《商标法》与《反不正当竞争法》中都存在规制企业字号与在先商标权冲突的条款,但对于两法规制该侵权行为的界限、能否同时适用存在不同观点。通过对两部门法的权利客体、法律责任承担等对比,发现《反不正当竞争法》在权利客体方面可作...《商标法》与《反不正当竞争法》中都存在规制企业字号与在先商标权冲突的条款,但对于两法规制该侵权行为的界限、能否同时适用存在不同观点。通过对两部门法的权利客体、法律责任承担等对比,发现《反不正当竞争法》在权利客体方面可作为《商标法》的补充,由于两部门法各自独立的构成要件,故对于同一侵权行为由两部门法分别评价并不矛盾。将在后字号侵犯在先商业标识类型化进行分别保护,对于在后企业字号侵犯在先“注册商标”专用权时,根据具体侵权情形可以依照《反不正当竞争法》和《商标法》分别予以保护,此时不应以“突出使用”和“规范使用”作为两法适用的界分依据,商标侵权和不正当竞争行为构成的判断应并行适用,在责任承担方面最终选择对被侵权人更有利的侵权责任承担方式。对于企业字号侵犯在先“未注册驰名商标”和“未注册的有一定影响的商标”权益时,无法在《商标法》上找到请求权基础,可以适用《反不正当竞争法》第6条第4项予以保护。The “Trademark Law” and the “Anti-Unfair Competition Law” both contain provisions to regulate the conflict between enterprise name and prior trademark rights, but there are different views on the limits of the two laws to regulate the infringement and whether they can be applied simultaneously. By comparing the object of right and the bearing of legal responsibility of the two laws, it is found that the “Anti-Unfair Competition Law” can be used as a supplement to the “Trademark Law” in terms of the object of right. Because of the independent constituent elements of the two laws, it is not contradictory for the two laws to evaluate the same infringement. When the later business name infringes on the prior type of commercial logo, it can be protected according to the “Anti-Unfair Competition Law” and the “Trademark Law” respectively according to the specific infringement circumstances. At this time, “prominent use” and “standardized use” should not be used as the basis for the application of the two laws. The judgment of trademark infringement and unfair competition should be applied in parallel, and a more favorable way for the infringed should be chosen in terms of liability. When an enterprise’s name infringes on the rights and interests of an earlier “unregistered well-known trademark” or “unregistered trademark of certain influence”, the basis of claims cannot be found in the “Trademark Law”, and Article 6 (4) of the “Anti-Unfair Competition Law” can be applied to protect them.展开更多
文摘《商标法》与《反不正当竞争法》中都存在规制企业字号与在先商标权冲突的条款,但对于两法规制该侵权行为的界限、能否同时适用存在不同观点。通过对两部门法的权利客体、法律责任承担等对比,发现《反不正当竞争法》在权利客体方面可作为《商标法》的补充,由于两部门法各自独立的构成要件,故对于同一侵权行为由两部门法分别评价并不矛盾。将在后字号侵犯在先商业标识类型化进行分别保护,对于在后企业字号侵犯在先“注册商标”专用权时,根据具体侵权情形可以依照《反不正当竞争法》和《商标法》分别予以保护,此时不应以“突出使用”和“规范使用”作为两法适用的界分依据,商标侵权和不正当竞争行为构成的判断应并行适用,在责任承担方面最终选择对被侵权人更有利的侵权责任承担方式。对于企业字号侵犯在先“未注册驰名商标”和“未注册的有一定影响的商标”权益时,无法在《商标法》上找到请求权基础,可以适用《反不正当竞争法》第6条第4项予以保护。The “Trademark Law” and the “Anti-Unfair Competition Law” both contain provisions to regulate the conflict between enterprise name and prior trademark rights, but there are different views on the limits of the two laws to regulate the infringement and whether they can be applied simultaneously. By comparing the object of right and the bearing of legal responsibility of the two laws, it is found that the “Anti-Unfair Competition Law” can be used as a supplement to the “Trademark Law” in terms of the object of right. Because of the independent constituent elements of the two laws, it is not contradictory for the two laws to evaluate the same infringement. When the later business name infringes on the prior type of commercial logo, it can be protected according to the “Anti-Unfair Competition Law” and the “Trademark Law” respectively according to the specific infringement circumstances. At this time, “prominent use” and “standardized use” should not be used as the basis for the application of the two laws. The judgment of trademark infringement and unfair competition should be applied in parallel, and a more favorable way for the infringed should be chosen in terms of liability. When an enterprise’s name infringes on the rights and interests of an earlier “unregistered well-known trademark” or “unregistered trademark of certain influence”, the basis of claims cannot be found in the “Trademark Law”, and Article 6 (4) of the “Anti-Unfair Competition Law” can be applied to protect them.
