商品与销售方式二分视角下不正当竞争行为的类型化  

Categorization of Unfair Competition Conduct under the Bifurcation of Goods and Selling Arrangements

作　　者：侯利阳[1] HOU Liyang(KoGuan School of Law,Shanghai Jiao Tong University,Shanghai 200030,China)

机构地区：[1]上海交通大学凯原法学院,上海200030

出　　处：《现代法学》2024年第4期38-52,共15页Modern Law Science

基　　金：国家社科基金重点项目“平台经济领域的反垄断与规制研究”(22AFX018)。

摘　　要：无论是2017年修订的《反不正当竞争法》,还是2022年的修订草案,均未解决不正当竞争行为的违法性认定问题,从而使得“互联网条款”呈现简单罗列司法判例的现象。我国人民法院将一般条款的保护客体明确为商业道德,并创设了非公益必要不干扰原则。该原则的理论来源是法益说,只能解释市场混淆、侵犯商业秘密、侵犯商誉等不正当竞争行为。我国学界尚未能从二分法的角度探讨不正当竞争行为的类型化方案。对于其他不正当竞争行为的梳理及比较研究表明,不正当竞争行为存在商品与销售方式的二分。前者保护长期经营商品所形成的法益,应当适用非公益必要不干扰原则;后者仅干扰他人特定的销售方式,原则上应当被允许,仅在公益例外时才可禁止。该类型化方案也可适用于互联网不正当竞争行为。Neither Anti-unfair Competition Law amended in 2017 nor the draft amendments released in 2022 established the categorical methods for unfair competition conduct,thus making the regulation of internet unfair competition merely summarizing judicial precedents.The judiciary has set the purpose of unfair competition law to protect business ethics,and developed the principle of no interference except for public interest.However,this principle can only explain three types of unfair competition conduct,namely,market confusion,trade secret and good will.The examination of other types of unfair competition conduct and the comparative study demonstrate that unfair competition conduct can be categorized based on the bifurcation of goods and selling arrangements.The former protects results from long-term business operation based on goods,and is thus subject to the principle of no interference except for public interest.The latter only interferes with particular selling arrangements,and should be in principle allowed and prohibited only in exceptional cases for public interest.Such an approach is also applicable to internet unfair competition.

关 键 词：不正当竞争 类型化 法益 一般条款 互联网条款 

分 类 号：DF414[政治法律—经济法学]