东北大学学报（社会科学版）

东北大学学报（社会科学版） ›› 2021, Vol. 23 ›› Issue (2): 80-88.DOI: 10.15936/j.cnki.1008-3758.2021.02.011

• 法学研究 • 上一篇    下一篇

从“故意”到“过错”:商标间接侵权规制条款的重塑——以《商标法》第57条第(六)项的司法适用为考察对象

王国柱   

  1. (吉林大学法学院，吉林长春130012)
  • 出版日期:2021-05-12 发布日期:2021-03-23
  • 通讯作者: 王国柱
  • 作者简介:王国柱(1981-)，男，吉林榆树人，吉林大学教授，博士生导师，主要从事知识产权法研究。
  • 基金资助:
    教育部人文社会科学研究青年基金资助项目(18YJC820059)。

From “Intention” to “Fault”: Reshaping the Regulation of Trademark Indirect Infringement Taking the Judicial Application of Item 6， Article 57 of the Trademark Law as the Research Object

WANG Guozhu   

  1. (Law School， Jilin University， Changchun 130012， China)
  • Online:2021-05-12 Published:2021-03-23
  • Contact: -
  • About author:-
  • Supported by:
    -

PDF (PC)

360

摘要： 《商标法》第57条第(六)项以商标间接侵权为规制对象，并将规制对象限定于行为人主观故意支配下的帮助侵权行为。这种规制方式限制了商标间接侵权制度所能调整的行为样态，导致该条款在面对形态多样的间接侵权行为时，无法提供足够的制度供给。侵权形态多样性与法律规范调整范围过窄之间的矛盾较为突出。司法实践中存在着承认注意义务但否认过失侵权责任、混淆行为人主观“明知”与“应知”、以行为人具有“过错”替代法定的“故意”要件等困境。应当在立法上确认商标间接侵权的多元过错形态，将商标间接侵权规制条款的调整范围由“故意”侵权拓展至“过错”侵权，区分“明知”与“应知”，引入“推定明知”规则，实现侵权损害赔偿责任承担方式的多元化。

关键词: 商标间接侵权; 故意侵权; 过失侵权; 过错形态

Abstract: Item 6， Article 57 of the Trademark Law takes trademark indirect infringement as the object of regulation， and limits the object of regulation to the contributory infringement under the subjective intentional control of the actor. This kind of regulation limits the behavior patterns that can be adjusted by the trademark indirect infringement system， and results in insufficient system supply in the face of various forms of indirect infringement. The contradiction between the diversified forms of infringement and the narrow adjustment scope of legal regulations is more prominent. In judicial practice， there are some dilemmas， such as admitting the duty of care but denying the liability of negligent infringement， confusing the subjective “knowing” and “should know” of the actor， and replacing the legal “intentional” elements with the actor's “fault”. We should confirm the multiple fault forms of trademark indirect infringement in legislation， expand the scope of adjustment of the regulation provisions of trademark indirect infringement from “intentional” infringement to “fault” infringement， distinguish “knowing” and “should know”， and introduce “presumptive knowing” rules to realize the diversification of the liability for infringement damages.

Key words: trademark indirect infringement; intentional infringement; negligent infringement; pattern of fault

中图分类号: