摘要
商标共存协议被商家视为划定商标权利边界、平息诉讼争端、规避侵权风险的重要工具。然而,共存协议的法律效力认定尚未形成一个稳定的模式。在卡梅框架的指引下,商标局和法院原则上应当适用财产型规则,认可共存协议的效力,将共存协议作为混淆可能性足够低的推定证据。仅在公共利益严重受损时,商标局和法院才应适用禁易型规则,否定共存协议的效力。而且,公共利益包括消费者和其他商家两个维度,单纯的消费者混淆可能性不足以启动禁易型规则。在两种情况下,对公共利益的损害才严重到足以启动禁易型规则:一是从消费者视角观之,共存协议引发的混淆将导致重大实质损害。例如,在医药和环境等领域,混淆或许会带来难以弥补的健康和生态损害。二是从其他商家的角度观之,如果商标权利细分程度过高,其他商家在商标交易中负担的信息成本将超过共存协议带来的社会收益。其中第二项否定共存协议的理由,或许能随着共存协议公示制度的推进而逐渐丧失重要性。
Traders regard trademark co-existence agreements as important tools to ascertain trademark rights,settle current disputes,and avoid future infringement.However,the legal validity of co-existence agreements remains uncertain.Under the guidance of the Calabresi-Melamed framework,the courts and trademark offices should apply the property rule in principle,i.e.recognize the validity of co-existence agreements and regard them as evidence of a sufficiently low likelihood of consumer confusion.Only when the public interests are severely harmed,can the courts and trademark offices apply the inalienability rule to deny the validity of co-existence agreements.Further,public interests have two dimensions including consumers and other traders.Mere likelihood of consumer confusion is insufficient to substantiate the application of inalienability rule.In the following two situations,the harm to public interests is so severe that the inalienability rule should apply.From the perspective of consumers,the confusion arising from the co-existence agreements will lead to substantial damage,e.g.in the pharmaceutical and environmental industries,confusion may lead to irreversible harm to human health and environment.From the perspective of other traders,if there are too many idiosyncratic rights,the information costs born by the other traders in trademark transactions will exceed the social benefits of co-existence agreements.For the latter reason to deny co-existence agreements,it may become less and less important due to the establishment of a co-existence agreements disclosure system.
出处
《清华知识产权评论》
2019年第1期91-118,共28页
Tsinghua Intellectual Property Review
关键词
商标共存协议
卡梅框架
消费者混淆
意思自治
公共利益
Trademark Co-existence Agreements
Calabresi-Melamed Framework
Consumer Confusion
Party Autonomy
Public Interests
作者简介
李怡豪,英国富而德律师事务所香港办公室法律助理。
