论商标故意侵权的体系化规制

Systematic Regulation of Intentional Trademark Infringement

对商标故意侵权进行体系化规制有助于更好地保护商标权益、遏制故意侵权。故意侵权的规制方式与商标法的保护对象具有契合关系。商标法对故意侵权的规制集中体现在规制商标恶意抢注、将故意帮助他人侵犯商标专用权行为认定为侵权行为、商标侵权惩罚性赔偿等三个方面。关于商标恶意抢注人主观上的“认识因素”是“明知”还是“应知”存在着认识分歧。商标法没有明确规定恶意抢注人对被抢注商标的使用人承担损害赔偿责任,没有充分考虑到区分间接侵权人主观故意与过失的价值。应当将“故意”的认识因素限定为“明知”,并将“明知”区分为“实际明知”和“推定明知”。在立法表述上用“故意”取代“恶意”。在司法实践中,将“恶意”作为“故意”的严重形态进行考量。仅以“故意”作为侵权责任构成要件的情形应当限于“侵害法益”。应当为故意侵害商标权益的行为一体设置相应的惩罚性赔偿责任。

The systematic regulation of intentional infringement of trademarks is helpful to protect the rights and interests of trademarks and curb intentional infringements.The regulation of intentional infringement has a fitting relationship with the object of protection of trademark law.The trademark law's regulation of intentional infringement is concentrated in three aspects:regulating the malicious registration of trademarks,identifying the act of intentionally helping others to commit infringement as infringing acts,and punitive compensation for trademark infringement.There are differences among understandings as to whether the subjective"cognitive factor"of a trademark squatter is"know"or"should have known".The Trademark Law does not explicitly stipulate that the malicious squatting person shall bear the liability for damages to the user of the squatted trademark,the value of distinguishing between intentional and negligent indirect infringers is not fully taken into account.The"intentional"cognitive factors should be limited to"know",and"knowing"should be divided into"actual knowing"and"presumed knowing".In the legislative formulation,"intentional"is used to replace"malicious",and"malicious"is considered as a serious form of"intentional"in judicial practice.The use of"intentional"only as an element of tort liability should be limited to"infringement of legal interests".Corresponding punitive damages should be set up for acts of intentional infringement of trademark rights.