Research On Trademark Infringement In Internet Pay Per Click

In the Internet era,the changes in the ways and means of information transmission make it more smooth and simple,which leads to the flood of all kinds of information.Meanwhile,people’s ability to absorb information is not greatly improved,which leads to consumers’ attention becoming a scarce resource.If enterprises want to attract the attention of consumers,it becomes more and more difficult,at this time,PPC service came into being,with its accurate positioning,less capital investment and other characteristics,quickly become a tool for enterprises to explore potential customers,stimulate consumer demand,in order to obtain more trading opportunities.However,while PPC service brings profits to enterprises,it also causes many disputes among enterprises,among which PPC service trademark infringement is the most prominent problem.In this kind of infringement case,the enterprise will set the trademark of the competitor as the search keyword,in order to gain the goodwill of the competitor and occupy the interests of the competitor.Such cases involve the interests of trademark owners,bidders,search engine service providers and Internet consumers.Therefore,reasonable regulation of trademark infringement of PPC service is conducive to safeguarding the interests of multiple parties and promoting the healthy development of PPC service promotion industry.The first chapter of this paper mainly introduces the concept of PPC service,promotion of operation mode and legal nature.In addition,the types of trademark infringement cases of PPC service are subdivided,and the infringement ACTS are divided into distal type,foreground type and background type.The subject involved in such cases and the possible damage are expounded,which lays a foundation for the following theoretical research.The second chapter mainly conducts empirical research on some cases from 2006 to now.Firstly,descriptive analysis is carried out on the target sample,and then the ideas of background and foreground trademark infringement in judicial practice as well as the liability determination of search engine service providers are summarized,the differences in judgment thinking are analyzed,and the existing problems in judicial practice are summarized.The third chapter is mainly to determine the infringement behavior in the PPC service.First of all,make clear the use of trademark as a prerequisite for trademark infringement.Secondly,it demonstrates the rationality of Initial Interest Confusion theory from the perspectives of goodwill protection,consumer interests and market fair competition order,and summarizes the applicable standard of Initial Interest Confusion theory in PPC services from the development of Initial Interest Confusion theory in the United States.Furthermore,the fair use cases that may be involved in cases are enumerated and analyzed in order to better deal with such cases,so as to not only protect the legitimate interests of trademark owners,but also take into account the legitimate use of others and promote free market competition.Finally,the behavior of different types of PPC service cases is qualitative.For background cases,the internal use of the cases does not belong to the use of the trademark law,so does not belong to trademark infringement cases.For a front-stage case,if it meets the requirements of trademark use and Initial Interest Confusion,it shall be deemed to be a trademark infringement.The fourth chapter mainly analyzes the responsibility of search engine service providers.First of all,it is clear that search engine service providers do not constitute direct infringement and joint infringement,should be applied to indirect infringement rules.Secondly,make clear the indirect tort liability types and components of search engine service providers.Furthermore,the duty of care of search engine service providers is analyzed.Finally,in terms of specific responsibilities,this paper holds that search engine service providers should assume supplementary responsibilities if they only violate the corresponding duty of care.