مسئولیت مدنی ناشی از آسیب (لطمه) به ویژگی تمایزبخشی علامت تجاری، مطالعه‌ تطبیقی در حقوق علائم تجاری آمریکا و ایران

استفاده از شهرت علامت تجاری توسط ثالث حتی برای کالایی متفاوت، سبب کاهش تمایزبخشی علامت مشهور یا در اصطلاح تضعیف آن است. آمریکا با پذیرش ترقیق به‌مثابه‌ نقض علامت، امکان دعوای تضعیف به‌عنوان سببی مستقل را تصدیق کرد. اتحادیه‌ اروپا اگرچه آسیب به تمایزبخشی را منع کرده است، لکن از پذیرش ترقیق به‌عنوان سببی مستقل، استنکاف می‌ورزد. در کشورهایی که دکترین ترقیق تصدیق نشده است، دارندگان علائم در فرض آسیب به تمایزبخشی، به‌منظور مطالبه‌ خسارات خود، ناگزیرند به قواعد عمومی مسئولیت مدنی استناد کنند. در حقوق علائم تجاری ایران این تاسیس حقوقی مورد شناسایی قانونگذار قرار نگرفته است. رویه‌ قضایی نیز فرصت اظهارنظر پیدا نکرده و دکترین مبهم است، زیرا به عموماتی چون قاعده‌ اتلاف، اکل مال به باطل، دارا شدن بلاجهت و ...استناد نموده و به نتایج متفاوت رسیده­­اند. نگارندگان قائل به ناکارامدی عمومات مزبور بوده و در تلاش‌اند ضمن ایضاح عدم شمول برخی موارد تضعیف ذیل آنها، لزوم پذیرش تضعیف به‌عنوان سببی مستقل جهت دعوای خسارت را توجیه کنند.

civil liability resulting from damage to the distinctiveness of a trademark: a comparative study in the us and iranian trademark law

the term dilution refers to the reduction in the ability of a famous mark to identify and distinguish the goods and services of that mark, even when the consumer does not think that the prior and new marks are related. delayed use of a famous mark is usually accomplished by weakening, i.e., gradually reducing or dispersing the mark’s &distinctiveness& and affecting the mental association of the general public with the mark through its use on non-competing goods. therefore, the distinctive character of the famous marks is subject to damage through derogatory actions.the use of the reputation of the trademark by a third party, even for a different product, causes a decrease in the distinctiveness of the famous mark or, so to speak, blurs it. by accepting the dilution as a violation of the trademark, the united states acknowledged the possibility of a lawsuit of blurring as an independent cause. although the european union has prohibited discrimination, it is reluctant to accept of doctrine of dilution as an independent cause. in the countries where the dilution doctrine has not been recognized, the owners of famous marks, in the assumption of damage to distinctiveness, are forced to refer to the general rules of civil liability to recover damages.countries have shown different reactions to the violation of the rights of the owners of famous trademarks and the granting of double rights to the owners of these types of marks and some of them finally, after much hesitation, openly accepted the doctrine of dilution.in iranian law, considering the non-acceptance of the dilution doctrine, the owner of a famous mark affected by another use has no choice but to appeal to the generality of civil liability, while the purpose of the legal regime governing marks, especially famous marks, is to grant double protection to the owners and maintain the legitimate monopoly. it is they who cannot achieve civil responsibility by resorting to public institutions.studying the legislative process and the judicial procedure of the countries that, after much delay, recognized the impairment as an independent reason for filing a lawsuit (especially the united states), clarifying the examination of the prohibition of free riding, unfair advantages, abuse, etc., none of them can cover all there are no blurring cases and it is not possible to demand damages and even prove the loss of the plaintiff by sticking to them.the authors believe that if through the general rules of civil liability, competition rights, free riding, and similar titles, it is possible to prove the responsibility of the detractor and compel him to compensate for the damage, there should be no doubt in its application.