您好,欢迎进入嬴手网!Hello, Welcome to Windealer!
分享到:0
    • 上海申新知识产权网
    • 找专利,商标,发明专利,专利许可
    • 申新律师事务所
    • 全球知识产权交易平台
  • 我要卖
  • 我要买

【知识产权】侵权行为、知识产权侵权行为概念

发布时间:2014-07-07 作者:admin

侵权行为的概念问题是侵权行为法的基础理论,而我国学界对侵权行为的概念并没有定论,争论的核心问题之一是侵权行为是否以过错为构成要件,并以此划分为肯定说和否定说两种主要观点。

  肯定说主张以过错为侵权行为的构成要件。具有代表性的定义是:因故意或过失侵害他人合法权益,依法应对所生损害承担赔偿责任的行为。主张不以过错为侵 权行为的构成要件。具有代表性的定义是:侵害他人合法权益,依法应承担民事责任的行为。在我国,只有以魏振瀛教授为代表的少部分学者持这种观点,在知识产权领域则以郑成思为代表。在立法上,尚未见有哪个国家的侵权行为法采取此种立法例,但在知识产权法领域,无论是大陆法系的法国、德国、日本,还是英美法系的英国、美国、澳大利亚等主要发达国家,却绝大多数采用此种立法例。

  根据学者通说和多数立法例,可以认为:侵权行为,是指因故意或过失侵害他人合法权益,依法应对所生损害承担赔偿责任的行为。知识产权侵权行为,是指侵害他人知识产权,依法应承担民事责任的行为。对这两个定义放在一起进行对比分析,从语言逻辑的角度来看,就产生了很大的问题。因为,“侵权行为”毫无疑问应该是“知识产权侵权行为”的上位概念,而我们刚才得到的概念却从根本上违背了这样的逻辑,除“知识产权”这一限定外,这里的下位概念在外延上却形成了对上位概念的反包围。这也是我刚才所说知识产权侵权行为与侵权行为联系密切而复杂的原因。为什么会出现这种现象呢?

  首先,对两种观点各自对侵权行为所下定义进行对比,不难发现其实质性区别有三点:第一,是否以过错(包括故意和过失)为构成要件;第二,是否要求有实际损害;第三,其导致的民事责任是否限于损害赔偿。如果进一步分析,就会发现两者区别的要点在于:以过错为构成要件者,所导致的结果是对实际发生的损害负赔偿责任,这也是以德国为代表的很多大陆法系国家把侵权行为列入民法典债编的主要理由;而不以过错为构成要件者,所导致的结果不限于对实际损害的赔偿责任,可能还包括返还原物、停止侵害、消除妨碍、妨害防止等责任形式。这也是我们所熟悉的观点:侵权导致的是责任而不是债(或者说不仅仅是债),从而成为主张将侵权行为在民法典中独立成编的理论根据。

  其次,导致这种现象的根本原因在于权利保护体系上的差别。自罗马法以来,在民法领域就确立了“所有权是一切权利的源泉”这样一种观点,再到今天,人们对所有权的关注到了无以复加的程度,在法律上规定了严密的保护体系。具体表现为双重保护,即:物权保护方法和债权保护方法。物权保护方法并不以侵害人的过错为前提,只要发生了侵害行为或者有侵害之虞,权利人就可以行使物权请求权以回复物权的圆满状态。而债权的保护方法,就是以侵权行为法规定的损害赔偿之债来保护所有权,这种损害赔偿在一般侵权的情况下则要求行为人具有主观上的过错。

  知识产权则是远在法律对这类以有体物为标的的物权的保护相当完备之后,才由于商品经济及技术的充分发展而产生的一种新型民事权利,各国对知识产权的保护是由各专门法来完成的。在专门法保护的体系内,也并没有形成象物权那样的双重保护结构,而是将物权的保护方法与债权的保护方法揉合在一起,从而形成了不以过错为构成要件的知识产权侵权行为的概念。 

The concept of tort is the basic theory of tort law, and the concept of the infringement behavior I Ancient Chinese Literature Search circles and inconclusive, one of the coreof the debate is whether the tort with fault elements, which is divided into positive and negative said that the two main view.

Sure that constitute elements of tort with fault. The definition of a representative is: for intentional or negligent infringes upon the lawful rights and interests in accordance with the law, damage the response to assume the liability of compensation behavior.The fault does not advocate elements for tortious behavior. The definition of a representative is: infringe upon the legitimate rights and interests, shall bear civil liability in accordance with the law. In China, only represented by Professor Wei Zhenying, a few scholars hold this view, in the field of intellectual property isrepresented by Zheng Chengsi. In the legislation of tort law, there has not been acountry to take such legislation, but in the field of intellectual property law, both the civil law of France, Germany, Japan, and England, American, Australia and other major developed countries, but the vast majority of mining legislation in this.

According to the scholars and the majority through legislation, can think: tort, meansfor intentional or negligent infringes upon the lawful rights and interests in accordance with the law, damage the response to assume the liability of compensation behavior.Infringement of intellectual property rights, refers to the infringement of intellectualproperty rights, should bear civil liability according to law behavior. The two definitions in were analyzed together, from the language point of view, has made a big problem.Because, "tort" there is no doubt that should be "infringement of intellectual property rights" concept in the concept, but we just can have a radical departure from this logic, in addition to the "intellectual property" the limit, the concept here on extensionis formed on the upper concept of inverse. This is what I just said the reason was closely infringement of intellectual property rights and tort relation and complex. Why is there such a phenomenon?

Firstly, on two kinds of views on the definitions of their infringement comparison, is not difficult to find that in fact the qualitative difference between the three points: first,whether the fault (including intention and negligence) for elements; second, whether the requirements of actual damage; third, the civil liability is limited to damages. If further analysis, you will find that points difference: the fault elements, the result isliable for the damage actually occurred, which is represented by Germany many civil law countries the main reason of tort obligation in civil code; and not the faultelements, the result is not limited to the liabilities of compensation for actual damage,may also include the return of the original object, the cessation of the infringement,eliminate the obstruction, prevention of nuisance and other forms of liability. This is our familiar view: the infringement responsibility rather than debt (or not just debt),thus become advocates of tort in the civil law theory according to the series of theindependent.

Secondly, the main reason lies in the difference of the rights protection system. Since the law of Rome, in the area of civil law established the "ownership is the source of all the rights of" such a view, and then to today, people on the ownership of the degree of attention to incapable of further increase, in the legal strict protection system.Specific performance for the double protection, namely: the protection of real rightand creditor protection method. The property protection method is not in violation ofparty as the premise, as long as the violations or to be infringed, the right people can exercise the right of real claim right to reply the satisfactory state. But the creditor's rights protection method, is based on the tort law the obligation of compensation for injury to protect ownership, in the general tort case requires the actor has subjective fault compensation for the damage.

Intellectual property is in the law of this kind of to object to protect the subject propertyis complete, a new civil rights to the full development of a commodity economy and technology and produce, the protection of intellectual property rights by the special law to complete. In the special law protection system, but also did not form a double protection structure as the property that, but will protect the protective methods of real right and creditor's right together, thus formed the fault does not constituteinfringement of intellectual property rights for the concept of prerequisite.


网站地图
Site Map
关于我们
About Us
联系我们
Contact Us
免责声明
Disclaimer
广告服务
Advertise
诚聘英才
Join Us