商标混淆可能性理论是商标侵权规则的核心,对其研究应以解释论和立法论为线索,总结现有商标侵权认定司法实践经验。我国商标侵权构成在法理上和法适用上均存有疑点,导致了诸如“定牌加工”案件司法审理困境。我国《商标法》第52条应从构成模式、混淆内涵、司法认定以及立法技术等方面进行修改。在构成模式上应以混淆可能性为唯一要件,不再区分“以混淆为要件的商标侵权”和“不以混淆为要件的商标侵权”。在混淆内涵上,应在比较研究基础上对现行司法解释相关规定进行总结,将来源混淆和联属混淆的规定法条化。在关于混淆可能性的司法认定上,应参酌“商标知名度”、“商标近似程度”、“商品或者服务类似程度”等案件事实因素综合认定;“在相同商品或服务上使用相同商标,推定具有混淆的可能性”。由于商标侵权条款以混淆可能性为唯一要件,在理论上和逻辑上当然包括售前混淆、售中混淆、售后混淆和反向混淆,司法实践中已经开始采用售前混淆、售后混淆和反向混淆理论。在立法技术上,则应区分商标直接侵权和间接侵权,在直接侵权条款的设计上采取“一般条款+类型化”的方式。 The theory of the possibility of trademark confusion is the core of the trademark infringement rules. Its research should take the explanation theory and the legislation as the clue, and sum up the judicial experience of the existing trademark infringement. The constitution of trademark infringement in our country is doubtful on the jurisprudence and the application of law, which leads to the dilemma of judicial trial of cases such as “brand processing ”. Article 52 of China’s “Trademark Law” should be revised from the aspects of composition mode, confusion connotation, judicial determination and legislative technology. The compositional model should be based on the possibility of confusion as the sole requirement and no longer distinguish between “infringement of trademark infringement” and “non-infringement of trademark infringement”. On the connotation of confusion, we should summarize the relevant provisions of current judicial interpretation on the basis of comparative study, and normalize the provisions of source confusion and affiliations confusion. In judging the possibility of confusion, we should take into account the factual factors such as the “trademark’s popularity”, “the degree of trademark similarity”, “the degree of similarity of the goods or the service”, etc. “ Use the same trademark, presuming the possibility of confusion ”. Because of the possibility of confusion as the sole requirement of trademark infringement provisions, of course, in theory and logic, of course, including pre-sale confusion, sales confusion, after-sales confusion and reverse confusion, judicial practice has begun to use pre-sales confusion, after-sales confusion and reverse Confusion theory. In the legislative technology, we should distinguish between direct infringement and indirect infringement of trademark, and take the form of “general clause + type” in the design of the direct infringement clause.