本文選題：商業(yè)詆毀 + 構(gòu)成要件�。� 參考：《華東政法大學》2015年碩士論文

【摘要】：我國《反不正當競爭法》第14條明確規(guī)定:“經(jīng)營者不得捏造、散布虛偽事實,損害競爭對手的商業(yè)信譽、商品聲譽�！被谠摋l的規(guī)定,一直以來我國的司法實踐在認定是否構(gòu)成商業(yè)詆毀不正當競爭時,往往固守虛偽事實的桎梏,重點考察行為人所傳播、散布的內(nèi)容是否屬于虛偽事實,如果不存在虛偽事實那么也就不存在商業(yè)詆毀的可能。但是近來最高人民法院在騰訊訴奇虎的不正當競爭案中對商業(yè)詆毀的認定標準進行了重新的界定,其認為是否構(gòu)成商業(yè)詆毀其根本要件是相關(guān)經(jīng)營者之行為是否以誤導方式對競爭對手的商業(yè)信譽或者商品聲譽造成了損害。就片面陳述真實的事實而貶損他人商譽的情形而言,由于其片面性和不準確性,足以導致相關(guān)消費者對相關(guān)商品產(chǎn)生錯誤認識,進而影響消費者的決定,并對競爭對手的商品聲譽或者商業(yè)信譽產(chǎn)生負面影響,損害競爭者的利益。雖然我國學界普遍認可傳播、散布基于客觀事實的不當說法可以構(gòu)成商業(yè)詆毀。但是最高院的前述判決第一次在司法層面上認可片面?zhèn)鞑フ鎸嵳f法的情形可以構(gòu)成商業(yè)詆毀,實在值得欣慰。基于反不正當競爭法第14條的禁止性規(guī)定,并沒有對什么是商業(yè)詆毀作出明確的界定。全國各地法院在司法實踐中依據(jù)該條文而衍生的商業(yè)詆毀的構(gòu)成認定五花八門,缺乏統(tǒng)一的標準。由此本文第一部分重點對商業(yè)詆毀的構(gòu)成要件進行了探討。筆者仔細篩選整理了近五年來我國法院司法實務(wù)中關(guān)于商業(yè)詆毀的典型案例,以期在司法文書的直白中探尋商業(yè)詆毀的真義。通過梳理司法實例、研讀司法裁判文書后,筆者發(fā)現(xiàn),目前我國各地法院在認定商業(yè)詆毀是否構(gòu)成時主要關(guān)注的焦點有四個,分別是“競爭關(guān)系”、“虛偽事實”、“主觀過錯”和“損害結(jié)果”。針對這四個焦點問題筆者分別歸納整理了司法實務(wù)中的現(xiàn)實做法,并在現(xiàn)實做法的基礎(chǔ)上展開了反思。從“競爭關(guān)系”的角度界定了商業(yè)詆毀的構(gòu)成主體不應(yīng)僅局限于具有直接競爭關(guān)系的經(jīng)營者之間,具有廣義競爭關(guān)系的經(jīng)營者之間也存在商業(yè)詆毀的可能;從“虛偽事實”的角度明確了對外散布、傳播虛偽事實只是構(gòu)成詆毀的一種情形;從“主觀過錯和損害結(jié)果”的角度厘清了承擔損害賠償責任構(gòu)成要件與承擔停止侵害責任構(gòu)成要件之間的區(qū)別。在厘清司法實踐中商業(yè)詆毀認定諸多困惑的基礎(chǔ)上,筆者認為商業(yè)詆毀的構(gòu)成要件應(yīng)該有四:(1)主體層面——存有競爭目的的經(jīng)營者之間,經(jīng)營者與其競爭對手的界定不以狹義競爭關(guān)系存在為限;(2)行為層面——存在對外傳播、散布詆毀言論的行為;(3)損害層面——對競爭對手的商譽造成了損害,此處的損害不要求實際的損害;(4)因果關(guān)系層面——行為人的詆毀行為與競爭對手的損害之間具備相當?shù)囊蚬P(guān)系。在明確商業(yè)詆毀不正當競爭的構(gòu)成要件后,筆者在第二部分針對司法實踐中難以準確把握的詆毀行為的認定以及商業(yè)信譽受損的認定進行了深入的探討。針對詆毀行為的認定筆者結(jié)合現(xiàn)實生活中已經(jīng)存在的詆毀情形抽象概括出了“不利且不必要”的詆毀行為認定標準�！安焕也槐匾獦藴省笔侵府斝袨槿藢ν鈧鞑�、散布的關(guān)于競爭對手的說法,其內(nèi)容是對競爭對手不利,容易引起消費者反感的內(nèi)容,此外其傳播、散布這一說法沒有競爭的必要,不符合公平競爭的范疇,如果符合這兩個要件即可認為某一說法是具有詆毀性質(zhì)的。針對損害結(jié)果的認定,筆者詳細分析了最高院在前述騰訊與奇虎不正當競爭案中提出的“誤導標準”,筆者認為該標準對于商業(yè)信譽受損的把握具有重大意義。從消費者是否受到誤導的視角判斷商業(yè)信譽是否受損符合商業(yè)信譽保護的客觀實際,形象的說所謂的商業(yè)信譽就是使得明天的生意不再基于可能,消費者因誤導而產(chǎn)生的消費抉擇的轉(zhuǎn)移是對商業(yè)信譽最根本的否定,對于消費者認知的界定應(yīng)以具有一般注意力的普通消費者群體為宜。第三部分在明確界定好商業(yè)詆毀構(gòu)成要件以及各構(gòu)成要件的認定標準后,筆者對現(xiàn)實生活中常見的商業(yè)言論依據(jù)其是基于客觀事實的陳述還是基于主觀意見的評論還是無中生有的捏造劃分為三類,進而針對不同類型的商業(yè)言論以商業(yè)詆毀的構(gòu)成要件標準進行檢驗判斷其是否構(gòu)成商業(yè)詆毀。最后針對不同類型的商業(yè)詆毀情形的請求權(quán)基礎(chǔ)進行了探討,排除了適用反不正當競爭法一般條款予以調(diào)整的可能,希冀對《反不正當競爭法》第14條予以修改完善。
[Abstract]:The fourteenth article of China's "Anti Unfair Competition Law" clearly stipulates that "operators must not fabricate, distribute false facts, damage competitors' commercial reputation and commodity reputation." based on the provisions of this article, the judicial practice of our country has always adhered to the shackles of hypocrisy when it is identified as to constitute an unfair competition for commercial defamation. Whether the content of the perpetrator is spread is a false fact. If there is no false fact, there is no possibility of commercial defamation. But recently the Supreme People's court has redefined the standard of commercial defamation in the unfair competition case of