我国商标反向混淆司法规制的困境与出路  

The Dilemma and Outlet of China's Trademark Reverse Confusion Judicial Regulation

作　　者：刘琳[1] LIU Lin(Intellectual Property Research Center of Zhongnan University of Economics and Law,Wuhan,Hubei,430027,China)

机构地区：[1]中南财经政法大学知识产权研究中心,湖北武汉430027

出　　处：《浙江树人大学学报》2020年第6期98-103,共6页Journal of Zhejiang Shuren University

基　　金：教育部人文社会科学重点研究基地重大项目(17JJD820014);中南财经政法大学中央高校基本科研业务费专项资金资助课题(201911508)。

摘　　要：混淆是认定商标侵权的重要依据,反向混淆是商标混淆的重要类型,但在我国当前司法实践中,反向混淆的侵权属性极易遭到忽视。要根治这一沉疴,应先明确反向混淆的混淆本质,并宜将反向混淆作为一种类型化的商标侵权表现形式纳入立法。基于反向混淆的特殊性,此类案件无法照搬传统商标混淆案件的侵权损害赔偿数额计算方法,可借鉴美国1977年“轮胎分销案”中使用的“纠正性广告费”标准,解决由法官任意裁量造成的赔偿数额不合理问题。Confusion is an important basis for identifying trademark infringement,while reverse confusion is an important type of trademark confusion.However,in the current judicial practice in China,the intrusive property of reverse confusion is easily overlooked.To eradicate this ailment,the nature of reverse confusion should be clarified,and it is advisable to incorporate reverse confusion into legislation as a type of manifestation of trademark infringement.Due to the particularity of reverse confusion,such cases cannot imitate the calculation method of infringement damages in traditional trademark confusion cases.We can learn from the“corrective advertising fee”standard used in the 1977“Tire distribution case”in the United States to solve the problem of unreasonable compensation caused by the judge's arbitrary discretion.

关 键 词：反向混淆 商标侵权 主观恶意 侵权救济 

分 类 号：D923.43[政治法律—民商法学]