电商领域知识产权恶意通知问题研究

Research on Malicious Notices of Intellectual Property in E-Commerce Field

摘要: 《电子商务法》第42条确立了“通知移除规则”，但实践中各电商平台上假借知识产权维权名义发出的恶意通知层出不穷；“通知移除规则”天然的快捷性、电商平台“流量为王”的特点与15日等待期的规定恰为这一现象的背后成因。然而实践中对恶意通知的构成认定尚存争议，因此有必要依照立法表述将恶意通知从客观和主观两个层面进行拆分，具体包括：在客观层面确立合格通知所应当包含的要件，反面推理得出不符合合格通知即为错误通知；在主观层面厘清恶意的内涵及其三种常见司法形态。寻求对恶意通知的规制路径时，应当注意电商平台与司法机关之间协同合作：应适当赋予电商平台自主权，允许其设置担保机制、建立信用分层名单；同时发挥法院的自由裁量权，准许被通知人申请反向行为保全，并合理分配举证责任、统一损害赔偿数额计算标准。

Abstract: Article 42 of the E-commerce Law establishes the “Notice-and-Takedown Rule”, but in practice, mali-cious notices issued on various e-commerce platforms in the name of intellectual property rights protection emerge one after another; the efficiency of “Notice-and-Takedown Rule”, the characteris-tics of “traffic is king” of e-commerce platforms and the provisions of the 15-day waiting period are the reasons behind this phenomenon. However, in practice, there are still disputes on the identifi-cation of the composition of malicious notice. Therefore, it is necessary to split the malicious notice from objective and subjective levels according to the legislative expression, including: Establishing the elements that should be included in the qualified notice which can help distinguish the non-qualified notice; at the subjective level, clarify the connotation of malice and its three common judicial forms. When seeking the regulation path of malicious notice, we should pay attention to the coordination and cooperation between e-commerce platforms and judicial authorities: E-commerce platforms should be appropriately given autonomy, allowed to set up guarantee mechanism and establish credit hierarchical list, and at the same time, give play to the discretion of the court, allow the notified person to apply for reverse act preservation, reasonably allocate the burden of proof and unify the calculation standard of the amount of damage compensation.