论商号权与商标权的冲突及解决

商号权与商标权之间所引起的冲突纠纷,已经成为当今知识产权保护的焦点和难点问题。通过对商号权与商标权性质、关系和法律、冲突现状的分析,我们得出二者冲突的主要原因。根据现有规范两者的法律制度和实践中处理两者冲突的做法中,提出一些解决的应对之策。     

商标权和商号权的权利冲突研究

近年来,商标权和商号权的冲突愈演愈烈,已经成为一个不容回避和拖延的问题了。但是由于我国法律对商标权和商号权的规定散见于各种法律文件之中,因此出现立法上的交叉或空白,甚至是相互冲突。因此直到现在,商标权和商号权的冲突还没有得到根本地抑制。正是在这样的背景下,本文对商标权和商号权的冲突问题进行了研究。     

论商标权与商号权冲突的解决

商标权与商号权之间所引起的冲突纠纷的解决,已成为当今知识产权保护的焦点和难点问题。本文试通过解决商标权与商号权冲突应遵循的原则、改革现行的行政管理模式、重构商标权与商号权冲突协调机制的立法建议和商标权与商号权冲突的司法解决途径等方面的分析,提出了一些解决商标权与商号权冲突的应对之策。     

试论商号权和商标权的冲突及其解决途径

在市场经济条件下,随着企业竞争的日益加剧,承载着企业商业信誉的商号及商标已经发挥着越来越重要的作用。与此同时,商号权和商标权的权利冲突也日趋频繁,成为知识产权领域最为突出的权利冲突现象之一。本文将就商号权及商标权冲突的相关问题进行介绍和探讨,以期这些理论上的探讨能为解决我国商号权和商标权的冲突问题提供有益的借鉴。     

域名权和商标权的权利冲突及解决途径

随着网络在商业领域运用的逐渐普遍和深入,以及在巨大经济利益的驱动下,出现了大量的将他人商标注册为域名的行为,此类行为在恶意抢注的情形下构成侵权或不正当竞争行为,时此类权利冲突纠纷应区别驰名商标和普通商标适用中华人民共和国《商标法》、《反不正当竞争法》分别给予法律救济,同时为避免类似权利冲突的产生应完善我国相关的法律制度。     

商号权与商标权冲突及解决路径浅探

商号权和商标权同为蕴含商业价值的知识产权,因其功能上的日趋相似性,法律保护模式上的差异性,加之经济利益驱动,导致了两权之间的冲突愈演愈烈。因此从法律制度设计、司法救济的完善及权利人对两权的一体化保护上避免冲突发生更显重要。本文从分析商号权和商标权冲突的原因出发,试图找出避免和减少两权冲突的方法。     

商标权与商号权的冲突探析

商号权和商标权同为具有商业价值的工业产权,由于其功能相似、法律保护模式上的差异、以及利益因素的趋动,导致了两者之间的冲突。因此有必要从法律制度的设计、完善及企业对两者的一体化保护方面避免冲突的发生,以维护商标权人、商号权人以及消费者的合法权益,形成有序的市场竞争秩序。     

刍议商号权与商标权的冲突

商号和商标承载了消费者对企业和商品的认知以及企业的信誉,虽然商号和商标同属于知识产权的范畴,但是毕竟是两种不同的权利,再加上我国法律对二者区分,尤其是对商号权的保护十分不完善,制度不健全,导致商号同商标之间的冲突更是频频出现。本文将主要分析商号权与商标权的冲突,并对该二者之间冲突的化解提供一些建议和看法。     

浅谈解决商标权与商号权冲突的司法途经

商标和商号作为两种重要的商业标记,由于商号权是与商标权相邻接的最密切的权利,因此,经营者在使用过程不可避免的会发生权利冲突,对于这种冲突,不论是行政手段还是司法手段都不可能彻底的解决,单就司法实践方面主要以坚持利益平衡的原则为指导、严格界定商标权和商号权的权利范围和依法合理的扩展和限制商标权和商号权的权利范围等手段来解决二者的纠纷。     

Human rights and trade mark rights

Legal context. For some time the UK Trade Marks Registry hasrefused to register trade marks which consists of the name ofa well-known individual. This article examines whether the practiceis permissible, not in the terms of intellectual property lawbut whether it is in contravention of the applicant's humanrights. Key points. Looking at the application of the Human Rights Actin the United Kingdom, the article asks how it could apply toan intellectual property case, concluding that the Trade MarkRegistry is clearly a ‘public authority’ and thatthere are a number of ways in which current practice in respectof well-known individuals could be said to infringe their humanrights. Practical significance. It remains to be seen what the Registry'sresponse will be to such arguments and whether it might in thefuture be possible to obtain protection for the name of a celebrity.     

