论商标法中惩罚性赔偿制度的适用--以《商标法》第63条为中心

On the Application of Punitive Damages as Stipulated in the Trademark Law:with Comment on Art. 63

惩罚性赔偿是一种不同于补偿性赔偿的民事赔偿制度,具有惩罚和威慑侵权行为的作用。因其赔偿金数额超出了实际损失的数额,而被看作是对民法"损害填平原则"的一大突破。2013年修订的《商标法》第63条规定了惩罚性赔偿制度,即对情节严重的恶意侵犯商标专用权行为可以按照实际损失额的一至三倍确定赔偿数额,该规定旨在遏制社会生活中屡禁不止的商标侵权行为。但就目前的司法实践来看,在全国范围内尚未出现一例针对商标侵权适用惩罚性赔偿制度的案例。究其原因有四:一是惩罚性赔偿的"惩罚性"缺失;二是法定赔偿的"惩罚性"日渐凸显;三是惩罚性赔偿举证难度较大;四是法官缺乏具体裁判标准,存在制度路径依赖的惯性。惩罚性赔偿并非法定赔偿可以替代,为此需要明确惩罚性赔偿应当优于法定赔偿得到适用。为使《商标法》中的惩罚性赔偿制度实际发挥作用,同时需要细化"恶意"、"情节严重"的裁量标准,改进惩罚性赔偿金的计算模式。

Punitive damages is also a kind of civil compensation system, but different from general compensatory damages. It has two distinctive features： punishment and deterrence, in respect of infringement behavior. It is regarded as a breakthrough to the basic civil law principle of “make whole＂, because the compensatory sum exceeds the actual damages. In 2013, China revised the Trademark Law and stipulated the punitive damages system in Art. 63. According to this article, serious trademark infringement behavior can be imposed on punitive damages as much as one to three times of compensatory damages. Its purpose is to stop the repeated trademark infringement. However, as far as the current judicial practices concerned, there is not yet a case employing punitive damages throughout China. Four reasons can answer for this phenomenon： first, the shortage of adequate punishment in the punitive damages; second, the punishment derived from statutory compensation becomes more important; third, proof burden is heavy for punitive damages claim; fourth, the shortage of uniform judicial judgment standard. Punitive damages cannot be replaced by statutory damages. It should therefore be clearly stipulated in the Trademark Law, that the punitive damages should take priority over statutory damages. Besides,the criteria for “ malice” and “ severity” should also be specified. Finally, the calculation of punitive damages also calls for reform.