我国知识产权停止侵害请求权限制的法律原则  

Principles for Limiting Injunctive Relief for Infringement on Intellectual Property under Chinese Laws

作　　者：何怀文[1] 陈如文 

机构地区：[1]浙江大学光华法学院,浙江杭州310008

出　　处：《浙江大学学报（人文社会科学版）》2015年第2期133-150,共18页Journal of Zhejiang University:Humanities and Social Sciences

基　　金：中央高校基本科研业务费专项资金资助;浙江省"之江青年社科学者"配套课题(203102+S21301);浙江大学"985工程"专项资金资助(103000*193215501/013)

摘　　要：主流学说认为,知识产权请求权是类物权请求权,侵权即应适用停止侵害。这种类推是知识产权物权化的表现,容易使知识产权保护过强而不符合社会经济生活。本质上,知识产权停止侵害请求权是知识产权侵权之债的内容。知识产权侵权行为可造就独特的事实状态,不仅牵涉知识产权人和侵权行为人的利益,而且可能卷入第三人利益和公共利益。法院应基于侵权的具体情况,综合考虑原被告对侵权发生的过错,平衡各方利益,公平地确定知识产权侵权之债的具体履行方式,采用灵活的措施修复侵权损害的社会关系,不应机械地判处侵权人停止侵害。在知识产权法无相反规定的情况下,我国法院应类推适用民法有关债之履行的一般法律规范,在特殊情况下不判处知识产权侵权行为人停止侵害,改为责令其赔偿权利人损失和采取适当的补救措施来实现充分救济。Conventionally, intellectual property rights （IPR） are regarded as “property” and injunctive relief is required as automatical when infringement occurs, just like trespass upon property. This approach, however, would make intellectual property rights disproportionally strong and remedies improperly rigid. While intellectual property rights are absolute and can be asserted against anyone in the world, infringement does not happen in this highly generalized way. Rather, IPR infringement involves the interests of the IPR holder, the infringer, third parties and the public. When formulating remedies for IPR infringement, it is not always a good idea to permit injunctive relief regardless of the interests other than those of the IPR holder. In fact, injunctive relief is not the only and sole remedy for trespass upon real property. It should be noted that the creation of a right is distinct from the provision of remedies for violations of that right. When considering injunctive relief, courts should weigh all material interests with a view to remedying the legal order harmed by the infringement. Where courts lose sight of the big picture and allow permanent injunctions mechanically, IPR enforcement runs the risk of unmooring from the genius of IPR laws. The denial of injunctive relief, unlike compulsory licensing, statutory licensing and exceptions to IPRs, is not equal to confining the IPR involved. This relief should be denied where the enforcement would cause the infringer or the public to suffer harm disproportional to possible benefits to the right holder. In those cases, pecuniary damages along with corrective measures can be sufficient to remedy the IPR infringed. In this event, the interests of the IPR involved is not confined but fully recognized. Only the way to make it whole again is changed, not through injunctive relief, but through creative measures. Under the Chinese legal system, IPRs are not subsumed to the property paradigm. Statutorily speaking, courts are not required to allow injunctive

关 键 词：知识产权侵权 知识产权停止侵害请求权 赔偿损失 补救措施 权利失效 

分 类 号：D923.2[政治法律—民商法学] D923.4[政治法律—法学]