商标隐性使用行为是指市场经营者购买竞价排名服务，将他人拥有商标权的商标设为搜索关键词，消费者搜索这些关键词时，市场经营者本人的网页链接会出现在结果中。这种使用行为给市场经营者带来利益的同时，也引发了大量的法律纠纷。理论分析与实证考察发现，理论界和实务界对该行为的法律性质存在两点争议。其一，在《商标法》视野下，该行为是否构成“商标性使用”、是否具有“混淆可能性”，于此没有形成统一的观点。其二，在《反不正当竞争法》框架下，该行为能否适用第六条市场混淆行为、或者第十二条互联网专条行为的兜底条款，也存在较大争议，能否以第二条一般条款对该行为作兜底性的规制更是说法不一。

商标隐性使用行为不应构成《商标法》视野下的侵权。其理由在于：在该行为中，商标没有起到识别功能，因此不构成商标性使用。同时，消费者对商品或服务的来源并未产生混淆误认。商标隐性使用行为也不满足《反不正当竞争法》第六条市场混淆行为和第十二条互联网专条行为兜底条款适用的条件，因此并不构成具体不正当竞争行为。

在运用《反不正当竞争法》一般条款对商标隐性使用行为进行合理性考察时，应当采用利益衡量的方式，避免将交易机会等经营者利益上升到专有权利来保护，也要避免根据“搭便车”理论一刀切式的直接否定行为的正当性。对市场经营者、消费者、竞价排名服务提供者三方利益进行综合衡量，并考虑竞争秩序的影响以及市场竞争的保护。商标隐性使用行为在合理范围内使用时，并未对商标权人的利益造成显著损害，未明显弱化商标权人与其商标之间的联系，也并未给消费者带来过多的检索困扰。相反，它为消费者提供了更多的选择空间，为市场带来了更多的活力和竞争。商标隐性使用行为具有合理性，不应被认定为不正当竞争行为。

The implicit use of trademarks refers to market operators purchasing bidding ranking services and using trademarks owned by others as search keywords. When consumers search for these keywords, the website links of the market operators themselves will appear in the results. This usage behavior not only brings benefits to market operators, but also triggers a large number of legal disputes. Theoretical analysis and empirical investigation have found that there are two controversies between the theoretical and practical circles regarding the legal nature of this behavior. Firstly, from the perspective of the Trademark Law, there is no unified view on whether this behavior constitutes "trademark use" and whether it has the possibility of "confusion". Secondly, under the framework of the Anti Unfair Competition Law, there is also a great dispute about whether this act can be applied to the bottom line provisions of Article 6 Market Confusion Act or Article 12 Internet Special Act. Whether this act can be comprehensively regulated by the second general provision is even more controversial.

The implicit use of trademarks should not constitute infringement within the scope of the Trademark Law. The reason is that in this line, the trademark does not serve a recognition function and therefore does not constitute trademark use. At the same time, consumers have not confused or misunderstood the source of goods or services. The implicit use of trademarks also does not meet the conditions for the application of Article 6 "Market confusion" and Article 12 "Internet specific conduct disclosure" of the Anti Unfair Competition Law, so it does not constitute a specific act of unfair competition.

When using the general provisions of the Anti Unfair Competition Law to examine the rationality of the implicit use of trademarks, a method of measuring interests should be adopted to avoid elevating the interests of operators such as transaction opportunities to exclusive rights for protection, and to avoid directly denying the legitimacy of the behavior based on the "free riding" theory. Comprehensively weigh the interests of market operators, consumers, and bidding ranking service providers, and consider the impact of competitive order and the protection of market competition. When the implicit use of a trademark is used within a reasonable range, it does not cause significant harm to the interests of the trademark owner, does not significantly weaken the connection between the trademark owner and its trademark, and does not bring too many retrieval difficulties to consumers. On the contrary, it provides consumers with more choices and brings more vitality and competition to the market. The implicit use of trademarks is reasonable and should not be recognized as unfair competition.