本文選題：網(wǎng)絡(luò)平臺(tái)服務(wù)商 + 網(wǎng)絡(luò)平臺(tái)服務(wù)商商標(biāo)侵權(quán)　； 參考：《南京師范大學(xué)》2015年碩士論文

【摘要】：隨著互聯(lián)網(wǎng)技術(shù)的飛速發(fā)展,淘寶、京東商城等B2B、B2C模式已成為消費(fèi)者日常生活的一部分并顯現(xiàn)出其巨大的行業(yè)優(yōu)勢(shì)。隨之而來的是法律與新興產(chǎn)業(yè)之間的沖突,當(dāng)前出現(xiàn)的網(wǎng)絡(luò)平臺(tái)服務(wù)商商標(biāo)侵權(quán)行為就是其中一個(gè)較為棘手的問題。實(shí)體法上如何認(rèn)定、人民法院如何依據(jù)現(xiàn)有法律規(guī)定妥善處理等問題不僅給司法實(shí)踐操作帶來一定困難,也給理論界提出了新的論題。本文主要從以下幾個(gè)部分展開：第一部分是對(duì)網(wǎng)絡(luò)平臺(tái)服務(wù)商商標(biāo)侵權(quán)問題的概述。從幾種對(duì)網(wǎng)絡(luò)平臺(tái)服務(wù)商的定義著手,對(duì)網(wǎng)絡(luò)平臺(tái)服務(wù)商進(jìn)行定性,最終得出網(wǎng)絡(luò)平臺(tái)服務(wù)商應(yīng)當(dāng)是網(wǎng)絡(luò)中介服務(wù)商這一結(jié)論。第二部分主要介紹了國外有關(guān)網(wǎng)絡(luò)平臺(tái)服務(wù)的主要理論和典型案例。目前,間接侵權(quán)理論采用的國家和地區(qū)較多,這些國外的重要理論和經(jīng)典案例給我國的司法實(shí)踐帶來重要啟示,需要我們對(duì)大陸法系和英美法系的相關(guān)法律規(guī)定和司法實(shí)踐案例進(jìn)行分析比較的基礎(chǔ)之上,并結(jié)合我國網(wǎng)絡(luò)交易發(fā)展的實(shí)際情況,在將來的網(wǎng)絡(luò)立法規(guī)范中進(jìn)行更為細(xì)致的規(guī)范。第三部分闡述了我國網(wǎng)絡(luò)平臺(tái)服務(wù)商侵權(quán)責(zé)任制度存在的問題,通過對(duì)今年來幾個(gè)典型案例的分析,可以發(fā)現(xiàn)當(dāng)前我國司法實(shí)踐中存在的問題。這些問題主要體現(xiàn)在：適用的商標(biāo)侵權(quán)理論模糊、要求網(wǎng)絡(luò)平臺(tái)服務(wù)商承擔(dān)審查義務(wù)和責(zé)任的判斷標(biāo)準(zhǔn)不明確、判斷網(wǎng)絡(luò)平臺(tái)服務(wù)商主觀過錯(cuò)依據(jù)的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)不一致這三個(gè)方面。第四部分是對(duì)我國網(wǎng)絡(luò)平臺(tái)服務(wù)商商標(biāo)侵權(quán)責(zé)任認(rèn)定的制度完善和司法建議。首先要構(gòu)建網(wǎng)絡(luò)平臺(tái)服務(wù)商間接侵權(quán)制度,其次是要正確理解和適用《侵權(quán)責(zé)任法》第36條的規(guī)定,對(duì)法條中關(guān)鍵詞語、對(duì)網(wǎng)絡(luò)平臺(tái)服務(wù)商審查義務(wù)和對(duì)網(wǎng)絡(luò)平臺(tái)服務(wù)商放任網(wǎng)絡(luò)用戶侵權(quán)三方面的認(rèn)定。
[Abstract]:With the rapid development of Internet technology, the B2B B2C model, such as Taobao, JingDong Mall, has become a part of the daily life of consumers and has shown its huge industry advantages. Then comes the conflict between the law and the new industry. The trademark infringement of network platform service provider is one of the thorny problems. How to determine in the substantive law and how the people's court deal with the problems according to the existing law not only brings some difficulties to the judicial practice, but also puts forward a new topic to the theorists. This article mainly from the following several parts: the first part is the network platform service provider trademark infringement summary. Starting from several definitions of network platform service provider, this paper analyzes the nature of network platform service provider, and finally comes to the conclusion that network platform service provider should be network intermediary service provider. The second part mainly introduces the main theories and typical cases about network platform service abroad. At present, there are many countries and regions using indirect tort theory. These important foreign theories and classic cases bring important enlightenment to the judicial practice of our country. On the basis of the analysis and comparison of the relevant legal provisions and judicial practice cases between the civil law system and the common law system, and in combination with the actual situation of the development of the network transaction in our country, In the future network legislation norms for more detailed specification. The third part expounds the problems existing in the tort liability system of our country's network platform service providers. Through the analysis of several typical cases this year, we can find the problems existing in the current judicial practice of our country. These problems are mainly reflected in the following three aspects: the applicable trademark infringement theory is vague, the judgment standard for requiring the network platform service provider to undertake the obligation and responsibility to examine is not clear, and the criterion for judging the subjective fault of the network platform service provider is inconsistent. The fourth part is the system perfection and judicial suggestion of trademark tort liability of network platform service provider in our country. First of all, we should construct the indirect tort system of network platform service provider, and secondly, we should correctly understand and apply the provisions of Article 36 of the Tort liability Law. The obligation to examine the network platform service provider and the network platform service provider to allow the network user to infringe the rights.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：南京師范大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2015
【分類號(hào)】：D923.43

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前1條

1 胡開忠;;“避風(fēng)港規(guī)則”在視頻分享網(wǎng)站版權(quán)侵權(quán)認(rèn)定中的適用[J];法學(xué);2009年12期

相關(guān)博士學(xué)位論文 前1條

1 鮑永正;電子商務(wù)知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)法律制度研究[D];中國政法大學(xué);2002年

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前3條

1 王江敏;網(wǎng)絡(luò)環(huán)境下的商標(biāo)侵權(quán)之間接侵權(quán)責(zé)任研究[D];華東政法大學(xué);2012年

2 李雪;網(wǎng)絡(luò)交易環(huán)境中商標(biāo)侵權(quán)問題研究[D];吉林大學(xué);2012年

3 李淼;網(wǎng)絡(luò)交易平臺(tái)提供商的法律問題研究[D];重慶大學(xué);2007年

，

本文編號(hào)：1868732