【摘要】：隨著網(wǎng)絡(luò)技術(shù)的不斷發(fā)展，互聯(lián)網(wǎng)成了人們生活中必不可少的一部分。越來(lái)越多的人開(kāi)始使用搜索引擎查找信息，使用網(wǎng)絡(luò)進(jìn)行購(gòu)物。在互聯(lián)網(wǎng)帶來(lái)便捷的同時(shí)，也滋生了不少的法律糾紛，特別是商標(biāo)法律糾紛。與傳統(tǒng)的商標(biāo)糾紛不同的是，在互聯(lián)網(wǎng)商標(biāo)糾紛中，法律主體不僅限于商標(biāo)權(quán)利人和直接侵權(quán)人，還牽扯到了網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)提供者。由于在網(wǎng)絡(luò)商標(biāo)糾紛中，實(shí)際侵權(quán)人往往人數(shù)眾多、分布地域廣闊，而且承擔(dān)不起最終的巨額賠償，權(quán)利人通常將網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)提供者作為共同被告，要求侵權(quán)賠償。在這樣的背景之下，我們發(fā)現(xiàn)，在商標(biāo)侵權(quán)中，，網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)提供者的定位和責(zé)任承擔(dān)方式在目前而言都是一片空白。立法的空白使得在實(shí)際操作中，法官的判決差異巨大，并且對(duì)于網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)提供者而言，也對(duì)自身所需承擔(dān)的義務(wù)不甚了解。縱觀國(guó)內(nèi)外，只有在版權(quán)網(wǎng)絡(luò)糾紛中對(duì)網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)提供者的責(zé)任承擔(dān)方式有所規(guī)定，其中最具代表性的便是“避風(fēng)港規(guī)則”�！氨茱L(fēng)港規(guī)則”的出現(xiàn)明確了權(quán)利人、侵權(quán)人以及網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)提供者的責(zé)任義務(wù)，與此同時(shí)，也并沒(méi)有改變現(xiàn)有的版權(quán)法規(guī)則。對(duì)比網(wǎng)絡(luò)版權(quán)糾紛與網(wǎng)絡(luò)商標(biāo)糾紛，網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)提供者在這兩種糾紛中所處的地位、所扮演的角色幾乎相同，因此，筆者考慮是否可以將“避風(fēng)港規(guī)則”移植到商標(biāo)間接侵權(quán)中。 本文在簡(jiǎn)要介紹了“避風(fēng)港規(guī)則”之后，對(duì)可否將“避風(fēng)港規(guī)則”移植到商標(biāo)間接侵權(quán)中進(jìn)行了可行性分析，在得出肯定的結(jié)論之后，結(jié)合國(guó)內(nèi)外知名案例，對(duì)如何移植“避風(fēng)港規(guī)則”進(jìn)行分析。文章共分四個(gè)部分，第一部分簡(jiǎn)要介紹了“避風(fēng)港規(guī)則”的出現(xiàn)發(fā)展以及在我國(guó)的適用情況；第二部分從法理學(xué)、立法以及司法實(shí)踐三個(gè)維度對(duì)可否將“避風(fēng)港規(guī)則”移植到商標(biāo)間接侵權(quán)中進(jìn)行了可行性分析；第三部分分別從在商標(biāo)間接侵權(quán)環(huán)境中適用“避風(fēng)港規(guī)則”的主體、主觀要件、客觀要件等方面進(jìn)行分析，主要對(duì)如何判斷網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)提供者的主觀要件進(jìn)行分析，并對(duì)如何在商標(biāo)環(huán)境中適用“通知—移除”規(guī)則進(jìn)行闡述；第四部分，筆者在進(jìn)行理論及實(shí)證分析之后，提出了對(duì)此問(wèn)題的一些立法建議。
[Abstract]:With the continuous development of network technology, the Internet has become an indispensable part of people's lives. More and more people begin to use search engines to find information and use the Internet for shopping. While the Internet brings convenience, it also breeds a lot of legal disputes, especially trademark legal disputes. Different from the traditional trademark disputes, in the Internet trademark disputes, the legal subject is not only limited to trademark rights holders and direct infringers, but also involves network service providers. Because in the network trademark dispute, the actual infringer often has a large number of people, the distribution area is broad, and can not afford the final huge compensation, the obligee usually takes the network service provider as the co-defendant, claims the infringement compensation. In this context, we find that in trademark infringement, the positioning and liability of network service providers are blank at present. The blank legislation makes the decision of the judge differ greatly in practice, and for the network service provider, he also has little understanding of the obligations he needs to undertake. At home and abroad, only in copyright network disputes, the responsibility of network service providers is stipulated, among which the most representative is the safe haven rules. The emergence of safe haven rules clarifies the responsibilities and obligations of rights holders, infringers and network service providers. At the same time, it does not change the existing rules of copyright law. Compared with the network copyright dispute and the network trademark dispute, the role of the network service provider in these two disputes is almost the same. Therefore, the author considers whether the "safe haven rule" can be transferred to the indirect infringement of the trademark. After a brief introduction to the "safe haven rules", this paper makes a feasibility analysis on whether the "safe haven rules" can be transferred to the indirect infringement of trademarks. After drawing a positive conclusion, combined with well-known cases at home and abroad, This paper analyzes how to transplant the safe haven rules. The article is divided into four parts. The first part briefly introduces the emergence and development of the safe haven rules and their application in our country. The second part analyzes the feasibility of transplanting the "safe haven rule" into the indirect infringement of trademark from the three dimensions of jurisprudence, legislation and judicial practice. The third part analyzes the subject, subjective element and objective element of the "safe haven rule" in the environment of indirect trademark infringement, and mainly analyzes how to judge the subjective elements of the network service provider. And how to apply the "notice-remove" rule in the trademark environment is expounded. In the fourth part, after theoretical and empirical analysis, the author puts forward some legislative suggestions on this issue.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：華東政法大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2012
【分類(lèi)號(hào)】：D923.43

