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)》2014年碩士論文

【摘要】：隨著經(jīng)濟(jì)的飛速發(fā)展，商標(biāo)侵權(quán)現(xiàn)象越來(lái)越普遍，這已經(jīng)不僅是對(duì)商標(biāo)權(quán)人利益的損害，同時(shí)也是對(duì)社會(huì)公共利益的損害。而且由于侵權(quán)成本低，反復(fù)侵權(quán)的現(xiàn)象也不少。如何強(qiáng)化對(duì)商標(biāo)權(quán)的保護(hù)，是亟待解決的問(wèn)題。為了彌補(bǔ)對(duì)商標(biāo)權(quán)人的補(bǔ)償不足，我國(guó)《商標(biāo)法》在2013年修改時(shí)，正式引入了懲罰性賠償制度。 懲罰性賠償不僅可以彌補(bǔ)傳統(tǒng)補(bǔ)償性賠償救濟(jì)的不足，同時(shí)還可以將商標(biāo)刑事保護(hù)和民事保護(hù)銜接起來(lái)，從而完善商標(biāo)侵權(quán)責(zé)任體系。但懲罰性賠償也存在許多的爭(zhēng)議，，特別是在懲罰性賠償?shù)倪m用條件及其數(shù)額的確定方面。 而對(duì)于如何適用懲罰性賠償制度以及相關(guān)的立法完善，毋庸諱言，當(dāng)前我國(guó)理論界和實(shí)務(wù)界的研究還不能完全適應(yīng)立法和司法實(shí)踐的需要。作為懲罰性賠償?shù)钠鹪吹�，英�?guó)和美國(guó)在將懲罰性賠償運(yùn)用到商標(biāo)權(quán)領(lǐng)域方面的立法與司法實(shí)踐經(jīng)驗(yàn)十分豐富，已經(jīng)建立了相對(duì)較為完整的體系。同時(shí)，我國(guó)在《消費(fèi)者權(quán)益保護(hù)法》等法律中也有懲罰性賠償?shù)膰L試。這些中外經(jīng)驗(yàn)，都為我國(guó)商標(biāo)法中的懲罰性賠償制度的完善提供了有效的借鑒。 本文第一章“商標(biāo)法中懲罰性賠償制度理論探析及司法適用困惑”，主要概述了懲罰性賠償制度的基本理論方面存在的爭(zhēng)議以及懲罰性賠償制度在我國(guó)商標(biāo)法中的適用可能出現(xiàn)的一些困惑。本章主要論述了以下問(wèn)題：懲罰性賠償?shù)男再|(zhì)與功能方面的爭(zhēng)議；懲罰性賠償在我國(guó)其他法律中適用出現(xiàn)的問(wèn)題；商標(biāo)法中懲罰性賠償立法本身存在的不足。 第二章“商標(biāo)法懲罰性賠償制度的比較研究”，主要是對(duì)懲罰性賠償在不同國(guó)家的立法及其適用進(jìn)行了一個(gè)比較法研究。首先闡述了大陸法系國(guó)家在知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)領(lǐng)域?qū)土P性賠償制度的一個(gè)態(tài)度轉(zhuǎn)變，這也為我國(guó)將懲罰性賠償制度引入商標(biāo)法奠定了一些基礎(chǔ)。然后重點(diǎn)突出了英國(guó)、美國(guó)等英美法系在懲罰性賠償制度適用中采取的一些做法，并總結(jié)出共同點(diǎn)，為我國(guó)商標(biāo)法中懲罰性賠償制度的設(shè)計(jì)提供借鑒。 第三章“我國(guó)商標(biāo)法中懲罰性賠償制度的適用及完善”，是對(duì)我國(guó)商標(biāo)法中懲罰性賠償制度的完善及今后的具體適用提出一些建議。本章主要論述了以下內(nèi)容：懲罰性賠償責(zé)任的適用條件，包括惡意的認(rèn)定，情節(jié)嚴(yán)重的考量因素，以及被侵權(quán)人的請(qǐng)求；我國(guó)商標(biāo)法中懲罰性賠償金的計(jì)算模式，我國(guó)商標(biāo)法中懲罰性賠償金應(yīng)當(dāng)是以補(bǔ)償性賠償金為基礎(chǔ)的，按照一定倍數(shù)進(jìn)行計(jì)算；懲罰性賠償責(zé)任與其他侵權(quán)責(zé)任的關(guān)系，懲罰性賠償不得與法定賠償金、罰款同時(shí)適用，同時(shí)可以在一定程度上代替罰金。 結(jié)束語(yǔ)部分對(duì)本文的主要內(nèi)容和基本觀點(diǎn)進(jìn)行了歸納、總結(jié)，并對(duì)本課題的后續(xù)研究提出了建議。
[Abstract]:With the rapid development of economy, trademark infringement is becoming more and more common, which is not only the damage to the interests of trademark owners, but also to the public interests. And because tort cost is low, the phenomenon of repeated tort is also many. How to strengthen the protection of trademark rights is an urgent problem to be solved. In order to make up for the deficiency of compensation to the trademark owner, the punitive damages system was formally introduced when the Trademark Law was amended in 2013. Punitive damages can not only remedy the shortcomings of traditional compensatory remedies, but also link the criminal protection of trademarks with civil protection, thus perfecting the trademark tort liability system. However, there are many disputes in punitive damages, especially in the application conditions of punitive damages and the determination of the amount of punitive damages. As to how to apply the punitive damages system and how to perfect the relevant legislation, there is no denying that the current theoretical and practical research in our country can not fully meet the needs of legislation and judicial practice. As the origin of punitive damages, the United Kingdom and the United States in the application of punitive damages to the field of trademark law and judicial practice experience is very rich, has established a relatively complete system. At the same time, there are some attempts of punitive damages in the Law of Protection of Consumer Rights and interests in our country. These Chinese and foreign experiences have provided effective reference for the perfection of punitive damages system in trademark law of our country. In the first chapter, "the theoretical analysis of punitive damages in trademark law and the confusion of judicial application", This paper mainly summarizes the disputes existing in the basic theory of punitive damages system and some puzzles about the application of punitive damages system in trademark law of our country. This chapter mainly discusses the following issues: the nature and function of punitive damages disputes; punitive damages in other laws of our country in the application of problems; trademark law of punitive damages legislation itself shortcomings. The second chapter is the comparative study of the punitive damages system of trademark law, mainly a comparative study on the legislation and application of punitive damages in different countries. Firstly, this paper expounds a change of attitude towards punitive damages system in the field of intellectual property rights in civil law countries, which also lays a foundation for the introduction of punitive damages system into trademark law in our country. Then focus on the United Kingdom, the United States and other Anglo-American legal systems in the application of punitive damages system adopted some practices, and summed up the common ground, for our trademark law in the design of punitive damages system for reference. Chapter three, "Application and perfection of punitive damages system in Trademark Law of our country", is to put forward some suggestions on the perfection of punitive damages system in Trademark Law of our country and the concrete application in the future. This chapter mainly discusses the following contents: the applicable conditions of punitive damages liability, including malicious determination, serious consideration factors, as well as the request of the infringed party, the calculation mode of punitive damages in trademark law of our country. In our trademark law, punitive damages should be based on compensatory damages and be calculated in accordance with certain multiples. At the same time, it can replace the fine to some extent. The conclusion part summarizes the main contents and basic viewpoints of this paper, and puts forward some suggestions for the follow-up study of this subject.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：華東政法大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2014
【分類(lèi)號(hào)】：D923.43

