CAJ | 학술논문

“微信商标案”的背后蕴含着商标权制度的财产“秩序”与商标价值创造的“效率”两种价值选择。抛开了财产“秩序”的商标价值创造只能是“野蛮”的“从林状态”。并不否认“微信商标案”中提出的商标申请注册需要考察“公共利益”，只是在申请注册制度下，申请人对申请阶段的商标标识具有财产上的意义，其对制度规则带来的稳定预期需要法律的维护。既然商标法规定创造“一定的影响”的使用须要在申请之前，就有必要保护法律的稳定性和这种稳定性带给公众的期待性利益。通过不当得利视角，可以看出“微信商标案”中所谓“公共利益”建立的基础不具有正当性。
“미신상표안”적배후온함착상표권제도적재산“질서”여상표개치창조적“효솔”량충개치선택。포개료재산“질서”적상표개치창조지능시“야만”적“종림상태”。병불부인“미신상표안”중제출적상표신청주책수요고찰“공공이익”，지시재신청주책제도하，신청인대신청계단적상표표식구유재산상적의의，기대제도규칙대래적은정예기수요법률적유호。기연상표법규정창조“일정적영향”적사용수요재신청지전，취유필요보호법률적은정성화저충은정성대급공음적기대성이익。통과불당득리시각，가이간출“미신상표안”중소위“공공이익”건립적기출불구유정당성。
Behind the Webchat Trademark Dispute Case, we see a debate between two values: order value and efficiency value. If we set aside the Property order, trademark value creation is going to be the disordered “jungle rule”. We don’t He does not deny the view that “public interest” should be considered in applications for trademark registration, which was put forward in Webchat Trademark Dispute Case. But under application registration system, the trademark during application stage has property significance to applicants; law should protect the people’s stabilizing expectations form the institutional rules. Since Trademark Law has been regulating that Trademark usage of creating some inlfuence should be before application, judges are expected to protect this stability of law and the expectations of interest from the stability. On the view of unjust enrichment, we can get the conclusion: the foundation of public interest in Webchat Trademark Dispute Case does not have the legitimacy.