江西财经大学学报 ›› 2024, Vol. 0 ›› Issue (6): 126-136.

• 法与经济 • 上一篇    

反向混淆构成不正当竞争之证成

黄武双, 江闽松   

  1. 华东政法大学 知识产权学院, 上海 200042
  • 收稿日期:2024-01-17 修回日期:2024-09-08 出版日期:2024-11-25 发布日期:2024-11-29
  • 通讯作者: 黄武双,华东政法大学教授,博士生导师,法学博士,主要从事知识产权法和反不正当竞争法研究,联系方式1517@ecupl.edu.cn。
  • 作者简介:江闽松,华东政法大学博士研究生,主要从事知识产权法和竞争法研究。
  • 基金资助:
    国家社会科学基金青年项目“版权法中的公平报酬制度研究”(22CFX083)

Proof of Reverse Confusion Constituting Unfair Competition

HUANG Wu-shuang, JIANG Min-song   

  1. East China University of Political Science and Law, Shanghai 200042, China
  • Received:2024-01-17 Revised:2024-09-08 Online:2024-11-25 Published:2024-11-29

摘要: 源于美国判例法的反向混淆行为,因为被早期案例认为属于影响商标来源识别功能而被认定属于侵犯商标权的行为,中国法院也借鉴了这一法律规制路径。梳理美国针对反向混淆的判例可以发现,由于美国《兰哈姆法》既规范商标侵权也防止不正当竞争,两种规制诉求可以同时提出。因此“反向混淆”究竟是商标权体系下的概念还是反不正当竞争体系下的概念值得进一步考究。由于中国的商标法体系是以制止混淆为基本出发点,核心在于保护在先商标所积累的商誉,但反向混淆并未利用在先商标的商誉,只是阻碍了在先商标发挥其识别来源的功能,在此情形下将反向混淆行为视为商标权侵权行为难以形成逻辑闭环。实际上,反向混淆所侵害的利益应由反不正当竞争法调整,通过比例原则可以确定反向混淆所侵害的原告利益是需要保护的,同时反向混淆也具有一定的商业阻碍效果,在此情况下有可能构成不正当竞争。反向混淆,按照未类型化不正当竞争标准进行判断,构成不正当竞争。

关键词: 反向混淆, 侵犯商标权, 不正当竞争

Abstract: The reverse confusion behavior originated from the case law of the United States, which was considered as an infringement of trademark rights due to its impact on the function of trademark source identification in early cases. Chinese courts have also drawn on this legal regulatory path. By reviewing the precedents of reverse confusion in the United States, it can be found that due to the fact that the Langham Act not only regulates trademark infringement but also prevents unfair competition, both regulatory demands can be raised simultaneously. Therefore, whether “reverse confusion” is a concept under the trademark rights system or the anti unfair competition system deserves further investigation. Due to the fact that China’s trademark law system is based on preventing confusion, the core is to protect the goodwill accumulated by prior trademarks. However, reverse confusion does not utilize the goodwill of prior trademarks, but only hinders their function to identify the sources. In this situation, it is difficult to form a logical loop to consider reverse confusion as trademark infringement. In fact, the interests infringed by reverse confusion should be regulated by the Anti Unfair Competition Law. Through the principle of proportionality, it can be determined that the interests of the plaintiff infringed by reverse confusion need to be protected. At the same time, reverse confusion also has a certain commercial obstruction effect, which may constitute unfair competition in this situation. Reverse confusion, judged according to the criteria of unclassified unfair competition, constitutes unfair competition.

Key words: reverse confusion, infringement of trademark rights, unfair competition

中图分类号: