商标指示性使用的认定
Determination of Trademark’s Indicative Use

商标指示性使用在我国的立法中尚未有明确的规定，但是在司法实践中已有大量法院依此作出了判决。指示性使用与叙述性使用一样，都是他人对注册商标的一种正当性使用，此类使用不会造成权利人权利的不合理限缩，能够带来交易的便捷。各法院在认定相似的案件时，出现了不同认定结果，问题集中在构成要件的确定、各要件举证责任的分配等。同时，学界指示性使用认定问题的讨论也一直未能有统一的结论，其分歧在于认定指示性使用是否需要参考使用人的主观状态，以及“不存在混淆可能性”是否为必要构成要件。所以，本文针对实践中出现的问题，以及现有的研究中出现的分歧进行研究，明确了混淆可能性不应作为前置要件，因此适宜的认定思路为：第一，针对来源性使用，先进行正品认定，再就使用环境确定必要限度，最后以使用手段是否合理决定是否认定构成指示性使用；第二，针对目的性使用，可以免去正品认定步骤。
The legislative framework in China has yet to explicitly define the concept of trademark “indicative use”, but judicial practice has seen numerous court decisions based on this notion. Indicative use, like descriptive use, is considered a legitimate use of a registered trademark by another party, one that does not unreasonably limit the rights of the trademark holder and facilitates trade convenience. In cases involving similar circumstances, courts have reached different conclusions, with key issues centering on determining the constituent elements, distributing the burden of proof, and so on. Meanwhile, academic discussions on the recognition of indicative use have not led to a unified conclusion. The primary point of contention is whether the subjective state of the user should be considered in identifying indicative use and whether “the absence of confusion likelihood” should be a necessary element in determining its existence. Therefore, this article examines the issues arising in practice and the differing views in existing research, clarifying that the likelihood of confusion should not be a prerequisite. The appropriate approach to identifying indicative use should be: First, for source-related use, determine the genuine nature of the product, then establish the necessary limits based on the context of use, and finally, decide whether it constitutes indicative use based on whether the means of use are reasonable; second, for purpose-related use, the step of determining genuine nature can be omitted.