摘要
从文义解释、历史解释、体系解释的法解释角度,以及从法政策角度,《商标法》第48条中“用于识别商品来源”应解释为不带地域范围限制的纯目的条款。定牌加工中加工人贴牌行为的目的为交付工作成果、获得加工报酬,不能享受商标带来的价值和收益,不具有将商标用于识别商品来源目的,不构成商标使用;定作人委托贴牌行为属于生产行为,具有将商标用于识别商品来源目的,构成商标使用,其在“两同情形”构成商标侵权行为,除非能以先用权进行违法阻却抗辩。如果定作人构成直接侵权,则对加工人应视其是否履行必要注意义务及相关义务,判断其是否构成间接侵权责任,具体适用标准建议创设性引入间接侵权中的红旗标准和避风港规则进行漏洞补充。定牌加工中对不同主体进行区分并赋予不同法律后果,可克服诸多弊端,达到既保护合法正当的定牌加工贸易,又保护境内商标权人合法权益的良好效果,也符合权责一致性原则,公平且正当。
The phrase“using to recognize source of goods”in Article 48 of Trademark Law should be interpreted as pure purpose without limit of territoriality,from perspective of its meaning,history,context and policy.The aim of workers of OEM is to gain payment of manufacturing and they cannot enjoy the value and benefits of trademark,so they do not have intent to use the trademark to recognize the source of goods and their act does not constitute act of trademark use;The act of ordering party or trademark owner abroad constitutes act of manufacturing,with an aim of recognizing source of goods,so their act constitutes trademark use.In double same circumstances,ordering party’s act will constitute trademark infringement,except that they can argue with right of prior use.If the ordering party of OEM constitutes act of direct infringement,then the workers of OEM may or may not constitute indirect infringement,depending on their performance of duty of care.Flag test and harbor rule can be introduced in its infringement judgement.Identifying two different subjects and endowing them different legal effects can overcome many shortcomings of these cases and have fair and good effect.
作者
唐艳
TANG Yan(Southwest University of Political Science and Law,Chongqing 410020,China)
出处
《西南政法大学学报》
2020年第2期113-124,共12页
Journal of Southwest University of Political Science and Law
基金
重庆市教委人文社科重点研究基地项目“‘科技+文化’融合创新背景下数字文化城市建设知识产权问题研究”(19JD005)。
关键词
定牌加工
商标使用
间接侵权
帮助侵权
OEM
trademark use
indirect infringement
contributory infringement
