反不正当竞争法视野下的商标法(上)

Trademark Law as Part of Anti-Unfair Competition Law

商标法的立法目的具有层次性,其根本目的具有公益性,是通过赋予并保护商标权的方式予以实现的。商标法是反不正当竞争法的有机组成部分,并非保护私权的私法。商标权的客体形式上是标志同来源的指代关系,实质上是商标权人合法的竞争利益。商标权的权利属性应为准财产权或有限的财产权,此财产权的效力仅止于防止混淆的发生。商标权的财产权属性仅在商标转让、许可或企业并购的过程中显现,其基础是其所承载的商誉。商标使用才是商标获权的根源,意指标志来源意义上的使用。应合理平衡在先使用和在后注册之间的关系。混淆可能性是商标侵权的根本判断标准,应允许一定范围内的商标共存。商标侵权的损害赔偿救济应止于防止混淆的发生,特定情形之下所受损失与所获利益在适用作为商标侵权损害赔偿的判断标准时应有先后顺位。

As part of anti-unfair competition law, trademark law does not construct an absolute private right rather than maintain a fair competition market and protect legitimate interests of consumers （i.e. the ultimate end） through the protection of a private right （i.e. the direct end）. Considering trademark law as absolute private law, whether the rightsholder of a trademark is entitled to prevent others from using his/her mark in the new environment shall be examined without justified answers. Anti-unfair competition law, however, where trademark use results in confusion or misleading, shall be examined with clear conclusions. The subject matter of trademark is a structural relation of mutual interdependence of mark and origin （i.e. consumer perception） rather than the mark itself. Basing on the end and the attribute of trademark law, trademark right should be a kind of quasi-property right or limited property right. There is no right in trademark beyond prohibition of confusion similarity. The property attributes of trademark shall occur in process of assignment and license of trademark or mergers and acquisitions basing on the goodwill symbolized by the trademark. Trademark right roots in trademark use. A trademark owner shall have an exclusive right on the nickname if the nickname is connected solely with the origin of goods or services in the consumer＇s mind. The contextual trademark use should be a trademark use as indicating the sources of goods or services. Considering the purpose of trademark law, the interests of prior user and junior registrant should be balanced. Basing on the definition of the subject matter of trademark, likelihood of confusion should be the fundamental criteria of trademark infringement. The concurrence of trademarks should be approved in some extent. Basing on the legal attributes of trademark law, monetary relief shall be recovered only for prohibition of trademark infringement. In special cases, the plaintiff＇s damages or the defendant＇s profits should have priority in determining the monetary relief.