《电子商务法》下“恶意错误通知”认定标准研究  

The Criteria and Application of“Malicious Error Notification”under the E-commerce Law

作　　者：李超光 林秀芹 LI Chaoguang;LIN Xiuqin(Intellectual Property Research Institute, Xiamen University, Xiamen 361005, China)

机构地区：[1]厦门大学知识产权研究院,福建厦门361005

出　　处：《大连理工大学学报（社会科学版）》2020年第3期115-121,共7页Journal of Dalian University of Technology(Social Sciences)

基　　金：国家社会科学基金项目:“中国产业发展视域下的FRAND解释问题研究”(15AFX018)。

摘　　要：为规制权利人异化“通知”规则功能,平衡权利人、电商平台及平台内经营者利益,《电子商务法》第42条第3款首创性引入“恶意错误通知”概念并对其发出者要求承担“加倍赔偿责任”,然上述规定对“恶意”与“错误通知”概念语焉不详。为避免该条款在司法实践下被误用,澄清其含义及法理实有必要。文章在对“恶意”与其他过错形式比较并结合司法实践考量后认为,第3款之“恶意”是对具惩罚性质“加倍赔偿责任”的主观考量,应采取“明知+不正当竞争动机”标准;而“错误通知”则是对事实的陈述,其构成不应包含主观要件。In order to prevent the rights holder from alienating the“notice”rules and balance the interests of rights holders,e-commerce platforms and operators within the platform,Article 42(3)of the E-commerce Law,enacted in 2019,first introduced the concept of“malicious error notification”and imposed“double liability”on its issuer.But unfortunately,the concept of“malicious error notification”is not clear.To prevent this clause from being misapplied,it is necessary to clarify its meaning and its legal principles.By comparing the“malicious”with other forms of fault and drawing experiences from judicial practice,this paper believes that the“malicious”of Article 42(3),which is a subjective assessment of“double liability”,should adopt the“knowing+improper motivation”standard;As the“error notification”is a statement of facts,its composition does not include subjective elements.

关 键 词：电子商务法 恶意 过错 错误通知 

分 类 号：D920.5[政治法律—法学]