摘要
涉外定牌加工行为是否构成商标侵权在国际条约和我国国内法上没有直接的规定。我国司法机关早期以商标权地域性为基础,认为受托方加工相同产品、贴附相同商标并交付至境外的行为构成商标侵权,后来逐渐转变态度,认定受托方的行为属于“非商标使用”,不构成商标侵权。“非商标使用”虽然为认定受托方不构成商标侵权提供了理论便利,但与常识相悖,也难以自洽。在面对日益复杂的涉外定牌加工案件时,以该理论全面替代混淆性判断,无法精细平衡涉外定牌加工委托方和商标权人之间的利益。我国法院近年考察涉外定牌加工受托方的必要审查注意义务,则是将涉外定牌加工受托方定位为商标侵权的帮助者,这与其倡导的“非商标使用”思路自相矛盾,进一步导致法律适用的混乱。应限制“非商标使用”理论的适用,回归传统的商标侵权认定。
There is no specific rule in China’s Trademark Law and international treaties addressing the trademark infringing liability of OEM.At the very beginning,based on the regional nature of trademark rights,Chinese courts find trademark infringement of OEM trustee’s behavior of processing the same product with the same tradema rk and delivering it to the outside world.However,the courts later apply the so-called“non-trademark use”theory to the OEM cases and find no trademark infringement.Although this theory provides theoretical convenience for finding no trademark infringement of OEM trustees,it is contrary to our common sense and self-contradictory in theory.The replacement of confusing judgments with this theory will result in the loss of flexibility in trademark law in the face of increasingly complex OEM cases and the inability to finely balance the interests between OEM trustees and trademark owners.Meanwhile,the proposal to impose obligations on OEM trustees to conduct necessary review of the deal is based on the trademark indirect infringement theory and completely contrary to the non-trademark use theory of OEM and will lead to further confusion in the application of the law.We propose to limit the application of Non-trademark Use Theory and return to the traditional trademark in fringement determination.
作者
张韬略
阴晓璐
ZHANG Taolue;YIN Xiaolu
出处
《国际商务研究》
北大核心
2020年第2期65-77,共13页
International Business Research
基金
国家社科基金一般项目“网络环境下专利权的扩张及应对研究”(项目编号:15BFX170)