Tencent v. Qihoo. The important element is whether the behavior of the operator is misleading to the commercial reputation of the competitor or the reputation of the commodity. In the case of a one-sided statement of the true facts and derogating the goodwill of others, due to its one-sided and inaccurate, it can cause the related consumer to misunderstand the related goods and then affect the consumption. The decision of a person has a negative impact on the competitor's commercial reputation or commercial reputation, which damages the interests of the competitors. Although the academic community generally recognised the dissemination, the dissemination of impersonal statements based on objective facts can constitute a commercial defamation. But the first judgment of the Supreme Court has first recognized the one-sided dissemination of true statements at the judicial level. It is a great relief that the situation can constitute a commercial defamation. Based on the prohibition of the fourteenth article of the anti unfair competition law, there is no clear definition of what is a commercial defamation. The constitution of commercial defamation derived from the provisions of this provision in judicial practice throughout the country is varied and lacks unified standards. Some of the key elements of the commercial defamation are discussed. The author carefully selects and collates the typical cases of commercial defamation in the judicial practice of the court in recent five years, in order to explore the true meaning of commercial defamation in the direct judicial documents. After combing the judicial examples and studying the judicial documents, the author finds that at present, There are four main concerns in the courts of China in determining whether commercial defamation is made up. They are "competitive relationship", "false fact", "subjective fault" and "result of damage". In view of these four focus problems, the author collated the practical practice in judicial practice, and carried out a Reflection on the basis of practical practice. From the point of view of "competitive relationship", the main body of commercial defamation should not be confined to operators with direct competitive relationship, and the possibility of commercial defamation between operators with broad competitive relations is also possible. From the angle of "subjective fault and the result of damage", it clarifies the difference between the constitutive requirements of the liability for damages and the constitutive requirements of the responsibility for the cessation of the infringement. On the basis of clarifying the confusion of the commercial defamation in judicial practice, the author thinks that the constitutive requirements of commercial defamation should be four: (1) the main body level Between the operators of the competitive purpose, the definition of the operator and its competitors is not limited to the existence of the narrow competitive