论文部分内容阅读
尽管均涉及涉外定牌加工,但最高法院的“无印良品”案和“PRETUL”案涉及的商标法具体制度和法律问题完全不同,涉外定牌加工是否构成商标使用的法律意义也完全不同。“无印良品”案涉及的是商标形成和维持意义上的商标使用,在该案适用的商标法第32条后半段以及第59条第3款、第49条第2款的制度背景下,涉外定牌加工不构成商标使用。“PRETUL”案涉及的则是商标侵权判断意义上的商标使用,在该案适用的商标法第57条第1项和第2项的制度背景下,涉外定牌加工是否构成商标使用完全是政策选择的结果。不同制度背景下商标使用的法律意义和商标使用的构成均各不相同。涉外定牌加工是否构成商标使用取决于所涉及的法律制度和法律问题,涉外定牌加工原则上不构成
Although all involve the processing of foreign-related brands, the specific systems and legal issues of the trademark law involved in the Supreme Court’s “Muji” and “PRETUL” cases are completely different. Whether the processing of foreign-brand-name products constitutes the legal significance of trademark use Also completely different. “Muji ” case involved the trademark formation and maintenance of the use of trademarks in the case of the second half of Article 32 of the Trademark Law and Article 59, paragraph 3, Article 49, paragraph 2 of the system In the background, foreign brand name processing does not constitute a trademark. The PRETUL case deals with the use of trademarks in the sense of trademark infringement. Under the institutional background of Article 57 (1) and (2) of the Trademark Law applicable to the case, whether foreign-brand processing constitutes a complete use of the trademark It is the result of policy choice. The legal significance of the use of trademark under different system backgrounds and the composition of trademark use are different. Whether the use of fixed-brand processing in foreign countries constitutes a trademark depends on the legal system and legal issues involved. In principle, the processing of foreign-brand fixed-brand products does not constitute