商标间接侵权制度论要  

A Systematization of the Trademark Indirect Infringement Regime

作　　者：蔡元臻 Cai Yuanzhen

机构地区：[1]同济大学法学院

出　　处：《环球法律评论》2023年第5期89-106,共18页Global Law Review

基　　金：2022年国家社会科学基金后期资助暨优秀博士论文项目“专利间接侵权制度研究”(20FFXB033)的阶段性研究成果。

摘　　要：我国商标间接侵权治理尽管有相关条款可依,但是在学理逻辑和体系构筑方面都存在明显不足,尚难称之为一项制度。《商标法》第57条中的非法印制标识条款和帮助侵权条款构成了间接侵权法规的实质内容,但是存在行为界定模糊、体系结构混乱、实用主义立法过度等缺陷。商标间接侵权的构成要件包含间接行为、主观故意和直接侵权,三项要件的学理阐释和司法适用,对法治效果具有重大影响。商标间接侵权法律责任中最值得深究的问题应是惩罚性赔偿的适用,对间接侵权人单独适用惩罚性赔偿应当坚持避免全面赔偿和有限重复惩罚两项原则。总体上,我国商标间接侵权制度需要兼顾形式主义立法的体系性、司法效果的务实性以及保护力度的进取性。China's trademark indirect infringement rule is not sufficient in theoretical logic and systematic construction to be viewed as a regime.Art.57 of the current Trademark Law covers indirect infringement,yet its model is flawed in three aspects:firstly,it blurs the boundary between indirect and direct infringements,secondly,it obstructs the implementation of the trademark infringement system,and thirdly,it leads to the coercion of legislative reasoning by the pragmatism of law,thus deviating from the essence of trademark infringement theory.The constituent elements of trademark indirect infringement generally include indirect act,subjective intent,and direct infringement,the theoretical interpretation and judicial application of which would considerably impact the effectiveness of the rule of law.The satisfaction of the indirect act element should be determined by using the"supply of substantive convenience"as a strict criterion.The current categorization of contributory acts lacks a basic pattern,hence is overly repetitive and miscellaneous,and accompanied by the potential judicial risk of extensive interpretation of contributory infringement.The"unlawful printing of marks"clause,although its independent existence does not seem to have much significance,can set an important example for the drafting of the"trademark indirect infringement provision"in the future.In terms of the satisfaction of the subjectivity element,we should take the"intentional action criterion"as the bottom line of trademark indirect infringement and limit the concept of intention to"direct intention"only.The"subjective fault criterion"can be applied to cyberspace managers and trademark printers as an exception.For the satisfaction of the direct infringement element,the actual existence of direct infringement is no longer an absolute judicial rule and can be downgraded to a"quasi-element".Differentiating indirect infringement and joint tort is not only feasible but also gives independent legal significance to the indirect infringement regime.Th

关 键 词：商标法 商标间接侵权 非法印制标识 帮助侵权 惩罚性赔偿 

分 类 号：D923.43[政治法律—民商法学]