摘要
是否具有主观过错,是判定平台商承担侵权损害赔偿最核心也最具争议的要件。著作权与商标权在排他权利类型上存在重大差异决定了后者无法规制"通过网络以信息形式"实现的行为,平台商关于商标侵权的认定存在着不小的技术难度,况且它也没有资格做出这样的法律事实判断,一次用尽的权利限制更为侵权判断增添了不确定因素,因此《电子商务法(草案)》的规定不妥。平台商经通知未移除只是不能进入"避风港"免责却不能依此贸然推定过错,此外商标领域中红旗原则适用空间也更狭小。平台商检查监控义务由法律强制规定虽有不妥,但该义务可以源于合同约定。
The business models of the C2 C platform is most similar to the traditional entity store’s, but inspecting and monitoring capabilities of the platform are far weaker than the latter, because the former is limited to information online. The important differences between copyrights and trademark rights lead to the latter can’t restrain the behavior through information online. The C2 C platform identifying trademark infringement is not only so hard but also unqualified, and exhaustion of trademark right brings about lots of uncertainties to infringement identification, therefore the relevant regulations in the draft law are unreasonable. If the platform hasn’t removed product info after notification, it just will be determined no responsibility under Safe Harbor Rule, however it is inappropriate to presume the platform is subjectively faulty arbitrarily based on the rule. In addition, the space for Red Flags Rule’s application is narrower. It had better not impose the obligation to inspect and monitor on the C2 C platform by legal provisions, but the obligation can come from the contract.
作者
徐利丽
XU Lili(School of Law, Yantai University, Shandong Yantai 264003 , China)
出处
《广东外语外贸大学学报》
2019年第1期103-108,117,共7页
Journal of Guangdong University of Foreign Studies
关键词
电子商务第三方平台
商标间接侵权
检查监控义务
过错推定
通知移除规则
C2C Platform
indirect trademark infringement
obligation to inspect and monitor
presumptive fault
Notice-and-remove Rule
