Research On The Identification Of Indirect Trademark Infringement By Search Engine Service Providers In P2P Rankin

The rapid development of network technology has laid a solid foundation for the arrival of the era of big data,in which all kinds of information and data flood the cyberspace.Faced with a huge amount of information and data,network users need a tool to quickly and accurately find out the information they need,and search engines can provide convenience for information retrieval.In the process of providing information retrieval,Internet search engine service providers take the bidding ranking service as a business model and make profits through the way that advertisers buy the bidding ranking service,so as to maintain the survival of search engines and provide an excellent choice for commercial subjects to promote the promotion of commodities and services.However,some advertisers set others’ registered trademarks as search keywords after purchasing the bidding ranking service,resulting in many trademark infringement disputes arising from the bidding ranking service.The trademark owner believes that the search engine service as the provider of the bidding ranking service is to blame.At present,there are no laws and regulations on the search engine service providers to provide bidding ranking service,the behavior of trademark indirect infringement liability identification standards made clear.In judicial practice,the adjudication scales of different courts in different places make it difficult for parties to reasonably estimate the legal consequences.Whether the behavior of search engine service provider to provide bidding ranking service indirectly infringes on trademark rights and whether the safe haven principle can be applied as the excuse of disclaimer are worthy of common attention and discussion in both theoretical and practical circles.Based on the comprehensive analysis of the trademark indirect infringement cases of search engine service providers in the bidding ranking service,this paper summarizes the judgment made by the court,explores the adjudication rules of such cases,and puts forward its own opinions,so as to provide suggestions for judicial practice.This paper will be discussed from the following three chapters:The first chapter mainly starts from the case of indirect infringement of trademark rights by the search engine service provider in the bidding ranking service,and summarizes the common focus of dispute in these cases according to the reasoning part of the judgment documents.The second chapter mainly focuses on the dispute focus of the three cases,and carries on the legal analysis,that is,how to identify the legal nature of the search engine service provider,whether the search engine service provider constitutes the indirect infringement of trademark,whether the search engine service provider applies the haven principle.The third chapter mainly draws the following enlightenment and suggestions:First,to clarify the legal nature of search engine service providers,should be combined with the concept of search engine service providers,characteristics and the operation process of bidding ranking accurately defined.Secondly,clear search engine service provider trademark indirect infringement standards,should be analyzed from subjective and objective aspects.Objective search engine service providers have helped,abetted,enticing advertisers infringement behavior;The subjective aspect is whether the search engine service provider is at fault for the infringement behavior of the advertiser,and whether the search engine service provider has fulfilled the reasonable duty of care.The focus is on the reasonable definition of search engine service providers’ duty of care to advertisers’ behavior of keyword setting,which should establish clear standards.Thirdly,after determining that search engine service providers constitute indirect trademark infringement,it discusses whether they apply the safe haven principle as the cause of exemption,and refines the applicable provisions of the safe haven principle.