侵害知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)之不當(dāng)?shù)美麊?wèn)題研究
發(fā)布時(shí)間：2018-06-17 05:15
本文選題：不當(dāng)?shù)美?/strong> + 侵權(quán)獲利��； 參考：《華東政法大學(xué)》2013年碩士論文
【摘要】：傳統(tǒng)學(xué)術(shù)理論研究中，，知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)侵權(quán)糾紛的解決主要依賴侵權(quán)理論，追究侵權(quán)人的損害賠償責(zé)任始終是一種重要的方式。但在一定情形下，要求侵權(quán)人承擔(dān)損害賠償責(zé)任卻于事無(wú)補(bǔ)：按照現(xiàn)有的侵權(quán)損害賠償構(gòu)成要件，權(quán)利人享有損害賠償請(qǐng)求權(quán)需以侵權(quán)行為人具有主觀過(guò)錯(cuò)為要件。但在知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)侵權(quán)案件中，侵害知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)的行為人在一些情形下確實(shí)沒(méi)有過(guò)錯(cuò)或過(guò)錯(cuò)難以證明，此時(shí)權(quán)利人往往難以追究侵權(quán)人的損害賠償責(zé)任，而行為人卻因?qū)嵤┣謾?quán)行為而獲利，如果由侵權(quán)人繼續(xù)保有該利益顯然是有失公正的。另外，損害賠償責(zé)任以填補(bǔ)損失為其基本功能，可是知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)侵權(quán)損害賠償額除了以權(quán)利人的損失為依據(jù)外，還可以根據(jù)侵權(quán)人獲利來(lái)計(jì)算，這與填補(bǔ)損失的基本理念相違。實(shí)現(xiàn)財(cái)產(chǎn)利益從無(wú)過(guò)錯(cuò)侵權(quán)行為人向知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)人的轉(zhuǎn)移以及對(duì)侵權(quán)獲利做出合理的解釋，都需要一定的理論支撐。不當(dāng)?shù)美贫戎荚谌〕裏o(wú)法律原因所受之利益，其又不以侵權(quán)人主觀過(guò)錯(cuò)為要件，對(duì)權(quán)利人而言不失為一種有效的救濟(jì)手段。 本文第一章結(jié)合知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)的特點(diǎn)闡明損害賠償救濟(jì)路徑在保護(hù)權(quán)利人利益方面的不周延，因此有必要引入一種新的救濟(jì)路徑，即不當(dāng)?shù)美窂�。第二章介紹了不當(dāng)?shù)美贫鹊臍v史沿革和構(gòu)成要件，指出由于不當(dāng)?shù)美贫扰c侵權(quán)損害賠償關(guān)注角度不同，因此恰好可以彌補(bǔ)侵權(quán)損害賠償?shù)牟蛔�，接著運(yùn)用不當(dāng)?shù)美贫葘?duì)侵權(quán)獲利這一損害賠償額計(jì)算方式做出合理的解釋，認(rèn)為侵權(quán)獲利具有不當(dāng)?shù)美再|(zhì)。第三章在上一章分析侵權(quán)獲利的不當(dāng)?shù)美再|(zhì)基礎(chǔ)上，就不當(dāng)?shù)美?qǐng)求權(quán)等問(wèn)題進(jìn)行了探討，主要有：在知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)侵權(quán)中，是否應(yīng)當(dāng)給予權(quán)利人不當(dāng)?shù)美?qǐng)求權(quán)？如果權(quán)利人享有不當(dāng)?shù)美?qǐng)求權(quán)，不當(dāng)?shù)美?qǐng)求權(quán)與損害賠償請(qǐng)求權(quán)的關(guān)系是輔助還是競(jìng)合？第一個(gè)問(wèn)題，筆者運(yùn)用歷史分析方法并結(jié)合其他國(guó)家立法及我國(guó)司法實(shí)踐，認(rèn)為應(yīng)當(dāng)給予權(quán)利人不當(dāng)?shù)美?qǐng)求權(quán)；第二個(gè)問(wèn)題，筆者從民法基礎(chǔ)理論、不當(dāng)?shù)美颠�范圍與損害賠償范圍的差別等角度分別予以闡述，認(rèn)為知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)不當(dāng)?shù)美?qǐng)求權(quán)與損害賠償請(qǐng)求權(quán)的關(guān)系應(yīng)當(dāng)是競(jìng)合的。第四章主要探討了侵權(quán)行為人主觀沒(méi)有過(guò)錯(cuò)時(shí)不當(dāng)?shù)美贫鹊倪m用情形，從對(duì)TRIPS協(xié)議相關(guān)條款的解讀入手，通過(guò)探索相關(guān)法律條文的立法初衷來(lái)界定無(wú)過(guò)錯(cuò)侵權(quán)時(shí)不當(dāng)?shù)美倪m用范圍。不當(dāng)?shù)美贫葰w根結(jié)底是通過(guò)返還不當(dāng)利益來(lái)實(shí)現(xiàn)其制度功能，因此返還利益的計(jì)算是侵害知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)不當(dāng)?shù)美囊粋�(gè)重要問(wèn)題，故在最后一章筆者主要就侵害知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)不當(dāng)?shù)美姆颠�利益如何計(jì)算這一問(wèn)題進(jìn)行了討論。
[Abstract]:In the traditional academic theory research, the settlement of intellectual property infringement dispute mainly depends on the tort theory, and it is always an important way to investigate the infringer's liability for damages. But under certain circumstances, it is not helpful to require the tortfeasor to bear the liability for damages: according to the existing constitutive elements of tort compensation, the obligee's right to claim for damages should be based on the subjective fault of the tortfeasor. However, in the case of intellectual property infringement, the person who infringes on the intellectual property right does not have any fault or is difficult to prove the fault under some circumstances. At this time, it is often difficult for the obligee to investigate the liability of the infringer for damages. However, the perpetrator gains from the tort, and it is obviously unfair for the tortfeasor to retain the interest. In addition, the basic function of the liability for damages is to fill the