我国商标恶意诉讼的司法规制优化研究——以民事抗辩权为展开进路

A Research on Optimizing Judicial Regulation of Trademark Malicious Action in China: Taking Right of Defense as an Example

2019年《商标法》修订增设了法院对商标恶意诉讼依法处罚的新规范,但在受害人法益救济问题上,由于存在价值落差、规范缺失与程序复杂等实践困境,这一司法规制模式存在明显短板。基于事实与价值的二元构造,商标恶意诉讼的本质系商标权人滥用其救济性请求权,因而对其设置一类民事抗辩权是优化司法规制模式的合理路径。恶意诉讼抗辩权是将司法实践中的恶意诉讼抗辩事由固定为制度规范,并因从"结果阻却"到"行为阻却"的嬗变而具有前置价值。在具体适用进路上,该抗辩权须由恶意诉讼的受害人主张,对抗对象是由恶意诉讼行为人做出的、伴随着恶意诉讼的损害行为,且行使时间须在损害完全发生之前;抗辩权的效力不仅及于对权利滥用的阻却,也应被赋予给付合理开支的救济效力。

The Trademark Law, revised in 2019, adds a new provision, by which court can penalize trademark malicious action. However, regarding the relief of private right, this kind of judicial regulation model has obvious shortcomings due to such practical diffi culties as value gap, absence of certain norms, and complexity of procedures. Based on the fact-value binary structure, the nature of trademark malicious action is the abuse of the right to legal relief by trademark owner. It is therefore reasonable to establish a right of defense to offset the abuse of right, to optimize judicial regulation. The right of defense to malicious action is to crystalize the grounds of defense in judicial practices into institutional norms, thus giving it a prepositive value as the result deterrent is turned into behavior deterrent. In practice, the right of defense should be claimed by the victim, and the object of defense is the damaging behavior performed by the malicious litigant and accompanied by the malicious litigation, meanwhile, the exercise of the right of defense should occur before the damage completed. The right of defense should have such legal effects as to not only deter abuse of right but also grant relief, for example, paying reasonable expenses.