Intermediary Liability and Trade Mark Infringement: Proliferation of Filter Obligations in Civil Law Jurisdictions?

Martin Senftleben
{"title":"Intermediary Liability and Trade Mark Infringement: Proliferation of Filter Obligations in Civil Law Jurisdictions?","authors":"Martin Senftleben","doi":"10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198837138.013.20","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This chapter discusses intermediary liability and trade mark infringement from a civil law perspective, while highlighting differences and commonalities of trade mark and copyright enforcement online. The chapter considers first how the infringement test in EU trade mark law is more context-specific than the infringement analysis in copyright law and how limitations of trade mark rights provide room for unauthorized use that serves (commercial) freedom of expression and freedom of competition. In this context, this chapter looks into the use of filtering mechanisms and how they might wash away these important nuances of the scope of trade mark protection. Again, the chapter makes a distinction between legitimate comparative advertising and infringing consumer confusion, legitimate brand criticism and infringing defamation, legitimate offers of second-hand goods and infringing sales of replicas in order to consider the threshold when trade mark owners obtain overbroad protection. Further, this chapter reviews leading case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union on the question of intermediary liability and filter obligations that points towards a cautious approach in trade mark cases—an approach that does not undermine the inherent limits and statutory limitations of trade mark rights. However, examples of court decisions in civil law jurisdictions, such as Germany, show a tendency of developing national doctrines that allow the imposition of more extensive filtering duties. Against this background, the chapter concludes by considering whether a balanced approach based on the principle of proportionality should prevail in trade mark cases.","PeriodicalId":138190,"journal":{"name":"Oxford Handbook of Online Intermediary Liability","volume":"19 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-05-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Oxford Handbook of Online Intermediary Liability","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198837138.013.20","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This chapter discusses intermediary liability and trade mark infringement from a civil law perspective, while highlighting differences and commonalities of trade mark and copyright enforcement online. The chapter considers first how the infringement test in EU trade mark law is more context-specific than the infringement analysis in copyright law and how limitations of trade mark rights provide room for unauthorized use that serves (commercial) freedom of expression and freedom of competition. In this context, this chapter looks into the use of filtering mechanisms and how they might wash away these important nuances of the scope of trade mark protection. Again, the chapter makes a distinction between legitimate comparative advertising and infringing consumer confusion, legitimate brand criticism and infringing defamation, legitimate offers of second-hand goods and infringing sales of replicas in order to consider the threshold when trade mark owners obtain overbroad protection. Further, this chapter reviews leading case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union on the question of intermediary liability and filter obligations that points towards a cautious approach in trade mark cases—an approach that does not undermine the inherent limits and statutory limitations of trade mark rights. However, examples of court decisions in civil law jurisdictions, such as Germany, show a tendency of developing national doctrines that allow the imposition of more extensive filtering duties. Against this background, the chapter concludes by considering whether a balanced approach based on the principle of proportionality should prevail in trade mark cases.
中介责任与商标侵权:过滤义务在大陆法域的扩散?
本章从民法的角度对中介责任和商标侵权进行了探讨,同时突出了网上商标执法与著作权执法的区别与共性。本章首先考虑了欧盟商标法中的侵权检验如何比版权法中的侵权分析更具上下文针对性,以及商标权的限制如何为未经授权的使用提供空间,从而服务于(商业)表达自由和竞争自由。在此背景下,本章探讨了过滤机制的使用,以及它们可能如何消除商标保护范围的这些重要细微差别。本章再次区分了合法的比较广告与侵权的消费者混淆、合法的品牌批评与侵权的诽谤、合法的二手商品提供与侵权的复制品销售,以便考虑商标所有人获得过度保护时的门槛。此外,本章回顾了欧盟法院在中间责任和过滤义务问题上的主要判例法,这些判例法指出在商标案件中采取谨慎的做法,这种做法不会损害商标权的固有限制和法定限制。然而,民法司法管辖区的法院判决的例子,如德国,显示出一种发展国家理论的趋势,允许征收更广泛的过滤税。在此背景下,本章最后讨论了在商标案件中是否应该采用基于比例原则的平衡方式。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信