loss, but the compensation for intellectual property infringement damages can also be calculated on the basis of the loss of the obligee, which is contrary to the basic idea of making up the loss. To realize the transfer of property interests from the no-fault tortfeasor to the intellectual property owner and to make a reasonable explanation of the infringement profit need certain theoretical support. The system of improper enrichment aims to remove the benefits received without legal reasons, and it does not take the subjective fault of the infringer as an important element. It is an effective remedy for the obligee. The first chapter of this paper combines the characteristics of intellectual property rights to clarify the damage compensation relief path in the protection of the interests of the obligee is not comprehensive, so it is necessary to introduce a new relief path, that is, the path of improper enrichment. The second chapter introduces the historical evolution and constitutive elements of the unjust enrichment system, and points out that the improper enrichment system and tort damage compensation pay attention to different angles, so it can make up the deficiency of tort damage compensation. Then the author makes a reasonable explanation to the way of calculating the damages of tort profit by using the unjust enrichment system, and thinks that the tort profit has the nature of improper enrichment. On the basis of the analysis of the nature of improper enrichment in the previous chapter, the third chapter discusses the right of claim for improper enrichment, which mainly includes: in the infringement of intellectual property, should the obligee be given the right to claim for improper enrichment? If the obligee has the right to claim for improper enrichment, is the relationship between the right to claim for improper enrichment and the right to claim for damages auxiliary or competing? The first question, the author uses the historical analysis method, unifies the other countries legislation and the judicial practice of our country, thinks that should give the obligee the right to obtain the benefit improperly, the second question, the author from the civil law foundation theory, The differences between the scope of improper enrichment return and the scope of compensation for damages are elaborated separately, and the relationship between the claim for improper enrichment of intellectual property rights and the right to claim for damages is considered to be competing. The fourth chapter mainly discusses the application of improper enrichment system when the torter has no fault, and starts with the interpretation of the relevant provisions of trips Agreement. By exploring the legislative intent of relevant legal provisions, the scope of application of improper enrichment in no-fault tort is defined. In the final analysis, the unjust enrichment system is to realize its system function through the return of improper interests, so the calculation of the return interests is an important problem of improper enrichment of intellectual property rights. Therefore, in the last chapter, the author mainly discusses how to calculate the return benefits of infringement of intellectual property rights.
【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】：2013
【分類號(hào)】：D923.4
【參考文獻(xiàn)】
相關(guān)期刊論文 前2條
1 胡志強(qiáng);中德知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)請(qǐng)求權(quán)制度比較[J];科技與法律;2000年03期
2 鄭明紅;;試論著作權(quán)侵權(quán)案中不當(dāng)?shù)美颠�制度[J];沿海企業(yè)與科技;2006年04期
相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前1條
1 劉智慧;“避風(fēng)港”原則下權(quán)利人救濟(jì)路徑之探析[D];華東政法大學(xué);2010年
本文編號(hào)：2029873
本文鏈接：http://sikaile.net/falvlunwen/zhishichanquanfa/2029873.html
最近更新
教材專著
