摘要
关于网络服务提供者的过错,商标法与侵权责任法的规则是一致的。《侵权责任法》第36条第3款中的"知道",不应被解释为包括过失意义上的应知,而仅包括实际知道和其证据法上的衍生类型"很可能知道";"知道"的证明中,法官应适用高度盖然性标准,根据网络服务的内容、所涉民事权益的类型、应采取的必要措施的类型来确定"红旗规则"在不同情形下的适用标准。网络服务提供者应采取的必要措施,应是对预防和制止侵权行为最有效的措施,但网络服务提供者就此仅承担行为义务而非结果义务,此外,必要措施不应对网络用户的权益造成不应有的损害。但在通知—删除程序方面,《侵权责任法》第36条第2款的"通知—删除规则"规定的是权利人的实体请求权,与著作权法领域的通知—删除制度在性质和内容上均不同,在没有生效法律文书作为依据的情况下,该条款不能发挥作用,因此应在商标法领域另行引入著作权领域的程序性通知—删除制度。
With reference to negligence of internet service provider, the rules of Trademark Law and Tort Liability Law are consistent. The concept of“Know”in Article 36（3） of Tort Liability Law is restricted to actual known or“probably know”which is the derived type on evidence law, and could not be interpreted to “should know”at the aberration level. In order to proof “know”, judges should apply high degree probability standard, and determine＆quot;Red Flag Rule＆quot;applicable standards in different situations according to the content of network services, types of civil rights involved, and types of necessary measures to be taken. The necessary measures which internet service provider takes should be the most effective measures to safeguard and prevent violations infringement, however, internet service provider only assume obligation of conduct rather than obligation of result. In addition, necessary measures should not make undue harm to the interests of internet users. As to Notiifcation-Remove procedure, Article 36（2） of Tort Liability Law is entity claims of right holder, which is different from the rule in Copyright Law in respect of the nature and content and cannot be applied without effective legal instruments. Therefore, it is suggested to introduce the Notiifcation-Remove procedure of Copyright Law into Trademark Law.
出处
《知识产权》
CSSCI
北大核心
2015年第5期10-19,共10页
Intellectual Property
关键词
网络服务提供商责任
商标侵权
过错
过失
间接侵权
responsibility of internet service provider
trademark infringement
negligence
indirect infringement
