论文部分内容阅读
“相同或者类似商品”不是判断商标混淆的唯一标准。最高人民法院《关于审理商标民事纠纷案件适用法律若干问题的解释》(下称《商标法司法解释》)指出的“存在特定联系的商品”,以及《商标法》(2001)第十三条第二款规定的“反淡化”,都是禁止商标混淆的基本规则。然而,目前在我国商标法实践中,参照《类似商品和服务区分表》(下称《区分表》)判定商品类似,这已经成为工作习惯,《区分表》几乎等同于“相同或者类似商品”确定性判定,几乎成为判定商标混淆的唯一标准,这个现象应当引起业界的充分重视。
“The same or similar goods” is not the only criterion for judging trademark confusion. The “Supreme People’s Court’s Interpretation on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Civil Cases of Trademark Discrimination” (hereinafter referred to as “the Judicial Interpretations of the Trademark Law”), “the existence of specific connected products” and Article 13 of the Trademark Law (2001) The two provisions of “anti-dilution,” are the basic rules prohibiting trademark confusion. However, at present in our practice of trademark law, it has become a work habit to judge the similar products by referring to the “List of similar goods and services” (hereinafter referred to as “the difference list”), and the “difference table” is almost the same as “the same or similar goods” Deterministic judgment is almost the only standard for judging the confusion of trademarks. This phenomenon should arouse the full attention of the industry.