메뉴 건너뛰기
.. 내서재 .. 알림
소속 기관/학교 인증
인증하면 논문, 학술자료 등을  무료로 열람할 수 있어요.
한국대학교, 누리자동차, 시립도서관 등 나의 기관을 확인해보세요
(국내 대학 90% 이상 구독 중)
로그인 회원가입 고객센터 ENG
주제분류
인문학
인문학 일반 역사학 철학 종교학 어문학 기타 인문학
사회과학
사회과학 일반 경영학 관광학 교육학 군사학 문헌정보학 법학 사회학 신문방송학 심리과학 정치외교학 지리학 행정학 경제학 무역학 인류학 기타 사회과학
자연과학
자연과학 일반 물리학 생물학 생활과학 수학·통계학 천문학 지구과학 화학 기타 자연과학
공학
공학 일반 건축공학 기계공학 산업공학 재료·에너지공학 전기전자공학 조선해양공학 화학공학 컴퓨터학 기타공학
의약학
의학 일반 간호학 수의학 약학 한의학 기초의학 임상의학 기타 의약학
농수해양학
농수해양학 일반 농학 수산학 식품과학 임학 축산학 해상운송학 기타 농수해양학
예술체육학
예술 일반 디자인 미술 미용 사진 음악학 의상 체육 공연매체예술 기타 예술체육학
복합학
학제간연구 과학기술학 뇌인지과학 기술정책 기타 복합학

ENG

추천
검색

논문 기본 정보

자료유형
학술저널
저자정보
저널정보
원광대학교 법학연구소 원광법학 원광법학 제24권 제3호
발행연도
2008.1
수록면
333 - 354 (22page)

이용수

표지
📌
연구주제
📖
연구배경
🔬
연구방법
🏆
연구결과
AI에게 요청하기
추천
검색

초록· 키워드

오류제보하기
Parody is a defense to trademark infringement. The defense is that there is no likelihood of confusion because the parody will not be taken seriously. While it must initially bring to mind the original, it must be clever enough to be clear that it is not the original nor connected with the original, but is a parody, a humorous take-off on the original. In France, a trademark parody defence does succeed in certain cases on the grounds that consumers may not be confused with the original. Although parody is accepted as freedom of expression, it is not considered to override the trademark owner's rights, if the parody is used for purely commercial purposes. Commercial use of another's trademark is in all cases considered as an infringement and fair use defence is most unlikely to prevail. Even where a defendant uses another's trademark in a humorous way to promote his own products and services, it is not a permitted trademark parody use. Commercial use of another's trademark in the Internet context is similarly considered an infringement. However, in cases of editorial parody, where a trademark is utilised for the purposes of satirising even a popular and well-known trademark, there are chances of defence of fair use prevailing, despite claims of source confusion or dilution of the trademark. For a long time, logo parody on websites could not be envisaged by French courts. Trade marks were considered as "absolute" rights that no one could mock without being liable for infringement. A breach in that strict jurisprudence was first made in the "JeBoycotteDanone.com" appeal decision of 30 April 2003. Displaying a modified version of the famous Danone logo featuring a black stripe as a way to criticize the firm's social policy was deemed to be freedom of speech. Then Greenpeace's communication got under fire for two logo parodies found on its websites: the first one turned the oil company ESSO into E$$O and the second one added a human skull shadow and a dead fish behind Areva's capital A logo. Both cases got different outcomes in appeal. The association got the green light on the Esso parody (CA Paris, 16 November 2005). In Areva however, while the trade mark counterfeiting assertion was rejected, the court considered that the logo parodies denigrated the trade mark (CA Paris 17 November 2006): the association of the mark with morbid symbols would "lead to think that any product or service provided under said marks would be deadly"*, the court said. Such discredit, generalized to all products and services provided by Areva was deemed to go over the limit of "allowed freedom of speech". The court considered that by doing so Greenpeace went over its aim, i.e. struggling against nuclear wastes. A recent decision of the Cour de Cassation issued on 8 April 2008 has censured this part of the decision. The French supreme court ruled that Greenpeace was "acting pursuant to its aim, in a public interest and public health purpose, and by means that were proportionated to this goal" and therefore that Greenpeace had not abused its freedom of speech right.
#패러디 #패스티슈 #캐리커쳐 #표현의 자유 #혼동위험가능성 #상표침해. #Parody #Pastiche #Caricature #Freedom of expression #Liklihood of confusion #Trademark Infringement.

목차

등록된 정보가 없습니다.

참고문헌 (12)

참고문헌 신청
A. Fran?n / 1988 / Questions relatives aux parodies et productions similaires : Le droit d'auteur google schola Andr?R. Bertrand / 2000 / Le droit des marques et des signes distinctifs : CEDAT / Droit et pratique google schola C. Colombet / 1999 / Propri??litt?aire et artistique et droits voisins / Dalloz google schola Ch. Caron / 2006 / Droit d'auteur et droits voisins, Litec, manuel google schola E. Beau et S. Colombet / 1998 / absolu des signes distinctifs google schola

함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문

논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!

이 논문의 저자 정보

최근 본 자료

전체보기

댓글(0)

0