混淆可能性与商标侵权认定之重构——以我国《商标法》第57条第1-2项为视角  

The Possibility of Confusion and the Reconstruction of Trademark Infringement Determination——From the Perspective of Article 57(1-2)of China’s Trademark Law

作　　者：杨利华[1] 杨洵 YANG Lihua;YANG Xun(Civil,Commercial and Economic Law School,China University of Political Science and Law,Beijing 100088,China;Law School,China University of Political Science and Law,Beijing 100088,China)

机构地区：[1]中国政法大学民商经济法学院,北京100088 [2]中国政法大学法学院,北京100088

出　　处：《邵阳学院学报（社会科学版）》2021年第6期48-55,共8页Journal of Shaoyang University:Social Science Edition

基　　金：国家社会科学基金重大项目“创新驱动发展战略下知识产权公共领域问题研究”(17ZDA139)。

摘　　要：我国《商标法》第57条采用逐项列举的立法模式,规定了六种具体的商标侵权行为类型和“造成其他损害”的兜底类型;其中,第57条第1项、第2项规定了两种基本类型。如何认识基于混淆可能性判定上述两种商标侵权行为,存在不同观点。在上述第57条第1项规定的商标侵权行为类型中,应当在认定为商标相同、商品或服务相同的前提下适用推定混淆原则,允许行为人提供反证予以推翻混淆可能性的存在;在第2项规定的商标侵权行为类型中,则应坚持将商标近似、商品或服务类似作为前置要件,将混淆可能性作为商标侵权认定的最终依据。Article 57 of China’s Trademark Law adopts the legislative model of itemization,providing six specific types of trademark infringement and the bottom type of“causing other damages”;among them,items 1 and 2 of Article 57 provide two basic types.There are different views on how to recognize the likelihood of confusion in determining the above two types of trademark infringement.In the type of trademark infringement stipulated in item 1 of Article 57 above,the principle of presumption of confusion should be applied on the premise that the trademark is identical and the goods or services are identical,and the perpetrator is allowed to provide counter-evidence to disprove the existence of the likelihood of confusion;in the type of trademark infringement stipulated in item 2,the likelihood of confusion should be taken as the final basis for the determination of trademark infringement by insisting on the similarity of trademark and goods or services as the antecedent elements.

关 键 词：混淆可能性 商标近似 商品类似 商标侵权 《商标法》第57条 

分 类 号：D923.43[政治法律—民商法学]