商标混淆判断要件的功能定位及考察方法

The Functional Positioning of and Examination Approaches to Elements of Trademark Confusion

商标权利边界的划定基于“是否容易导致混淆”判断。当前司法裁判对混淆因素的考察缺乏有效方法论的指引,难以实现“定分止争”之基本价值目标。如何在“近似性”要件和“混淆可能性”要件的解释上推动混淆判断的客观化,是目前我国司法实践亟需解决的现实问题。既有的解释框架未能基于现行商标法律制度作出逻辑自洽的体系解释。应转换研究视角,聚焦商标授权确权场景和商标侵权场景下不同条款的规范目的,从功能主义视角对两要件所考察的混淆因素类型进行二层递进式区分;并据此对个案中当事人主张的具体混淆因素的考量与否进行判断,以实现混淆规制的适当性和周延性。

A clear boundary of rights is essential to fulflling the function of legal norms.However,the definitions and implications of"similarity"and"likelihood of confusion"-key concepts for delimiting the scope of trademark rights-remain contentious.Under China's current Trademark Law,the scope for excluding the registration of others'trademarks in trademark right-granting and verification scenarios is defined by the element of"similarity"as outlined in Article 30 of the Law.In contrast,the scope of protection that prohibits the use of trademarks in infringement scenarios is based on the combined elements of"similarity"and"likelihood of confusion",as stipulated in Article 57 paragraph 2 of the Law.However,under current judicial interpretations,the criterion of"confusing similarity"is applied to assess similarity.This approach to interpretation leads to two problems.First,a logic dilemma arises when applying Article 57(2)in trademark infringement cases,where repeated assessments of whether confusion is likely to occur.Second,it raises the question of whether the"exclusive scope in right-granting and verification scenarios"is different from the"scope of protection in the case of infringement".Existing interpretative frameworks focus on the concepts of similarity and the likelihood of confusion themselves.These frameworks attempt to limit considerations under"similarity"by expanding or contracting its definition to achieve logical coherence within legal provisions.However,none of them has provided a logically consistent and systematic interpretation based on the current trademark law structure.In fact,""similarity"and"likelihood of confusion"both fall under the category of confusion,with the difference between them lying in the extent to which market factors are taken into account.Shifting the research focus toward examining institutional functions in right-granting and verification scenarios and right-infringement scenarios is necessary.This shift involves distinguishing types of confusion factors examined through a"two-tiered progression"informed by a functionalist perspective.Based on the"isolation function of basic safety distance"and the"omnibus function of blocking confusion"inherent in the"similarity"element within the right-granting and verification scenarios,the types of confusion factors that should be considered in the assessment of"similarity"include"stability factors"and"variability factors that support the exclusion of a subsequent trademark".In contrast,"variability factors that do not support the exclusion of a subsequent trademark"are assessed with the"likelihood of confusion"element to fulfill the function of"limiting infringement establishment in the absence of confusion"in infringement contexts.Using the above methodology,the specific confusion factors asserted by the parties in individual cases are carefully evaluated to ensure that confusion regulation is both appropriate and comprehensive.