摘要
商标的历史非常久远,但把商标作为财产保护却迟至19世纪。美国宪法中的"知识产权条款"不是商标法的立法基础。但在美国,公民、法人享有的商标权和言论自由都有其宪法基础。在商业领域,商标戏仿指的是把他人的商标作为批评、调侃对象的行为。戏仿在商标权与言论自由之间制造了一种紧张关系。一方面,商标所有人希望借助现代商标制度防止他人对自己标志的擅自使用;另一方面,第三人又希望借助言论自由的保护,对他人的商标进行最大程度的利用。如何解决商标权与言论自由之间的冲突,构成了司法实践中的难题。商标不同于传统财产、应受一定程度的限制这一属性并不能为戏仿提供言论自由的保护。在实践中,美国法院探索了"可替代的其他充分的传播手段"、"非商业性言论"等进路来解决商标权与言论自由的冲突。"可替代的其他充分的传播手段"标准无法解决戏仿的对象是商标本身而引起的问题,"非商业性言论"标准面临的困扰是无法划分商业性/非商业性言论之间的界限,为此,美国的立法和司法实践引入了"合理使用"标准。
Compared with protection of properties, trademark was given the protection as late as the 19th century, though it had a long history. The intelleectual property clause contained in the US Constitution has not established a legislative basis for trademark law. In Ameirca, however, both freedom of speech and trademark right enjoyed by citizens and legal persons are based on the constitutional mandate. In business field, trademark parody refers to criticism and ridicules of others＇ trademarks, thus creating a tension between trademark right and freedom of speech. On one hand, a trademark owner wants to prevent others from using his/her own trademark without authorization with the help of modern trademak system; on the other hand, a third party hopes to make use of others＇ trademarks to the maximum under the protection of freedom of speech. How to solve the conflict between trademark right and freedom of speech poses a throny problem in judicial practice. The fact that trademark is different from real estate and the attribute that it should be limited to some extent can not provide parody with protection of the First Amendment to the US Constitution. In practice, three approaches, namely, sufficient alternative communication means, non-commercial speech and fair use, have been explored by court to solve the conflict between trademark right and freedom of speech. However, the test of sufficient alternative communication means can not resolve the problem that the target of parody is trademark itself. The test of noncommercial speech is facing the difficulty of defining the line between commercial and non-commercial speeches. As a result, the test of fair use has been introduced in judicial practice in the US.
出处
《环球法律评论》
CSSCI
北大核心
2011年第4期18-26,共9页
Global Law Review
基金
耶鲁大学中国法研究中心"言论自由的一般理论"项目支持
笔者主持的国家社科基金项目"侵害商标权判定标准研究"
重庆市教育委员会第二批高等学校优秀人才资助计划项目"网络环境下商标侵权问题研究"的阶段性成果
