| 1,090 | 3 | 63 |
| 下载次数 | 被引频次 | 阅读次数 |
近期美国、欧盟等多起涉及虚拟商品和NFTs商标侵权的典型案例表明，需要通过对虚拟商品和NFTs进行商标意义上的详细商品/服务分类和精准描述，用以明显区分与其形成对应关系的实物商品和虚拟商品。对于侵权行为的认定则必须关注所在虚拟场景与现实世界的相似度、市场行为的融合度以及由此对消费者造成的对商品来源的认知影响等要素。对侵权行为的抗辩，基于NFTs可能具有金融、权证和艺术品的多重属性，有必要结合具体的案例，只有在能够证明用于铸造的底层内容具有艺术性并且不会造成混淆，或者单纯地用于权属证明而不是实现金融目的的情况下，才可以适用“合理使用”或者“权利用尽”原则。
Abstract：through the United States, the European Union and so on many related to virtual goods and NFTS trademark infringement typical case comprehensive analysis, it is pointed out that virtual goods and NFTs need detailed goods/services classification and accurate description in the sense of trademark. To form a corresponding relationship with the physical goods and virtual goods form a clear distinction between each other. At the same time, we must pay attention to the similarity between the virtual scene and the real world, the integration of the market behavior and the cognitive impact on the consumers. In addition, for NFTS, due to its possible multiple attributes of finance, warrants and artwork, it must be combined with a specific case, the“Fair use” or“Exhaustion of rights” doctrine may be invoked only if it can be proved that the underlying content used in the foundry is artistic and does not cause confusion or is used solely for the proof of title rather than for the realization of finance.
(1)Nike,Inc.v.StockX LLC,No.1:22-cv-00983,Complaint,D.I.1(S.D.N.Y.Feb.3,2022).
(2)Hermes Int’l v.Rothschild ,2022 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 89799 at *4 (May 18,2022).
(3)Yuga Labs,Inc.v.Ryder Ripps,No.2:22-cv-04355,Complaint D.I.1 (C.D.Cal.June 24,2022) .
(4)Browser Meghan,Big Tech Seeks Its next Fortune in the Metaverse,https://www.wsj.com/articles/big-tech-seeks-its-next-fortune-in-the-metaverse-11636459200.
(5)Facebook Inc,Second Quarter 2021 Results Conference ,https://s21.q4cdn.com/399680738/files/doc_financials/2021/q2/FB-Q2-2021-Earnings-Call-Transcript.pdf.
(6)参见林旭霞:《虚拟财产权性质论》,《中国法学》,2009年第1期;林旭霞,张冬梅:《论网络游戏中虚拟财产权利的法律属性》,《中国法学》,2005年第2期;陈兴良:《虚拟财产的刑法属性及保护路径》,《中国法学》,2017年第2期。
(7)Merriam-Webster,Definition of NFT,https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/NFT.
(8)European Union Intellectual Property Office,EU intellectual property office publishes approach for classifying virtual goods and NFTs,https://euipo.europa.eu/ohimportal/nl/draft-guidelines-2023.
(9)European Commission,Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on Markets in Crypto –assets and amending Directive ( EU) 2019 /1937,https:/ /eur -lex.Europa.eu /resource.html?uri = cellar:f69f89bb -fe54 -11ea- b44f -01aa75ed71a1.0001.02 /DOC_1&format = PDF.
(10)杨延超:《论数字货币的法律属性》,《中国社会科学》,2020年第1期。
(11)季涛:《NFT加密艺术市场的未来》,《艺术市场》,2021年第7期。
(12)刘礼福:《借拍“出圈”,区块链数字艺术能火多久?》,《艺术市场》,2021年第6期。
(13)Court of Rome IP Chamber,Juventus Football Club SpA v Blockeras Srl,https://www.trevisancuonzo.com/static/upload/juv/juventus-nft-order-en.pdf.
