunder s.10(1) and (3) Trade Marks Act 1994 where he found thatthere was "free riding" on the back of the reputation of certainof L'Oreal's trade marks without there being any evidence ofconfusion or association between the trade marks and the defendants'signs. Practical significance: For trade mark owners, this change in the approach of the Englishcourts opens up new opportunities to combat look-alike productsand comparative advertisements which take unfair advantage ofthe reputation of established marks.     

Hong Kong follows ECJ's 'genuine trade mark use' approach

In two applications for revocation of the two Regal trade marks,the Hong Kong Trade Marks Registry recognized trans-shipmentof goods through Hong Kong by an importer and manufacturer asbeing sufficient to establish use of a trade mark under section52(3) of the Trade Mark Ordinance; however, the use of the markmust be in the form as registered or in a form which differsin elements which do not alter the distinctive character ofthe mark and would require use of any prominent devices withinthe mark.     

The overlap between registered Community designs and Community trade marks

Legal context: Community trade marks and registered Communitydesigns have co-existed since April 2003. The relevant Europeanlegislation permits some subject matter to be registered undereither or both of these regimes. Key points In the absence of an express prohibition, it wasperhaps inevitable that the owners of distinctive designs wouldconsider registering them as trade marks and, conversely, thatthe owners of certain non-conventional trade marks might takeadvantage of opportunities for cheap and speedy registrationunder the designs system. The ability to obtain registered Communitydesigns and trade marks for the same subject matter is consideredhere. Practical significance A party seeking to protect the designof a distinctive product shape or its packaging may be ableto register it as a Community trade mark where it has missedthe boat for claiming novelty as a registered design, or wherea pre-existing design right is about to expire. On the otherhand, a distinctive and new logo or get-up which needs quickand cheap protection may benefit from being registered as aCommunity design. Neither the rights owners, nor those againstwhom they seek to assert their rights, should accept the validityof a registered Community design without question since thereis no substantive examination procedure. However, where valid,it can provide a powerful alternative to a trade mark and auseful additional weapon against unfair competition.     

将他人驰名商标恶意登记为企业字号的行为是否构成侵权——评星源公司等诉上海星巴克等商标侵权及不正当竞争纠纷案

原告星源公司是一家在美国注册成立,在美国及世界范围内从事咖啡零售业务的公司。原告统一星巴克系中外合作企业，经工商行政管理机关核准，于2000年3月2日成立。“STARBUCKS”文字标识于1985年11月26日在美国进行了商标注册。     

Bothered by Bovemij?

A trade mark which is not inherently distinctive must acquiredistinctive character throughout a member state to be registered;where a member state (or the Benelux) is divided linguisticallyand a mark lacks distinctiveness in one language, but not another,it is only necessary to show sufficient distinctiveness in thelinguistic area where it is not distinctive.     

Spanish court rules in 'Accessorize' trade marks case

The Barcelona Court of First Instance No. 1 found in favourof the claimants, owners of the famous registered trade mark‘Accessorize’ in their action for trade mark infringement,trade mark cancellation, unfair competition, and damages inrespect of the use by the defendants of the Accessori, Mr Accessoriand Accessori trade marks.     

ECJ allows service marks for retail trade and tells Nestle it can 'HAVE A BREAK' without having a Kit Kat

In response to a reference from the UK Court of Appeal, undertrade mark Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988, the ECJdetermined that distinctive character may be acquired throughuse as part of an already registered trade mark.     

Demonstrating 'use' of an earlier registered mark in CTM opposition proceedings

An earlier registered trade mark may serve to oppose a laterapplication to register a Community trade mark, notwithstandingthat the earlier mark is not used in the form in which it isregistered, so long as the actual use had not destroyed thedistinctive character of the earlier mark.     

It may look or smell like a 'free ride' but it is not 'unfair competition'

‘Free-riding’ on another product's reputation andbenefiting from the efforts put into promoting it can amountto trade mark infringement, even without much apparent damageto that product, but the law of passing off does not supportclaims of unfair competition where no deception or misrepresentationis involved.