规范商标类别确认——基于限制商标权隐形扩张的考量  

On the Normalization of Trademark Type Confirmation:From the Perspective of Limiting the Invisible Trademark Right Expansion

作　　者：胡骋 HU Cheng(School of Law,Renmin University of China,Beijing 100872,China)

机构地区：[1]中国人民大学法学院,北京100872

出　　处：《同济大学学报（社会科学版）》2020年第3期117-124,共8页Journal of Tongji University:Social Science Edition

摘　　要：近年来,有关商标类别的争议在商标确权实践中不断涌现。一方面,商业主体有意择取特定类别商标,谋求对商标构成要素更为宽泛的解释,规避针对特定类别商标的高显著性标准及非功能性筛查,从而悄无声息地扩张权利范围。另一方面,作为确认商标类别的裁量者,商标行政管理机关有时会存在随意改变商标类别、管理不当的行为,司法机关有时会出现因审判认识与经验不足,进而忽视甚至助长了商标权的隐形扩张的情况。事实上,商标类别所对应的构成要素及其特征,决定了商标适格性的认定基础以及权利的辐射半径,商标类别的确认在行政管理范畴之外具有重要的规范意义。行政与司法应提高识别与应对能力,维护商标类别的稳定性、司法认定的终局性,实现商标类别确认上的规范性与灵活度并存。In recent years,disputes of trademark type in lawsuit have been climbing.On the one hand,applicants intentionally select certain trademark type to pursue broader interpretation of constituting elements to avoid stricter eligibility criteria,thus expanding the scope of right through registration stealthily.On the other hand,when confirming trademark type,administrative office sometimes makes change without discretion,and courts sometimes ignore the invisible expansion owing to the severe lack of judicial awareness and experience.In fact,the constituting elements of different trademark types and their characteristics could determine the ground for trademark eligibility and the scope of exclusive right.Therefore,trademark type confirmation has important normative meaning other than administrative management consideration.The stableness of trademark type should be maintained,and the judicial finality of trademark type confirmation should be defended,thus the normativeness and flexibility of trademark type confirmation could be guaranteed.

关 键 词：商标类别 确权审查 权利扩张 颜色商标 位置商标 

分 类 号：D913.4[政治法律—民商法学]