从“无印良品”案到“PRETUL”案:涉外定牌加工的法律性质  

From " MUJI" Case to " PRETUL" Case:Legal Character of Original Equipment Manufacture

作　　者：王太平[1] 

机构地区：[1]广东外语外贸大学法学院

出　　处：《法学评论》2017年第6期176-187,共12页Law Review

基　　金：广东外语外贸大学高层次人才项目"商标法专题研究"(GWTP-YG-2015-05)阶段性研究成果

摘　　要：尽管均涉及涉外定牌加工,但最高法院的"无印良品"案和"PRETUL"案涉及的商标法具体制度和法律问题完全不同,涉外定牌加工是否构成商标使用的法律意义也完全不同。"无印良品"案涉及的是商标形成和维持意义上的商标使用,在该案适用的商标法第32条后半段以及第59条第3款、第49条第2款的制度背景下,涉外定牌加工不构成商标使用。"PRETUL"案涉及的则是商标侵权判断意义上的商标使用,在该案适用的商标法第57条第1项和第2项的制度背景下,涉外定牌加工是否构成商标使用完全是政策选择的结果。不同制度背景下商标使用的法律意义和商标使用的构成均各不相同。涉外定牌加工是否构成商标使用取决于所涉及的法律制度和法律问题。Despite both involving OEM,since the ＂ MUJI＂ case and the ＂ PRETUL＂ case decided by the Supreme Court involve different legal rules and legal issues in trademark law,whether the OEM constitutes trademark use in the two cases have completely different legal significances.The ＂ MUJI＂ case involved trademark use which can form and maintain a trademark and in the legal rules context relate to the rear half paragraph of Article 32,which the ＂ MUJI＂ case applied,Article 50.3 and Article 49.2,the OEM does not constitute trademark use to form and maintain a trademark.The ＂ PRETUL＂ case involved trademark use which often is used in the determination of trademark infringement,and in the context relate to the Article 57.12,whether the OEM constitutes trademark use is the result of policy choices.The significances and the construction of the trademark use varies with the different legal contexts.Whether the OEM constitutes trademark use depends on the legal system and the legal issues involved,the OEM in principle does not constitute trademark use to form and maintain a trademark,but it can constitute trademark use which applied in the determination of trademark infringement.

关 键 词：涉外定牌加工 “无印良品”案 “PRETUL”案 商标使用 

分 类 号：D923.43[政治法律—民商法学]