警惕惩罚性赔偿在知识产权法领域的泛用——以商标法及其实践为例  

On the Prevention of Extensive Application of Punitive Damages in theField of IPR: Taking Trademark Law as an Example

作　　者：冯术杰[1] 夏晔 

机构地区：[1]清华大学法学院 [2]北京劳动保障职业学院

出　　处：《知识产权》2018年第2期42-48,共7页Intellectual Property

摘　　要：知识产权侵权赔偿额的确定应当以填平原则为基础,仅对恶意侵权行为适用惩罚性赔偿。在加大知识产权保护力度的政策背景下,惩罚性赔偿的适用有失宽泛。我国商标、专利和著作权法允许以侵权人的获利替代权利人的损失来计算赔偿额,而法定赔偿额的确定中也将侵权人的过错程度纳入考量,这都使得知识产权侵权赔偿额具有了一定的惩罚性。2013年《商标法》明确引入了三倍惩罚性赔偿规则,应以此为契机划清惩罚性赔偿与非惩罚性赔偿的界限,在有效打击恶意侵权的同时也应保护非恶意侵权人与商标侵权行为无因果关系的经济利益,避免商标侵权诉讼成为谋取他人正当利益的手段。The calculation of IPR infringement damages should be based on the actual loss of the right owner. Punitive damages are applied only to willful infringement. Against the policy backdrop of strengthening IP protection, the application of punitive damages seems to exceed the necessity. The Trademark Law, Patent Law and Copyright Law in China allow the calculation of damages by substituting the right owner’s loss with the infringer’s proft; and the statutory damages allows to consider the fault of the infringer, rendering a punitive nature to the IP infringement damages. The Trademark Law （2013） explicitly stipulates the treble punitive damages. It is necessary to draw a clear line between the punitive damages and non-punitive damages. While effectively cracking down the willful infringement, protection should also be given to the economic gains of no causal relationship with trademark infringement behavior committed by non-willful infringer. Trademark litigation should not be used as a means to seeking others’ legitimate interests.

关 键 词：商标侵权 知识产权损害赔偿 惩罚性赔偿 法定赔偿 填平原则 

分 类 号：D923.43[政治法律—民商法学]