relationship; (2) the behavior level - the existence of foreign communication, the behavior of disparaging speech; (3) the damage level - causing damage to the goodwill of the competitors, the damage of this place does not require actual damage; (4) causality level - There is a considerable causal relationship between the defamation behavior of the actor and the damage of the competitor. After defining the elements of the unfair competition of commercial defamation, the author deeply discusses the identification of the defamation behavior which is difficult to accurately grasp in the second part of the judicial practice and the identification of the damage of commercial reputation. The author abstracts the standard of "disadvantageous and unnecessary" defamation. "Unfavorable and unnecessary standard" means that when the perpetrator is spreading to the outside world, it is scattered about the competitor's statement, which is disadvantageous to the competitor and causes the consumer's repugnance easily. In addition to its dissemination, the dissemination of this statement is not necessary for competition and does not conform to the category of fair competition. If it is in conformity with these two elements, a certain statement is defamed. In view of the identification of the results of the damage, the author analyzes the "misleading standard" proposed by the Supreme Court in the unjust competition case of the Tencent and the Qihoo. The author thinks that the standard is of great significance to the loss of commercial reputation. Judging whether the commercial reputation is damaged from the misleading view of the consumer is in conformity with the objective reality of the commercial credit protection. The image of the so-called commercial reputation is the possibility that tomorrow's business will not be based on the possibility and the consumer is misguided. The transfer of the choice of fees is the most fundamental negation of the commercial reputation. The definition of the consumer's cognition should be based on the general consumer group with general attention. The third part, after a clear definition of the constitutive requirements of commercial defamation and the criteria for the identification of the components, is based on the basis of the common commercial statements in the present life. The statement of the objective facts, the comments based on the subjective opinion, or the unsuccessful concoction is divided into three categories, and then the test determines whether the commercial defamation constitutes commercial defamation for different types of commercial statements. Finally, the basis of the request right of different types of business defamation is discussed. It excludes the possibility of adjusting the general provisions of the anti unfair competition law, and hopes to amend the fourteenth articles of the anti unfair competition law.
【學位授予單位】：華東政法大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2015
【分類號】：D922.294

