商标侵权获利返还与实际损失赔偿的锚定和偏离

The Anchoring and Deviating Interplay between Disgorgement of Profits and Actual Damage Compensation

一方面,《商标法》相关司法解释允许权利人在实际损失赔偿与侵权获利返还之间自由选择且不互为前提;另一方面,《商标法》和司法实践又表现出两者的密切关联:实际损失赔偿与侵权获利返还一律禁止同时主张,没有实际损失则不能主张侵权获利返还。请求权基础的分析思路并不能很好地解释两者的适用关系。传统的请求权基础难以涵盖侵权获利返还,非传统的请求权基础难以完善相关的适用规则。两者既有锚定的一面,又有偏离的一面,具体取决于商标侵权获利返还在不同场景下的功能发挥。在侵权产品与商标权人产品有直接竞争关系时,适用侵权获利返还是推定侵权人的获利会造成权利人的损失,是其发挥替代和补偿功能的表现。在侵权产品与商标权人产品有直接竞争关系,但由于侵权人的过错程度不再考虑其自身对获利的贡献率或没有直接竞争关系却有过错时,适用侵权获利返还则是典型的威慑和预防侵权功能的表现。

On the one hand,the judicial interpretation on trademark law entitle the right holder freely and unconditionally to claim between the actual damages and disgorgement of infringement profits;on the other hand,the trademark law and judicial practice show that the two are closely related:double recovery is prohibited and no actual damage no disgorged profits.Legal bases of claims is not a good analytical tool to explain the relationship between the application of the two:the traditional legal base of claim is unable to cover it,and non-traditional onesare difficult to improve the application of it.The two have both anchoring and deviating sides,depending on the different functions disgorgement of the trademark infringement profits in different scenarios.In the case where the infringing product and the trademark owner’s products have direct competition,disgorgement of profits is presumed that the infringer’s profit will cause the sales loss of the right holder where the function of substitution and compensation comes into play.In the case where infringing product and the trademark owner’s product are directly competitive but without consideration of infringer’sown contribution to the profitability due to the degree of fault of the infringer or where the products are not directly competitive but the infringer is at fault,the application of disgorgement of profits is the performance of the function of deterrence and prevention of infringement.