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 王學(xué)峰;;論知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)侵權(quán)引入懲罰性賠償責(zé)任制度[J];北京航空航天大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2006年01期

2 王利明;美國(guó)懲罰性賠償制度研究[J];比較法研究;2003年05期

3 陳穎洲,高仁寶;懲罰性賠償制度初探[J];法律適用(國(guó)家法官學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào));2001年05期

4 莊秀峰;保護(hù)知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)應(yīng)增設(shè)懲罰性賠償[J];法學(xué)雜志;2002年05期

5 錢(qián)玉文;駱福林;;論我國(guó)知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)法中的懲罰性賠償[J];法學(xué)雜志;2009年04期

6 代雙杰;;美國(guó)懲罰性賠償?shù)谋壤瓌t[J];法制與經(jīng)濟(jì)(下旬);2012年06期

7 和育東;賀永勝;;知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)侵權(quán)引入懲罰性賠償?shù)慕?jīng)濟(jì)理性[J];北京化工大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2012年03期

8 張玲;紀(jì)璐;;美國(guó)專(zhuān)利侵權(quán)懲罰性賠償制度及其啟示[J];法學(xué)雜志;2013年02期

9 何平;;新商標(biāo)法修正案相關(guān)問(wèn)題評(píng)析[J];中國(guó)工商管理研究;2013年10期

10 謝冠斌;陳增新;張昀;;中國(guó)知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)爭(zhēng)議解決年度觀察(2013)[J];北京仲裁;2013年01期

相關(guān)博士學(xué)位論文 前2條

1 朱丹;知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)懲罰性賠償制度研究[D];華東政法大學(xué);2013年

2 陳年冰;我國(guó)懲罰性賠償制度研究[D];山東大學(xué);2013年

本文編號(hào)：1911502