知识产权案件陷阱取证合法性辨析

Legal Analysis of Obtaining Evidence by Means of Traps in Intellectual Property Cases

实践中,由于知识产权侵权案件取证困难,部分受害人往往倾向通过“陷阱取证”方式维权,以致合法性争议不断。从实质上看,“陷阱取证”方式合法与否取决于“是否严重侵害他人合法权益、违反法律禁止性规定或者严重违背公序良俗”“是否仅基于权利人的取证行为而实施侵权行为”“是否影响证据本身真实性和当事人是否有其他取证渠道”三个方面的判断。从形式上看,借鉴刑事诉讼理论研究成果,当下的陷阱取证行为可划分为“犯意诱发型”和“机会提供型”两类,后者可再区分为“借用式”和“创造式”两种。目前,仅宜承认“借用式机会提供型”陷阱取证的合法性,且需明确“非法取证不因公证而获合法”,从而将公证业务的范围限缩在“借用式机会提供型”这一有限的领域。

In practice,due to the difficulty of obtaining evidence in intellectual property infringement cases,some victims tend to protect their rights by means of“trap obtaining evidence”,resulting in constant legal disputes.In essence,whether the method of“trap evidence collection”is legal or not depends on the judgment of“whether it seriously infringes the legitimate rights and interests of others,violates the prohibitive provisions of the law or seriously violates the public order and good customs”,“whether it is only based on the evidence collection behavior of the right holder”,“whether it affects the authenticity of the evidence itself and whether the parties have other evidence collection channels”.From the formal point of view,based on the research results of criminal procedure theory,the current trap evidence collection behavior can be divided into two types:“inducement of intention”and“opportunity providing”,and the latter can be further divided into“borrowing opportunity”and“creating opportunity”.At present,it is only appropriate to recognize the legality of“borrowing opportunity offering”trap evidence collection,and it is necessary to clarify that“illegal evidence collection is not legal because of notarization”,so as to limit the scope of notarization business to the limited field of“borrowing opportunity offering”.