网络服务提供者的商标侵权责任认定——兼论《侵权责任法》第36条及其适用

发布时间：2018-05-21 12:44

本文选题：网络服务提供商责任 + 商标侵权　；参考：《知识产权》2015年05期

【摘要】：关于网络服务提供者的过错,商标法与侵权责任法的规则是一致的。《侵权责任法》第36条第3款中的"知道",不应被解释为包括过失意义上的应知,而仅包括实际知道和其证据法上的衍生类型"很可能知道";"知道"的证明中,法官应适用高度盖然性标准,根据网络服务的内容、所涉民事权益的类型、应采取的必要措施的类型来确定"红旗规则"在不同情形下的适用标准。网络服务提供者应采取的必要措施,应是对预防和制止侵权行为最有效的措施,但网络服务提供者就此仅承担行为义务而非结果义务,此外,必要措施不应对网络用户的权益造成不应有的损害。但在通知—删除程序方面,《侵权责任法》第36条第2款的"通知—删除规则"规定的是权利人的实体请求权,与著作权法领域的通知—删除制度在性质和内容上均不同,在没有生效法律文书作为依据的情况下,该条款不能发挥作用,因此应在商标法领域另行引入著作权领域的程序性通知—删除制度。
[Abstract]:With regard to the fault of a network service provider, the trademark law is consistent with the rules of the tort liability law. The term "know" in section 36, paragraph 3, of the Tort Law should not be interpreted as including knowledge in the sense of negligence, Only the actual knowledge and its derived types of evidence law are "likely to know"; in the proof of "know", the judge should apply the criterion of high probability, according to the content of the network service, the type of civil rights and interests involved, The types of necessary measures to be taken to determine the criteria for the application of the red flag rules in different situations. The necessary measures to be taken by network service providers should be the most effective measures to prevent and suppress violations, but the network service providers only assume obligations of conduct and not obligations of result, in addition, Necessary measures shall not cause undue harm to the rights and interests of network users. However, in the aspect of notification-deletion procedure, the "Notification-Delete Rule" of Article 36 (2) of the Tort Law stipulates the substantive claim of the right holder, which is different from the notification-deletion system in the field of copyright law in nature and content. In the absence of an effective legal instrument, this clause cannot function, so the procedural Notification in the field of copyright should be introduced separately in the field of trademark law.
【作者单位】：清华大学法学院;
【分类号】：D923;D923.43

【参考文献】