论商标权与其他商业标识权利冲突解决原则

民事权利中的有形财产权体现在具体物上 ,这种权利在形态、特征上都是可见的 ,有形物财产权的排他性决定同一财产之上不能附着多个财产权 ,除非法律有明确的规定或合同有特别约定。而无形是知识产权区别于一般财产权 ,尤其不同于有形财产权的主要特征 ,知识产权的无形 ,使得人们对它的占有不是一种实在而具体的占有 ,而是表现为认知和感受 ,知识产权可以同时被多个主体占有、使用和收益。因此 ,法律能从不同侧面、不同视角、不同切入点对同一客体规定出不同的权利。这样 ,对同一客体的不同形式的知识产权容易出现保护上的交叉、重叠甚至冲突…     

Whose trade mark rights? What the Microsoft case means for trade mark owners

Legal context. The article considers the influence of the commissionruling in the Microsoft case, forcing Microsoft to use its WINDOWS-trademark for an ‘unbundled’ version of the program inthe light of the trade mark owner's properties rights. The scopeof these rights is determined by the function of the trade markand the rights that the trade mark laws confer to the ownerin case of infringement. Key points. Trade marks are protected as property rights undercommunity law. They are the embodiment of past investments andtransform the reputation of the owner into a bankable asset.Consumers rely on trade mark owners' control over quality. Thisis mirrored by the rights of the trade mark owner to stop interferencewith quality and image, in particular in the context of resaleof altered products. Any interference that would be considereda trade mark infringement if committed by a private party shouldbe considered an interference with the protected property rightif caused by a government agency. This interference is not justifiedby the public interest because trade mark rights also embodyimportant public interests. Practical significance. If the analysis proposed in the articleis followed, intellectual property rights have to be given greaterweight in shaping antitrust remedies.     

Foreign fame is not enough to confer US trade mark rights

On appeal from the Southern District of New York, the SecondCircuit affirmed the award of summary judgment against ITC'strade mark infringement, unfair competition, and false advertisingclaims under state and federal law, holding that the famousmarks doctrine was not incorporated by Congress into the LanhamAct and thus not a federally protected right.     

企业名称冲突的解决原则——“梅兰日兰”商标专用权及不正当竞争纠纷案评析

将他人在先登记的知名字号登记为企业名称中的字号在商品上使用的行为,容易造成相关公众的混淆或误认,损害他人合法权益的,应认定为属于会引人误认为是他人商品的擅自使用他人企业名称的行为,构成不正当竞争。法院在处理这类案件时,应当把握公平合理、诚实信用和保护合法在先权利原则。     

UDRP中姓名权人作为原告的举证义务研究

随着2000年第一起涉及国际网络域名与姓名争议的案件以来,WIPO作为ICANN所制定的“争议解决服务提供机构”,在适用UDRP解决网络域名与姓名权争议时形成了一系列固定的规则。其中,姓名权人作为原告的举证义务包含了域名与投诉人所享有权利的商品商标或者服务标记相同或者混淆性相似;被投诉人对该域名并不享有权利或者合法利益;被投诉人注册与使用域名同时具有恶意等三个方面。由于UDRP对于姓名权的保护相当不利,我们有必要仔细研究该三项举证责任,以便于在国际争端中合理的维护自身的权益。     

Conversion in the trade mark context

Legal context. The paper examines the formal requirements formaking a conversion application and provides an overview ofall the significant time limits which have to be observed. Key points. All relevant decisions taken by the Court of FirstInstance and the OHIM's Boards of Appeal are analysed by theauthors, particularly regarding the geographical scope and registrabilityof English language words. Consideration is also given to transformationand conversion under the Madrid Protocol and explanations areprovided regarding the five different types of conversion andtransformation in that context. As a special feature, the articledeals with conversion in the new Member States as well as inthe context of multiple oppositions. Practical significance. The article looks at conversion of Communitytrade mark applications and registrations into national trademarks from a practical and regulatory perspective. It explainsthe different considerations for requesting conversion froma commercial, legal and factual point of view and, in particular,the different grounds for requesting conversion.     

Who's the bigger McBrat? When trade mark protection strategies overstep the mark

US burger giant McDonald's Corporation suffered a comprehensiveand very public loss at the hands of Malcolm McBratney (a partnerin the IP Group of Australian law practice McCullough Robertson),raising questions as to why that corporation should have initiatedand continued the proceedings in the first place.