本文選題：商標(biāo)侵權(quán) + 侵權(quán)損害賠償　； 參考：《華東政法大學(xué)》2013年碩士論文

【摘要】：普遍的商標(biāo)侵權(quán)行為對市場穩(wěn)定和公平競爭造成了嚴(yán)重的危害，并逐漸由對個體利益的侵犯演化成為一種對社會共同利益的侵害。由于商標(biāo)侵權(quán)容易救濟難的特點，，以及現(xiàn)行法律制度對商標(biāo)救濟實現(xiàn)度低的現(xiàn)狀，亟需強化商標(biāo)的事先防御功能、加強對商標(biāo)侵權(quán)行為的懲治力度。懲罰性賠償在制裁和遏制多發(fā)的商標(biāo)侵權(quán)行為方面具有功能上的優(yōu)勢，并且符合社會正義觀變革的要求以及現(xiàn)代侵權(quán)責(zé)任法“社會本位”的理念，能夠適應(yīng)社會形勢的需要，強化對商標(biāo)權(quán)的保護。同時，商標(biāo)法引入懲罰性賠償符合強化信息資本保護的需要，并且通過成本收益的利益機制，能夠?qū)η謾?quán)行為進行遏制，具有法經(jīng)濟學(xué)上的立足點。因此，在我國商標(biāo)法中引入懲罰性賠償具有合理性和必要性。 懲罰性賠償有助于解決傳統(tǒng)補償性賠償救濟不足的問題，能夠?qū)ΜF(xiàn)行商標(biāo)侵權(quán)損害賠償制度的缺陷起到修正作用；同時能對商標(biāo)行政保護和刑事保護的空隙起到恰到好處的補充作用，一方面有助于商標(biāo)行政執(zhí)法完善社會管理機制，另一方面能夠補充商標(biāo)刑事保護適用的局限、填補刑事法和民事法之間相對空白，從而完善商標(biāo)侵權(quán)責(zé)任體系，使不法侵權(quán)者有效承擔(dān)侵權(quán)責(zé)任。懲罰性賠償制度在各地區(qū)知識產(chǎn)權(quán)領(lǐng)域的廣泛適用以及我國侵權(quán)責(zé)任法上對懲罰性賠償?shù)囊浦菜〉玫娘@著的效果，為我國商標(biāo)法中建立懲罰性賠償制度提供了有效的借鑒。為了避免過度使用懲罰性賠償可能造成的反社會效果和新的不公平，在適用懲罰性賠償時應(yīng)注意對其進行合理限制。 商標(biāo)法中適用懲罰性賠償主要應(yīng)針對主觀故意性強、情節(jié)嚴(yán)重的侵權(quán)行為，同時還要考慮到補償性賠償對損害的彌補程度，對于懲罰性賠償數(shù)額的確定可以按照實際損害的適當(dāng)比例進行計算，也可以根據(jù)對侵權(quán)情節(jié)的考量直接判定�，F(xiàn)階段想要謀求一種精確地計算方式并不現(xiàn)實，合理的懲罰性賠償數(shù)額應(yīng)以能夠反映社會公眾一般理性認(rèn)知和價值判斷能力為評價標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，應(yīng)符合公平原則和利益平衡的主旨。
[Abstract]:The universal trademark infringement has caused serious harm to the market stability and fair competition, and has gradually evolved from the infringement of individual interests into a kind of infringement on the common interests of society. Due to the characteristics that trademark infringement is easy to remedy and relief is difficult, and the current legal system has a low degree of trademark relief, it is urgent to strengthen the trademark pre-defense function and strengthen the punishment of trademark infringement. Punitive damages have the function advantage in sanctioning and restraining the frequent trademark infringement, and accord with the demand of social justice and the concept of "social standard" of modern tort liability law, which can meet the needs of the social situation. Strengthen the protection of trademark rights. At the same time, the introduction of punitive damages in trademark law meets the need to strengthen the protection of information capital, and through the benefit mechanism of cost and income, it can contain the tort, which has the foothold of law and economics. Therefore, it is reasonable and necessary to introduce punitive damages into our trademark law. Punitive damages are helpful to solve the problem of inadequate remedy of traditional compensatory damages, and can correct the defects of the current system of trademark infringement damages. At the same time, it can complement the gap of trademark administrative protection and criminal protection, on the one hand, it helps to perfect the social management mechanism of trademark administrative law enforcement, on the other hand, it can supplement the limitation of the application of trademark criminal protection. Fill in the relative blank between criminal law and civil law, thus perfect trademark tort liability system, make illegal infringer bear tort liability effectively. The extensive application of the punitive damages system in the field of intellectual property in various regions and the remarkable effect of the transplantation of punitive damages in the tort liability law of our country have provided an effective reference for the establishment of punitive damages system in the trademark law of our country. In order to avoid the antisocial effect and new unfairness caused by the excessive use of punitive damages, we should pay attention to the reasonable restriction when applying punitive damages. The application of punitive damages in trademark law should be aimed at the torts with strong subjective intent and serious circumstances, and at the same time take into account the extent to which compensatory damages make up for the damage. The determination of the amount of punitive damages can be calculated according to the appropriate proportion of actual damage, or can be directly determined according to the consideration of tort circumstances. At this stage, it is not realistic to seek a precise calculation method. A reasonable amount of punitive damages should be evaluated according to the general rational cognition and value judgment ability of the public, and should conform to the principle of fairness and the purpose of balancing interests.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：華東政法大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2013
【分類號】：D923.43

【參考文獻】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前2條

1 石睿;;美德兩國懲罰性賠償之當(dāng)前發(fā)展[J];法制與社會;2007年02期

2 程增學(xué);趙素行;;論我國建立懲罰性賠償制度的合理性[J];山東科技大學(xué)學(xué)報(社會科學(xué)版);2007年03期

本文編號：1806643