Font Size: a A A

Research On The Trademark Infringement Of Search Engine In PPC

Posted on:2014-07-11Degree:MasterType:Thesis
Country:ChinaCandidate:F YangFull Text:PDF
GTID:2296330425479107Subject:Intellectual property rights
Abstract/Summary:PDF Full Text Request
From the existing studies of trademark infringement in PPC, the vast majority of themfocus on PPC customer infringement, and few on search engine responsibility in bidding. Thetort liability law has been enacted, and there are special provisions on internet infringement.Therefore, these provisions should be complied with in the case of search engine in PPC. Thestipulation is a basic principle, and we still have some difficulty in the application of theseprovisions. There are no such provisions that the existing bidding case can be applied to.Therefore, the responsibility of search engine in PPC should be ascertained according to thetort liability law provision36.This content of the paper is divided into five parts, and the second and third part is theessence of this paper.The first part is an introduction of the case, and pointing out the dispute. The plaintiffthinks that the defendant used their trademark for key words in PPC, thus their trademarkright had been infringed. The main question here is that whether the PPC constitutestrademark infringement and what is the responsibility of Baidu.The second part of this paper emphasizes the characteristics of behaviors of searchengine in PPC. By analyzing the operation procedure of PPC, the search engine’s behaviorsare using keywords and then linking them to specified web sites. The focus of the part is:the behaviors of search engine do not constitute the direct trademark infringement. When thePPC customer constitutes the direct infringement; the assisting behaviors of search engineshould be analyzed by joint torts.The third part is an analysis of the subjective factors of trademark infringement, whichbrought about by the act of search engine. The subjective factor of trademark infringement issearch engine’s subjective fault. This part mainly analyzes the search engine’s duty. Theconclusion is that the search engine has no obligations to review entity. Besides, it needs tocombine the factor of ’knew’ in the Provision36of the Tort Liability Law to determine itssubjective fault. The author thinks that "know" should be interpreted as "knowledge" and "hasreason to know"(should know).The forth part is an analysis of the objective factors of trademark infringement, whichbrought about by the act of search engine. The objective element of search engine’s trademark infringement is to support the PPC customer to implement the direct infringement. Under theProvision36of the Tort Liability Law, assistance represents the acts that the search engineoperator failing to take reasonable behaviors after being aware of infringements or in receiptof such notice from customers. Therefore, the focus of this section is to maintain "timely” and“necessary measures”."In time" and "necessary measures" is not fixed, the court shoulddetermine by specific situation.The fifth part is the analysis of the search engine trademark infringement liability. Itanalyzes whether it should take the joint and several liabilities; why it should take thisliability; and whether the liability is non-really-joint liability. The author’s view is that theresponsibility of search engine is joint liability. After bearing full responsibility, it has theright to recover from PPC customer for beyond part.
Keywords/Search Tags:PPC, Trademark Infringement, Search Engine, ConstitutiveRequirement
PDF Full Text Request
Related items