知识产权禁令中双方当事人权益保护  

Protecting the Rights and Interests of Both Parities in the Injunction of Intellectual Property Protection

作　　者：傅郁林[1] FU Yulin(Law School,Peking University,Beijing 100080,China)

机构地区：[1]北京大学法学院,北京100080

出　　处：《现代法学》2023年第3期17-32,共16页Modern Law Science

摘　　要：知识产权禁令本是一项独立的、实体的诉讼请求,可视为我国的行为给付之诉。中间禁令区别于永久禁令的要义是救济的紧急性与效力的临时性,以及与之匹配的程序的简单性和证明标准的低阶性,但仍是针对实体争议展开的平等对抗。因此,针对是否发布禁令所进行的司法审查与裁判而对损害的“不可弥补性”和胜诉可能性的评估都是针对双方当事人的实体权益。作为停止/禁止侵权之诉的基本前提,申请禁令的一方须证明自己是知识产权的拥有者,换言之,无论诉求永久禁令或中间禁令甚或单方禁令均以权利成立为要件,但在满足紧急甚或加急的程序要件时,其证明标准低于终局禁令。同样,程序的规范性与救济的紧急性相匹配,但无论禁令程序被简化到何种程度,通知和听证作为底线的正当程序要件都不可或缺,尽管在适用单方禁令的情形下可以事后尽早举行,而这也决定了单方禁令的效力期间很短。我国法律将终局禁令与停止侵权的民事责任(实体性救济)对接,而将中间禁令和单方禁令与行为保全(程序性救济)对接,导致了源于英美衡平法的禁令救济共享的法律特征被割裂;我国民诉通说将实体性临时救济定义为程序性救济,进一步掏空了实体规范对于行为保全裁定权的支撑与限定;保全的制度功能原是为了防止将来判决不能执行或难以执行而采取的保全措施,因此其审查重点与防范风险的逻辑都是指向执行、裁判客体和证明对象都指向保障执行的财产和/或妨碍执行的行为,这种制度与理论惯性即使在我国行为保全制度照抄美国中间禁令四要件检验法之后,实践效果也仍在原有的制度逻辑上运行,甚而致使行为保全频繁沦为知识产权领域不正当竞争武器。Injunction of intellectual property protection is an independent,substantive claim,which can be treated as a claim of prestation.Provisional injunction is different from permanent injunction in the sense of urgency of relief and temporality of effect,as well as the matching procedure simplicity and low standard of proof,but it is still an equal confrontation against substantive disputes.Therefore,in the judicial review and judgment of whether to issue an injunction,the assessment of the“irremediability”of the damage and the possibility of success of the lawsuit is aimed at the substantive rights and interests of both parties.As the basic premise of stopping/injuncting infringement action,the party applying for injunction must prove that it is the owner of intellectual property.In other words,whether seeking permanent injunction,intermediate injunction or even unilateral injunction,the establishment of the right is the prerequisite,but when meeting the urgent or even urgent procedural requirements,the standard of proof is lower than that of final injunction.Similarly,the normative nature of the procedure is matched by the urgency of the relief,but no matter how simplified the injunction process is,the due process requirements of notice and hearing as the bottom line are indispensable,although in the case of unilateral injunctions it can be held as early as possible afterwards,which also determines the short duration of the unilateral injunctions.Chinese law connects final injunction with civil liability for stopping infringement(substantive relief),and interlocutory injunction and unilateral injunction with act preservation(procedural relief),which results in the separation of the legal features of sharing injunctive relief derived from Anglo-American equity law.Chinese jurists define provisional substantive relief as procedural relief,further empties the support and limitation of substantive norms on the adjudication power of injunction.Even after China’s act preservation system copied America’s four test

关 键 词：禁令 知识产权 先予执行 行为保全 预防性侵权 

分 类 号：DF72[政治法律—诉讼法学]