& ltp& gt& ltp& gt& ltp& gt& ltp& gt        功能性原则是商标法中的一项重要原则。其作为判断商标注册的绝对条件之一，是判断商标合法性与可注册性的重要标准。功能性原则旨在通过对包含商品本身实际功能的商标予以法律上的否定，从而有效预防利用商标注册实现技术垄断的行为，并在一定程度上化解商标法与专利法间的冲突。& lt/p& gt & ltp& gt       美学功能性原则是美国知识产权司法领域中对功能性原则的进一步细分与运用。经过不断实践，该原则已对美国的商标法制度产生较大影响，改变了人们对商标法中传统的功能性原则的理解与认识。但是，美学功能性原则理论基础薄弱，自身存在诸多矛盾之处；实践中，司法机关对该原则的看法不一，运用标准各异，给商标法制度的逻辑构建和司法实践带来了困惑与混乱。因此，有必要探究美学功能性原则的法律本质，指出该原则存在的缺陷与弊端，以引导人们重新正确理解商标功能性原则的真实含义与内在价值。& lt/p& gt & ltp& gt        本文旨在全面质疑美学功能性原则存在的合理性。文章以美学功能性原则的源头&mdash&mdash美国法为中心视角，结合相关典型案例，详尽考察美学功能性原则的产生与历史演进，从而全面解读该原则的内在逻辑，指出该原则所暴露出的问题与弊端。本文也试图提出限制乃至摒弃美学功能性原则的主要理由，促使人们对美学功能性原则进行更为冷静、理性的认知与思考。最后，文章将简要陈述美学功能性原则可能给中国商标法制度带来的影响与启示，以促使学界与实务界能够正确理解商标法的核心价值与目的，为商标法理论与制度的健康发展提供有益参考。& lt/p& gt& lt/p& gt& lt/p& gt& lt/p& gt

& ltp& gt& ltp& gt& ltp& gt& ltp& gtFunctionality doctrine plays an important role in the theory of trademark law. It effectively prevents technological monopoly based on registered trademarks by denying the registration of the trademarks that include actual function of products and partly alleviates the conflict between trademark law and patent law. Aesthetic functionality doctrine, on the other hand, is a more detailed and concrete division of functionality doctrine initiated and developed by the American intellectual property law. Through years of practicing and renewing, aesthetic functionality has produced a great impact on the American trademark law and changed people&rsquos understanding of traditional trademark functionality doctrine. Meanwhile, it never overcomes the problem that aesthetic functionality, the theory itself, was born with an extremely weak theoretical foundation and nurtured with paradoxes and contradictions. In the United States, courts and other judicial organs have barely reached a consensus on the interpretation and application standards of aesthetic functionality doctrine and this doctrine involuntarily adds more puzzles and confusions to the inner logic and fundamental values of trademark law as well as the judicial practice of intellectual property law. Therefore, it is the time for us to reexamine the legitimacy of aesthetic functionality doctrine and to point out its flaws and disadvantages, which may lead us back to the right track of understanding the axiology of trademark functionality doctrine and the value basis of trademark law. Thus, the ambition of this paper is to all sidedly query the validity of aesthetic functionality doctrine. Based on typical cases and judgments, this paper will firstly give a thorough investigation on the birth and development of aesthetic functionality doctrine in the context of the American law and then it will analyze why aesthetic functionality doctrine should be greatly limited or even abandoned from both theoretical and practical perspective of law. Finally, the paper will briefly discuss how China should deal with aesthetic functionality doctrine and why China should not adopt such a rule at large. In this way, this paper hopes to bring a more solid and comprehensive argument on the abandonment of aesthetic functionality and urge people to have a more sensible understanding of the real role of trademark functionality doctrine and to understand what kind of the values trademark law should and should not pursue. This paper also tries to be as a useful reference for both academic and practical circles to lead a right and healthy way for the development of trademark law theory and intellectual property law.  & lt/p& gt& lt/p& gt& lt/p& gt& lt/p& gt

[1] 杜颖.商标法中的功能性原则——以美国法为中心的初步分析[J].比较法研究, 2009,（1）：122.

[2] 阮开欣.美国商标法中美学功能性规则的消亡及其启示——以Betty Boop案为视角[J].中华商标，2012（11）：70.

[3] 王太平.商标法——原理与案例[M].北京：北京大学出版社，2015：1-2.

[4] 刘跃敏.论法律术语的特征[J].政法学刊，1999（2）：39-41.

[5] 朱晓娟.论商标法上的美学功能性[D].重庆：西南政法大学硕士论文，2014.

[6] 湛茜.非传统商标国际注册问题研究[D].上海：复旦大学博士论文，2012.

[7] 张爱国.以美国司法实践为例探讨商标的美学功能限制[J].中华商标，2013.（5）：39-42.

[8] 凌宗亮.论立体商标的非功能性——兼谈我国《商标法》第12条的完善[J].电子知识产权，2010.（3）：19-27.

[9] Allison Midei, “Getting to Functional: Limiting the Applicability of the Trademark Aesthetic Functionality Doctrine”, AIPLA Quarterly Journal, Vol. 41, No.3, Summer, 2013.

[10] Anne Gilson LaLonde, Gilson on Trademarks § 2A.04. & #40Matthew Bender 2012).

[11] Anthony L. Fletcher, “The Paradox of Aesthetic Functionality” Trademark Reporter, Vol.103, No.3, 2014.

[12] Charles E. Colman, “A Red-Leather Year for Aesthetic Functionality,” Landslide, Vol.4, No. 2, November-December 2011.

[13] Deborah J. Krieger, “The Broad Sweep of Aesthetic Functionality: A Threat to Trademark Protection of Aesthetic Product Features”, 51 Fordham Law Review 345, 1982-1983.

[14] J. Thomas McCarthy, McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition §§ 7: 67-83 & #40West 2014).

[15] Justin Hughes, “Cognitive and Aesthetic Functionality in Trademark Law” 36 Cardozo Law Review 1227, 2014-2015.

[16] Mark P. McKenna, “The Normative Foundations of Trademark Law”, 82 Notre Dame Law Review 1839, 2007.

[17] Michael S. Míreles, Jr., “Aesthetic Functionality”, 21 Texas Intellectual Property Law Journal 155, 2013.

[18] Mitchell M. Wong, “The Aesthetic Functionality Doctrine and Law of Trade Dress Protection,” Cornell Law Review, May, 1998.

[18] Noa Tal, “Aesthetic Functionality-Trademark Law’s Red Herring Doctrine”, Texas Intellectual Property Law Journal, Vol.22 No.1, 2013.

[19] Sarah Hopkins, “Aesthetic Functionality: A Monster The Court Created but Could not Destroy”

The Trademark Reporter, Vol.102, No.5, 2012.