نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی
نویسندگان
1 استاد گروه حقوق خصوصی و اسلامی دانشکدۀ حقوق و علوم سیاسی دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران.
2 دانشجوی دکتری حقوق نفت و گاز، دانشکدۀ حقوق و علوم سیاسی دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران.
چکیده
کلیدواژهها
عنوان مقاله [English]
نویسندگان [English]
Introduction
The protection of trademarks in relation to non-identical goods and services represents one of the most controversial expansions of modern trademark law. Traditionally, trademark protection was grounded in the principle of specialty, under which exclusive rights were limited to specific goods and services for which a mark was registered. This principle is rooted in the core function of trademarks, namely the indication of commercial origin and the prevention of consumer confusion.
However, since the mid-twentieth century, comparative legal systems have gradually expanded trademark protection beyond identical or similar goods, particularly in relation to well-known marks. Both the United States and the European Union have developed a dilution doctrine that allows protection of famous marks even in the absence of confusion regarding origin.
In contrast, Article 96(7) of the Iranian Industrial Property Protection Act introduces a broader framework, extending protection to both famous and non-famous marks in relation to dissimilar goods and services, based on two alternative grounds: likelihood of confusion or harm to the prior trademark owner. This essay adopts a descriptive-analytical method and comparative approach to examine whether this provision aligns with the economic and doctrinal foundations of modern trademark law, particularly in the United States and the European Union.
Method
This research is conducted using a descriptive-analytic methodology combined with a comparative legal approach. The study relies on library-based sources, including doctrinal writings, judicial precedents, and legislative frameworks from the United States, European Union, and Iran.
First, the paper examines the historical evolution of trademark protection for non-identical goods in U.S. law, focusing on the development of dilution by blurring and tarnishment and the expansion of the sponsorship confusion doctrine. Key scholarly contributions and landmark cases are analyzed to clarify the conceptual boundaries of protection.
Second, the European Union's approach is reviewed, particularly under Directives and regulations, highlighting the concept of unfair advantage as distinct from dilution-based harm.
Finally, the Iranian provision is critically evaluated against these comparative standards to determine whether its scope is consistent with the economic rationale of trademark protection or leads to an unjustified expansion of exclusive rights.
Conclusion
The comparative analysis demonstrates that in both the U.S and the European Union, protection of trademarks in relation to dissimilar goods is strictly limited to well-known or reputed marks. Such protection is primarily justified under dilution theory or, in limited cases, sponsorship confusion. Importantly, non-famous marks do not benefit from protection against use on unrelated goods, as such protection lacks doctrinal and economic justification.
In contrast, Article 96(7) appears to extend protection beyond these established boundaries. The provision, as literally interpreted, allows both well-known marks to be protected against use on dissimilar goods based on either consumer confusion or harm to the trademark owner's interests. This interpretation significantly expands the scope of trademark rights and deviates from comparative legal standards.
The study concludes that such an expansive reading is inconsistent with the principles of trademark law and may lead to unjustified monopolization of market symbols without consumer benefits. Therefore, a restrictive interpretation is proposed. The first interpretive approach suggests replacing the disjunctive "or" with a conjunctive "and", thereby limiting protection to well-known marks that are both recognized and registered. The second approach introduces an implicit limitation restricting harm to interest protection exclusively to well-known marks.
Ultimately, the article recommends legislative or regulatory clarification to align Article 96(7) with internationally accepted standards, ensuring a balanced equilibrium between trademark exclusivity and public domain interests.
کلیدواژهها [English]
)