侵害知识产权之不当得利问题研究

发布时间：2018-06-17 05:15

本文选题：不当得利 + 侵权获利　；参考：《华东政法大学》2013年硕士论文

【摘要】：传统学术理论研究中，，知识产权侵权纠纷的解决主要依赖侵权理论，追究侵权人的损害赔偿责任始终是一种重要的方式。但在一定情形下，要求侵权人承担损害赔偿责任却于事无补：按照现有的侵权损害赔偿构成要件，权利人享有损害赔偿请求权需以侵权行为人具有主观过错为要件。但在知识产权侵权案件中，侵害知识产权的行为人在一些情形下确实没有过错或过错难以证明，此时权利人往往难以追究侵权人的损害赔偿责任，而行为人却因实施侵权行为而获利，如果由侵权人继续保有该利益显然是有失公正的。另外，损害赔偿责任以填补损失为其基本功能，可是知识产权侵权损害赔偿额除了以权利人的损失为依据外，还可以根据侵权人获利来计算，这与填补损失的基本理念相违。实现财产利益从无过错侵权行为人向知识产权人的转移以及对侵权获利做出合理的解释，都需要一定的理论支撑。不当得利制度旨在取除无法律原因所受之利益，其又不以侵权人主观过错为要件，对权利人而言不失为一种有效的救济手段。本文第一章结合知识产权的特点阐明损害赔偿救济路径在保护权利人利益方面的不周延，因此有必要引入一种新的救济路径，即不当得利路径。第二章介绍了不当得利制度的历史沿革和构成要件，指出由于不当得利制度与侵权损害赔偿关注角度不同，因此恰好可以弥补侵权损害赔偿的不足，接着运用不当得利制度对侵权获利这一损害赔偿额计算方式做出合理的解释，认为侵权获利具有不当得利性质。第三章在上一章分析侵权获利的不当得利性质基础上，就不当得利请求权等问题进行了探讨，主要有：在知识产权侵权中，是否应当给予权利人不当得利请求权？如果权利人享有不当得利请求权，不当得利请求权与损害赔偿请求权的关系是辅助还是竞合？第一个问题，笔者运用历史分析方法并结合其他国家立法及我国司法实践，认为应当给予权利人不当得利请求权；第二个问题，笔者从民法基础理论、不当得利返还范围与损害赔偿范围的差别等角度分别予以阐述，认为知识产权不当得利请求权与损害赔偿请求权的关系应当是竞合的。第四章主要探讨了侵权行为人主观没有过错时不当得利制度的适用情形，从对TRIPS协议相关条款的解读入手，通过探索相关法律条文的立法初衷来界定无过错侵权时不当得利的适用范围。不当得利制度归根结底是通过返还不当利益来实现其制度功能，因此返还利益的计算是侵害知识产权不当得利的一个重要问题，故在最后一章笔者主要就侵害知识产权不当得利的返还利益如何计算这一问题进行了讨论。
[Abstract]:In the traditional academic theory research, the settlement of intellectual property infringement dispute mainly depends on the tort theory, and it is always an important way to investigate the infringer's liability for damages. But under certain circumstances, it is not helpful to require the tortfeasor to bear the liability for damages: according to the existing constitutive elements of tort compensation, the obligee's right to claim for damages should be based on the subjective fault of the tortfeasor. However, in the case of intellectual property infringement, the person who infringes on the intellectual property right does not have any fault or is difficult to prove the fault under some circumstances. At this time, it is often difficult for the obligee to investigate the liability of the infringer for damages. However, the perpetrator gains from the tort, and it is obviously unfair for the tortfeasor to retain the interest. In addition, the basic function of the liability for damages is to fill the loss, but the compensation for intellectual property infringement damages can also be calculated on the basis of the loss of the obligee, which is contrary to the basic idea of making up the loss. To realize the transfer of property interests from the no-fault tortfeasor to the intellectual property owner and to make a reasonable explanation of the infringement profit need certain theoretical support. The system of improper enrichment aims to remove the benefits received without legal reasons, and it does not take the subjective fault of the infringer as an important element. It is an effective remedy for the obligee. The first chapter of this paper combines the characteristics of intellectual property rights to clarify the damage compensation relief path in the protection of the interests of the obligee is not comprehensive, so it is necessary to introduce a new relief path, that is, the path of improper enrichment. The second chapter introduces the historical evolution and constitutive elements of the unjust enrichment system, and points out that the improper enrichment system and tort damage compensation pay attention to different angles, so it can make up the deficiency of tort damage compensation. Then the author makes a reasonable explanation to the way of calculating the damages of tort profit by using the unjust enrichment system, and thinks that the tort profit has the nature of improper enrichment. On the basis of the analysis of the nature of improper enrichment in the previous chapter, the third chapter discusses the right of claim for improper enrichment, which mainly includes: in the infringement of intellectual property, should the obligee be given the right to claim for improper enrichment? If the obligee has the right to claim for improper enrichment, is the relationship between the right to claim for improper enrichment and the right to claim for damages auxiliary or competing? The first question, the author uses the historical analysis method, unifies the other countries legislation and the judicial practice of our country, thinks that should give the obligee the right to obtain the benefit improperly, the second question, the author from the civil law foundation theory, The differences between the scope of improper enrichment return and the scope of compensation for damages are elaborated separately, and the relationship between the claim for improper enrichment of intellectual property rights and the right to claim for damages is considered to be competing. The fourth chapter mainly discusses the application of improper enrichment system when the torter has no fault, and starts with the interpretation of the relevant provisions of trips Agreement. By exploring the legislative intent of relevant legal provisions, the scope of application of improper enrichment in no-fault tort is defined. In the final analysis, the unjust enrichment system is to realize its system function through the return of improper interests, so the calculation of the return interests is an important problem of improper enrichment of intellectual property rights. Therefore, in the last chapter, the author mainly discusses how to calculate the return benefits of infringement of intellectual property rights.
【学位授予单位】：华东政法大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2013
【分类号】：D923.4

【参考文献】