新商标法剑指商标恶意抢注

商标法第三次修订，剑指商标恶意抢注

商标法第三次修订已经于日前公布并将于2014年5月1日起实施。本次修订重点目标之一就是遏制商标恶意抢注行为。鉴于现行商标法应对商标恶意抢注的法律依据过于原则（即，商标法第31条中“以不正当手段抢先注册”和“已经使用并有一定影响”实难举证），致使无法有效遏制商标恶意抢注行为的蔓延。因此，商标法最新修订有针对性地做出了以下四方面规定：

第一， 将诚实信用原则作为申请注册和使用商标的基本原则（见第7条），从根本上否定了恶意抢注行为。这一原则也可以作为兜底条款，用于处理法律明确规定之外的非典型恶意抢注行为。

第二， 特定业务关系下绝对禁止抢注相对方商标规定的适用范围扩大至合同、业务往来关系或者其他关系，而不再仅限于商业代理关系（见第15条）。存在前述关系的情况下，被抢注人仅需证明抢注人“明知他人商标存在”即可对恶意抢注进行认定，从而大大减轻了举证压力。

第三， 对中介机构的行为进行严格限制（见第19条），即：1）知道或者应当知道委托人申请注册的商标属于恶意抢注他人商标的情况下，商标代理机构除不得接受委托；2）商标代理机构除对其代理服务申请商标注册外，商标代理机构不得申请注册其他商标，以阻止商标抢注。

第四， 确定商标异议审查和复审程序的时限均为12个月，特殊情况经批准可以延长6个月（见第35条），以使商标争议当事方对争议结论的出现有一个明确的预期。

综上，经修订后的商标法为打击商标恶意抢注提供了多方面的、具体的法律依据，必将有效改善商标抢注的现状。但是这并意味着恶意抢注行为会从此杜绝，企业仍需加强商标管理，及早注册商标，并建立有效的商标监测机制，以维护自己的商标权利。

The Third Amendment to Trademark Law Targets at Trademark Squatting

The third amendment to Trademark Law has recently been promulgated and will be

implemented since May 1, 2014. Among other things, one of its significances is its combating against trademark squatting. Since current Trademark Law lack of enough measures against squatting (i.e. “by illegitimate means, register preemptively a trademark that is already in use by another person and has certain influence” specified in Article 31of current Trademark Law make it almost impossible for a plaintiff to prove its case), the rampant trademark squatting has not been successfully contained. As such, the recent amendment to Trademark Law lays out the following measures:

1. Introduced the principle of good faith as a basic principle for registration and usage of

trademarks (see Article 7), which illegalizes trademark squatting in general. In addition, this principle can be incited as a catch-all provision to deal with atypical trademark squatting acts which are not clearly specified in the Trademark Law.

2. Extended the scope of certain business relationships in which trademark squatting is

absolutely prohibited. Such relationships are no longer limited to commercial agency relationships, but have been expanded to include contractual, transactional as well as other relationships in connection with business dealings (see Article 15). The plaintiff in any of the above relationships only needs to prove that the squatter knows the plaintiff’s prior existing trademark for recognition of trademark squatting, which will significantly relieve the plaintiff of its burden of proof.

3. Introduced strict limits on trademark agencies (see Article 19), including 1) If the

trademark agency knows or should have known the trademark to be filed is for trademark squatting, it may not accept such entrustment; and 2) a trademark agency may not file for itself for registration of any trademarks other than the trademark agency service trademarks, in order to prevent trademark squatting.

4. Prescribed the timeline for both procedures of hearing and reexamination of trademark

opposition as twelve months, and an extension of an additional six months can be obtained after competent approval (see Article 35), so as to provide a clear expectation for relevant parties as to when the conclusive decision for the dispute will be made. In conclusion, the recent amendment to Trademark Law provides multi-layered, clear cut legal basis for the crackdown of trademark squatting, which will definitely improve the status

quo. However, this does not necessarily mean trademark squatting activities will be eliminated ever since, and it is advisable for market players to strengthen their trademark management, file for trademark registration as soon as possible, and establish effective trademark monitoring mechanism etc., so as to protect its trademark rights.

本文来源：https://www.bwwdw.com/article/0qgx.html