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前6條

1 李國(guó)慶;;美國(guó)商標(biāo)間接侵權(quán)的法律淵源[J];中華商標(biāo);2007年05期

2 陳紹玲;;C2C網(wǎng)絡(luò)交易平臺(tái)下侵權(quán)投訴通知的有效性探討——以“衣念訴杜某、淘寶商標(biāo)侵權(quán)案”為視角[J];中華商標(biāo);2011年04期

3 湯黎明,陳惠珍,徐俊;淺議知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)侵權(quán)訴訟舉證責(zé)任分配規(guī)則[J];電子知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán);2003年12期

4 陳慧婷;;從eBay商標(biāo)侵權(quán)案看歐美各國(guó)對(duì)拍賣(mài)網(wǎng)站侵權(quán)行為的認(rèn)定[J];內(nèi)蒙古農(nóng)業(yè)大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2010年04期

5 王遷;;論“信息定位服務(wù)”提供者“間接侵權(quán)”行為的認(rèn)定[J];知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán);2006年01期

6 黃武雙;;搜索引擎服務(wù)商商標(biāo)侵權(quán)責(zé)任的法理基礎(chǔ)——兼評(píng)“大眾搬場(chǎng)”訴“百度網(wǎng)絡(luò)”商標(biāo)侵權(quán)案[J];知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán);2008年05期

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前3條

1 霍定文;電子商務(wù)環(huán)境下購(gòu)物網(wǎng)站商標(biāo)間接侵權(quán)問(wèn)題研究[D];華東政法大學(xué);2010年

2 陳德娟;商標(biāo)間接侵權(quán)研究[D];中國(guó)政法大學(xué);2011年

3 懷蕾;商標(biāo)間接侵權(quán)問(wèn)題研究[D];復(fù)旦大學(xué);2011年

本文編號(hào)：2493765