(14)Korean Intellectual Property Office,Trademarks & Designs Trademarks ,https://www.kipo.go.kr/en/HtmlApp?c=93000&catmenu=ek04_01_01.
(15)European Union Intellectual Property Office,Trade mark guidelines.,https://euipo.europa.eu/tunnel-web/secure/webdav/guest/document_library/contentPdfs/trade_marks/draft-guidelines-wp-2023/Trade_mark_Guidelines_2023_consultation_en.pdf.
(16)Candidus Dougherty,Greg Lastowka,Virtual Trademarks.Santa Clara High Technology Law Journal,2008,P808.
(17)Marvel Enters.Inc.v.NCSoft,Corp.,74 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1303 (C.D.Cal.2005).https://patentarcade.com/2006/06/case-marvel-ent-v-ncsoft-corp-settled.html.
(18)在Juventus Football Club SpA 诉 Blockeras Srl案中,法院认为由于二级市场的存在 NFT在被第一批购买者专卖后,其铸造者有权从交易中抽取费用(已获利35000美元左右);在Hermès 诉 MetaBirkins、Yuga Labs 诉 Ryder Ripps等案件中NFT则直接被作为数字加密艺术品进行出售,其铸造者从中获取了不菲的利润。
(19)Castronova E,Virtual worlds:A first-hand account of market and society on the cyberian frontier.,Available at SSRN 294828,2001.
(20)Candidus Dougherty,Greg Lastowka,Virtual Trademark,Santa Clara High Technology Law Journal 2008.
(21)Caselaw ,Entertainment 2000 INC v.Rock Star Video INC MMM ,https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1485435.html.
(22)Candidus Dougherty,Greg Lastowka,Virtual Trademarks,Santa Clara High Technology Law Journal,2008.
(23)“功夫熊猫”侵害商标权案,2014年4月13日,https://www.chinacourt.org/article/detail/2014/04/id/1281809.shtml.
(24)Naudia S.Foster ,The Shot First Heard Around The World,or In This Case The Mentaverse:How The Emergence of NFTs Have Disrupted The Fashion World AS We Know IT,Inaugural Volume of Southern University Law Center’s Journal of Intellectual Property,Technology & Law,2022.
(25)2023年2月8日,纽约联邦陪审团经过三天审议,采纳了原告提供的混淆可能性证据,通过调查证据、营销方式和贸易渠道认为被告行为并非纯粹的艺术创作而具有高度营利性,因此MetaBirkins NFTs不能受到第一修正案的言论自由保护,最终判决被告Rothschild构成商标侵权、商标淡化和非法抢注。参见Jury Finds Creator of Meta Birkins Liable Under Trademark Law,https://www.hklaw.com/en/insights/publications/2023/02/jury-finds-creator-of-metabirkins-liable-under-trademark-law.
(26)杭州互联网法院:《用户发布侵权NFT作品,“元宇宙”平台要担责吗?》,https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/IQwjcF_a5EoYdc5CFkaQpA.
(27)Boodle Hatfield,NFTs recognized as legal property in a landmark case,https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=a104ba83-01fe- 4b16-b988-b1d1873c6aa3.
(28)Nike,Inc.v.StockX LLC,No.1:22-cv-00983,Complaint,D.I.1 (S.D.N.Y.Feb.3,2022) ,https://unicourt.com/case/pc-db5-nike-inc-v-stockx-llc-1129410.
(29)Murray M D,Trademarks,NFTs,and the Law of the Metaverse.,Available at SSRN,2022.
基本信息:
DOI：10.16366/j.cnki.1000-2359.2024.01.09
中图分类号:D923.43
引用信息:
[1]胡光.虚拟环境商标保护问题研究——基于典型案例的分析[J].河南师范大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2024,51(01):61-67.DOI:10.16366/j.cnki.1000-2359.2024.01.09.
基金信息:
新乡市软科学项目(RKX2021005)
2024-01-05
2024-01-05
2024-01-05