论错误通知的法律规制--以请求权基础为中心  

Legal Regulation of False Notice:Centering on the Basis of Claims

作　　者：王迁[1] 吴俊儒 Wang Qian;Wu Junru(East China University of Political Science and Law,Shanghai 200042,China)

机构地区：[1]华东政法大学知识产权学院,上海200042

出　　处：《科技与法律（中英文）》2024年第6期54-64,共11页Science Technology and Law（Chinese-English Version）

基　　金：国家社会科学基金重大项目“媒体融合中的版权理论与运用研究”(19ZDA330)。

摘　　要：实践中关于规制错误通知行为的请求权基础呈现同案不同判的现象,大体分为适用反不正当竞争法商业诋毁条款、反法一般条款、民法侵权规范、电子商务法错误通知条款四类。商业诋毁条款无法作为规制错误通知的请求权基础,因通知行为不符合商业诋毁的“传播”要件,亦不宜将下架、删除等损害结果的公开视为传播。《反不正当竞争法》一般条款要求“违反公认的商业道德”要件,仅适用于规制恶意的错误通知。民法侵权规范适于规制全类型的错误通知行为,且与竞争法规范在恶意通知范畴内构成竞合。《电子商务法》错误通知条款因缺少相应的罚则条款而无法作为单独的请求权基础,其价值在于规定电商领域对恶意通知的惩罚性赔偿。In practice,there exists a phenomenon of inconsistent judicial decisions regarding the basis of claims for false notices.These claims fall into four categories:provision of defamation,general provision of anti-unfair competi⁃tion law,tort regulations,and e-commerce law regulations.The provision of defamation cannot serve as a claim basis for the reason that such notices do not meet the requirement of"public dissemination"of defamation acts,and the dis⁃close of damages such as take-down should not be regarded as"public dissemination"of false information.The general provision of anti-unfair competition law requires violation of"recognized commercial ethics",which can only apply to malicious false notice.Meanwhile tort regulations are suitable for regulating all types of false notices and can be ap⁃plied concurrently,within the scope of malicious notices,with anti-unfair competition regulations.The e-commerce law clause of false notices cannot be used as a standalone claim basis due to the lack of corresponding penalty provi⁃sions,while its value lies in stipulating punitive compensation for malicious notices in e-commerce law.

关 键 词：错误通知 请求权基础 商业诋毁 恶意通知 通知-必要措施 

分 类 号：DF414[政治法律—经济法学]