论商标保护民刑之间的衔接

The Linkage Between Civil and Criminal Aspects of Trademark Protection

商标保护民刑之间的脱节表现为不构成商标侵权的行为被认定为商标犯罪、民刑之间的责任“倒挂”以及刑法不规制的商标侵权被变相地纳入刑法规制,使非法制造注册商标标识罪成为一种“口袋罪”。这一现象的原因在于,在商标犯罪的认定中,或是忽略了是否存在商标侵权,或是认为任意类型的商标侵权均可成为商标犯罪的成立前提,或是忽略了所侵犯商标的实际使用状态。商标保护民刑之间衔接的基本准则应当是,商标犯罪的成立应以“双相同”商标侵权的存在为前提,商标犯罪的认定应贯彻商标法对囤积商标的治理精神。为此,应以商标侵权抗辩与商标使用为过滤规则,判定是否具有假冒注册商标罪与销售假冒注册商标商品罪成立前提的“双相同”商标侵权;排除未用于“双相同”商标侵权的行为成立非法制造、销售非法制造注册商标标识罪;涉囤积商标侵权的场合,应以权利人的实际损失作为构成犯罪的前提。

The disconnect between the civil and criminal aspects of trademark protection is manifested in the identification as trademark crimes of acts that do not constitute trademark infringement,the“inversion”between civil liability and criminal liability,and the incorporation in disguised form into the scope of criminal law regulation of trademark infringements that should not be regulated by criminal law,thus making the crime of illegally manufacturing registered trademark an“all-inclusive crime”.The reason for this is that,in the determination of trademark crimes,either the existence of trademark infringement is ignored,or any type of trademark infringement becomes a prerequisite for the establishment of trademark crimes,or the actual status of the use of the infringed trademark is ignored.Since the same legal interests are harmed by both trademark crimes and trademark infringements,the establishment of a trademark crime presupposes the existence of a trademark infringement.Articles 213 and 214 of the Criminal Law only choose to regulate“double identical”trademark infringements,while the trademark crime stipulated in Article 215 cannot be premised solely on the acts specified in Article 57(4)of the Trademark Law.According to the principle of legality,the manufacture and sale of registered trademark marks for“double identical”trademark infringements as stipulated in Article 57(1)of the Trademark Law is a prerequisite for the establishment of the trademark crime under Article 215 of the Criminal Law.Therefore,the establishment of the crimes stipulated in Article 213,Article 214 and Article 215 of the Criminal Law should be premised on the existence of a“double identical”trademark infringement.The Trademark Law has always adopted an attitude of negation and no active protection towards the hoarding trademark and this attitude should also be adopted in the determination of trademark crimes,which should be premised on the existence of a“double identical”trademark infringement,and become a guideline to be followed in linking the civil and criminal aspects of trademark protection.In this regard,defense against trademark infringement and trademark use should be used as a filtering rule to determine the existence of the“double identical”trademark infringement as the prerequisite of the establishment of the crime of counterfeiting a registered trademark and the crime of selling counterfeit registered goods;acts not intended for“double identical”trademark infringement should be excluded from the crimes of illegal manufacture or sale of illegally manufactured registered trademarks;and the actual loss of the right holder should be the precondition of the establishment of the crime in the case of an infringement involving trademark hoarding.