商业诋毁类型化研究

发布时间：2018-06-06 20:52

本文选题：商业诋毁 + 构成要件　；参考：《华东政法大学》2015年硕士论文

【摘要】：我国《反不正当竞争法》第14条明确规定:“经营者不得捏造、散布虚伪事实,损害竞争对手的商业信誉、商品声誉。”基于该条的规定,一直以来我国的司法实践在认定是否构成商业诋毁不正当竞争时,往往固守虚伪事实的桎梏,重点考察行为人所传播、散布的内容是否属于虚伪事实,如果不存在虚伪事实那么也就不存在商业诋毁的可能。但是近来最高人民法院在腾讯诉奇虎的不正当竞争案中对商业诋毁的认定标准进行了重新的界定,其认为是否构成商业诋毁其根本要件是相关经营者之行为是否以误导方式对竞争对手的商业信誉或者商品声誉造成了损害。就片面陈述真实的事实而贬损他人商誉的情形而言,由于其片面性和不准确性,足以导致相关消费者对相关商品产生错误认识,进而影响消费者的决定,并对竞争对手的商品声誉或者商业信誉产生负面影响,损害竞争者的利益。虽然我国学界普遍认可传播、散布基于客观事实的不当说法可以构成商业诋毁。但是最高院的前述判决第一次在司法层面上认可片面传播真实说法的情形可以构成商业诋毁,实在值得欣慰。基于反不正当竞争法第14条的禁止性规定,并没有对什么是商业诋毁作出明确的界定。全国各地法院在司法实践中依据该条文而衍生的商业诋毁的构成认定五花八门,缺乏统一的标准。由此本文第一部分重点对商业诋毁的构成要件进行了探讨。笔者仔细筛选整理了近五年来我国法院司法实务中关于商业诋毁的典型案例,以期在司法文书的直白中探寻商业诋毁的真义。通过梳理司法实例、研读司法裁判文书后,笔者发现,目前我国各地法院在认定商业诋毁是否构成时主要关注的焦点有四个,分别是“竞争关系”、“虚伪事实”、“主观过错”和“损害结果”。针对这四个焦点问题笔者分别归纳整理了司法实务中的现实做法,并在现实做法的基础上展开了反思。从“竞争关系”的角度界定了商业诋毁的构成主体不应仅局限于具有直接竞争关系的经营者之间,具有广义竞争关系的经营者之间也存在商业诋毁的可能;从“虚伪事实”的角度明确了对外散布、传播虚伪事实只是构成诋毁的一种情形;从“主观过错和损害结果”的角度厘清了承担损害赔偿责任构成要件与承担停止侵害责任构成要件之间的区别。在厘清司法实践中商业诋毁认定诸多困惑的基础上,笔者认为商业诋毁的构成要件应该有四:(1)主体层面——存有竞争目的的经营者之间,经营者与其竞争对手的界定不以狭义竞争关系存在为限;(2)行为层面——存在对外传播、散布诋毁言论的行为;(3)损害层面——对竞争对手的商誉造成了损害,此处的损害不要求实际的损害;(4)因果关系层面——行为人的诋毁行为与竞争对手的损害之间具备相当的因果关系。在明确商业诋毁不正当竞争的构成要件后,笔者在第二部分针对司法实践中难以准确把握的诋毁行为的认定以及商业信誉受损的认定进行了深入的探讨。针对诋毁行为的认定笔者结合现实生活中已经存在的诋毁情形抽象概括出了“不利且不必要”的诋毁行为认定标准。“不利且不必要标准”是指当行为人对外传播、散布的关于竞争对手的说法,其内容是对竞争对手不利,容易引起消费者反感的内容,此外其传播、散布这一说法没有竞争的必要,不符合公平竞争的范畴,如果符合这两个要件即可认为某一说法是具有诋毁性质的。针对损害结果的认定,笔者详细分析了最高院在前述腾讯与奇虎不正当竞争案中提出的“误导标准”,笔者认为该标准对于商业信誉受损的把握具有重大意义。从消费者是否受到误导的视角判断商业信誉是否受损符合商业信誉保护的客观实际,形象的说所谓的商业信誉就是使得明天的生意不再基于可能,消费者因误导而产生的消费抉择的转移是对商业信誉最根本的否定,对于消费者认知的界定应以具有一般注意力的普通消费者群体为宜。第三部分在明确界定好商业诋毁构成要件以及各构成要件的认定标准后,笔者对现实生活中常见的商业言论依据其是基于客观事实的陈述还是基于主观意见的评论还是无中生有的捏造划分为三类,进而针对不同类型的商业言论以商业诋毁的构成要件标准进行检验判断其是否构成商业诋毁。最后针对不同类型的商业诋毁情形的请求权基础进行了探讨,排除了适用反不正当竞争法一般条款予以调整的可能,希冀对《反不正当竞争法》第14条予以修改完善。
[Abstract]:The fourteenth article of China's "Anti Unfair Competition Law" clearly stipulates that "operators must not fabricate, distribute false facts, damage competitors' commercial reputation and commodity reputation." based on the provisions of this article, the judicial practice of our country has always adhered to the shackles of hypocrisy when it is identified as to constitute an unfair competition for commercial defamation. Whether the content of the perpetrator is spread is a false fact. If there is no false fact, there is no possibility of commercial defamation. But recently the Supreme People's court has redefined the standard of commercial defamation in the unfair competition case of Tencent v. Qihoo. The important element is whether the behavior of the operator is misleading to the commercial reputation of the competitor or the reputation of the commodity. In the case of a one-sided statement of the true facts and derogating the goodwill of others, due to its one-sided and inaccurate, it can cause the related consumer to misunderstand the related goods and then affect the consumption. The decision of a person has a negative impact on the competitor's commercial reputation or commercial reputation, which damages the interests of the competitors. Although the academic community generally recognised the dissemination, the dissemination of impersonal statements based on objective facts can constitute a commercial defamation. But the first judgment of the Supreme Court has first recognized the one-sided dissemination of true statements at the judicial level. It is a great relief that the situation can constitute a commercial defamation. Based on the prohibition of the fourteenth article of the anti unfair competition law, there is no clear definition of what is a commercial defamation. The constitution of commercial defamation derived from the provisions of this provision in judicial practice throughout the country is varied and lacks unified standards. Some of the key elements of the commercial defamation are discussed. The author carefully selects and collates the typical cases of commercial defamation in the judicial practice of the court in recent five years, in order to explore the true meaning of commercial defamation in the direct judicial documents. After combing the judicial examples and studying the judicial documents, the author finds that at present, There are four main concerns in the courts of China in determining whether commercial defamation is made up. They are "competitive relationship", "false fact", "subjective fault" and "result of damage". In view of these four focus problems, the author collated the practical practice in judicial practice, and carried out a Reflection on the basis of practical practice. From the point of view of "competitive relationship", the main body of commercial defamation should not be confined to operators with direct competitive relationship, and the possibility of commercial defamation between operators with broad competitive relations is also possible. From the angle of "subjective fault and the result of damage", it clarifies the difference between the constitutive requirements of the liability for damages and the constitutive requirements of the responsibility for the cessation of the infringement. On the basis of clarifying the confusion of the commercial defamation in judicial practice, the author thinks that the constitutive requirements of commercial defamation should be four: (1) the main body level Between the operators of the competitive purpose, the definition of the operator and its competitors is not limited to the existence of the narrow competitive relationship; (2) the behavior level - the existence of foreign communication, the behavior of disparaging speech; (3) the damage level - causing damage to the goodwill of the competitors, the damage of this place does not require actual damage; (4) causality level - There is a considerable causal relationship between the defamation behavior of the actor and the damage of the competitor. After defining the elements of the unfair competition of commercial defamation, the author deeply discusses the identification of the defamation behavior which is difficult to accurately grasp in the second part of the judicial practice and the identification of the damage of commercial reputation. The author abstracts the standard of "disadvantageous and unnecessary" defamation. "Unfavorable and unnecessary standard" means that when the perpetrator is spreading to the outside world, it is scattered about the competitor's statement, which is disadvantageous to the competitor and causes the consumer's repugnance easily. In addition to its dissemination, the dissemination of this statement is not necessary for competition and does not conform to the category of fair competition. If it is in conformity with these two elements, a certain statement is defamed. In view of the identification of the results of the damage, the author analyzes the "misleading standard" proposed by the Supreme Court in the unjust competition case of the Tencent and the Qihoo. The author thinks that the standard is of great significance to the loss of commercial reputation. Judging whether the commercial reputation is damaged from the misleading view of the consumer is in conformity with the objective reality of the commercial credit protection. The image of the so-called commercial reputation is the possibility that tomorrow's business will not be based on the possibility and the consumer is misguided. The transfer of the choice of fees is the most fundamental negation of the commercial reputation. The definition of the consumer's cognition should be based on the general consumer group with general attention. The third part, after a clear definition of the constitutive requirements of commercial defamation and the criteria for the identification of the components, is based on the basis of the common commercial statements in the present life. The statement of the objective facts, the comments based on the subjective opinion, or the unsuccessful concoction is divided into three categories, and then the test determines whether the commercial defamation constitutes commercial defamation for different types of commercial statements. Finally, the basis of the request right of different types of business defamation is discussed. It excludes the possibility of adjusting the general provisions of the anti unfair competition law, and hopes to amend the fourteenth articles of the anti unfair competition law.
【学位授予单位】：华东政法大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2015
【分类号】：D922.294

【相似文献】