【相似文獻】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 ;“紀念《反不正當競爭法》實施十周年”有獎?wù)魑脑u選結(jié)果[J];中國工商管理研究;2003年12期

2 肖純新 ,王哲;《反不正當競爭法》存在的問題及對策[J];工商行政管理;2003年21期

3 漢斯—于爾根·阿倫斯;陳戈;;德國《反不正當競爭法》的最新修訂[J];中德法學論壇;2005年00期

4 ;新反壟斷法草案年內(nèi)有望提請審議[J];現(xiàn)代橡膠技術(shù);2005年06期

5 方文彬;;從分別立法看《反不正當競爭法》的完善對《反壟斷法》出臺的促進[J];衛(wèi)生職業(yè)教育;2006年24期

6 田艷敏;;中國《反不正當競爭法》在《反壟斷法》出臺前實施不力的原因分析[J];河南工業(yè)大學學報(社會科學版);2006年01期

7 肖揚零;;關(guān)于反不正當競爭法適用主體的反思與重構(gòu)[J];安徽農(nóng)業(yè)大學學報(社會科學版);2007年01期

8 陳福初;;論我國《反不正當競爭法》的缺陷及其完善[J];經(jīng)濟經(jīng)緯;2007年03期

9 王萍;;探析反不正當競爭法中存在的問題與對策[J];商情(教育經(jīng)濟研究);2008年02期

10 譚冰;;知識產(chǎn)權(quán)法與反不正當競爭法之間的關(guān)系[J];法制與社會;2008年08期

相關(guān)會議論文 前10條

1 李德成;;從搜索埋設(shè)行為談反不正當競爭法的適用與完善[A];中國律師2000年大會論文精選（下卷）[C];2000年

2 謝祖新;;實施《反不正當競爭法》十周年工作的體會[A];反不正當競爭理論研究[C];2003年

3 周世勇;;《反不正當競爭法》存在的缺陷及修改建議[A];反不正當競爭理論研究[C];2003年

4 熊華新;;論《反不正當競爭法》的地位和作用[A];反不正當競爭理論研究[C];2003年

5 郭成明;孟麗;;貫徹實施《反不正當競爭法》應(yīng)注意的幾個問題[A];反不正當競爭理論研究[C];2003年

6 李景志;林菲;;《反不正當競爭法》基層實施現(xiàn)狀分析[A];反不正當競爭理論研究[C];2003年

7 ;《反不正當競爭法》典型案例分析[A];反不正當競爭理論研究[C];2003年

8 周森保;;努力營造誠實守信公平競爭的市場環(huán)境——紀念《中華人民共和國反不正當競爭法》頒布實施十周年[A];2003年度湖南省工商行政管理系統(tǒng)獲獎?wù)撐膮R編[C];2004年

9 尹顯慶;;論知名商品的反不正當競爭法的保護[A];律師事業(yè)與和諧社會——第五屆中國律師論壇優(yōu)秀論文集[C];2005年

10 楊莉;;論《反不正當競爭法》的缺陷及完善[A];反不正當競爭理論研究[C];2003年

相關(guān)重要報紙文章 前10條

1 沈四寶;《反不正當競爭法》部分補充司法解釋出臺成為對知識產(chǎn)權(quán)的附加保護[N];國際商報;2007年

2 湖南省衡陽市工商局 陳曉春;簡析《反不正當競爭法》對商業(yè)秘密的保護[N];中國工商報;2009年

3 記者 王國明;盡快修訂《反不正當競爭法》[N];中國工商報;2010年

4 本報記者 毛晶慧;殺毒戰(zhàn)升級 《反不正當競爭法》亟待修訂[N];中國經(jīng)濟時報;2010年

5 本報記者 王國明;修訂《反不正當競爭法》已列入國務(wù)院立法計劃[N];中國工商報;2010年

6 許浩;《反不正當競爭法》大修 不正當競爭或遭天價處罰[N];中國貿(mào)易報;2010年

7 華東政法大學知識產(chǎn)權(quán)研究中心 夏朝羨;作品標題的反不正當競爭法保護[N];中國知識產(chǎn)權(quán)報;2011年

8 張玉群;《反不正當競爭法》制度優(yōu)化之建議[N];江蘇經(jīng)濟報;2012年

9 浙江省衢州市中級人民法院 吳昱　劉清啟;知名商品的特有裝潢變更后仍受反不正當競爭法保護[N];中國知識產(chǎn)權(quán)報;2014年

10 陽 軍 左敦余;談《反不正當競爭法》的修訂完善[N];中國工商報;2004年

相關(guān)博士學位論文 前2條

1 吉田慶子;中日反不正當競爭法比較研究[D];西南政法大學;2006年

2 王仁富;中國競爭法律體系及其協(xié)調(diào)性研究[D];安徽大學;2010年

相關(guān)碩士學位論文 前10條

1 郝文麗;論反不正當競爭法對消費歧視的界定和規(guī)制[D];中國政法大學;2009年

2 徐桂萍;我國反不正當競爭法律制度研究[D];黑龍江大學;2010年

3 何澤泓;論反不正當競爭法的完善[D];南昌大學;2009年

4 林娜;數(shù)據(jù)庫的反不正當競爭法保護研究[D];湘潭大學;2009年

5 楊柳;反壟斷法與反不正當競爭法之關(guān)系探討[D];華中科技大學;2005年

6 李勝利;制定《反壟斷法》背景下我國《反不正當競爭法》的修訂與完善研究[D];安徽大學;2003年

7 顧曉燕;我國反不正當競爭法的比較研究和博弈分析[D];華東政法學院;2005年

8 陳玉峰;論反不正當競爭法對識別性標識的法律規(guī)制[D];安徽大學;2007年

9 陳鹿林;論商業(yè)外觀的反不正當競爭法保護[D];廈門大學;2007年

10 張錫誠;我國反不正當競爭法視野下的經(jīng)營者認定標準研究[D];西南政法大學;2011年

，

本文編號：1988066