[1]刘铁光,李志达.电商领域适用“通知-删除”规则的利益失衡及其矫正——一种回归技术的方案及其制度构建[J].常州大学学报(社会科学版),2017,18(04):14-22.[doi:10.3969/j.issn.2095-042X.2017.04.003]
　Liu Tieguang,Li Zhida.Imbalance of Interests Caused by Rules of “Notice-Delete” Appliedin E-commerce and Its Adjustments—A Scheme Returned to Technology and the Construction of Its System[J].Journal of Changzhou University(Social Science Edition),2017,18(04):14-22.[doi:10.3969/j.issn.2095-042X.2017.04.003]
点击复制

电商领域适用“通知-删除”规则的利益失衡及其矫正——一种回归技术的方案及其制度构建()
分享到：

常州大学学报(社会科学版)[ISSN:2095-042X/CN:32-1821/C]

卷:
第18卷
期数:
2017年04期
页码:
14-22
栏目:
法学研究
出版日期:
2017-08-01

文章信息/Info

Title:
Imbalance of Interests Caused by Rules of “Notice-Delete” Appliedin E-commerce and Its Adjustments—A Scheme Returned to Technology and the Construction of Its System
作者:
刘铁光; 李志达
Author(s):
Liu Tieguang; Li Zhida
关键词:
通知-删除;  利益失衡;  “网页冻结”
Keywords:
Notice-Delete;  imbalance of interests;  “Webpage-Freezed”
分类号:
D913
DOI:
10.3969/j.issn.2095-042X.2017.04.003
文献标志码:
A
摘要:
由于满足“通知”条件的容易性、电商平台采取删除措施的积极性以及删除措施对电商卖家的利益攸关性,电商领域适用针对知识产权侵权的“通知-删除”规则,导致严重的利益失衡问题。现有研究所提出的矫正措施与方案均存在难以克服的困境。为矫正该种利益失衡,应以“网页冻结”的技术措施为基础,构建具体的制度:“网页冻结”措施具有等同于诉前禁令的准司法性质,权利人必须在电商平台采取“网页冻结”措施之日起15日内提起诉讼; 电商卖家在被实施“网页冻结”措施之后,享有提起确认不侵权之诉的权利; 而且权利人不得针对同一侵权行为重复发出要求“网页冻结”的通知。
Abstract:
Since the requirement of “Notice” could be easily met, e-commerce platforms positively take the measure of “Delete”, and its consequences to e-commerce sellers as stakeholders, the rules of “Notice-Delete” applied in dealing with the infringement of intellectual property in e-commerce would lead to severe imbalance of interests. Countermeasures and plans put forward by recent researches have some insuperable defects. In order to rectify the imbalance of interests, a system should be constructed based on the technology of “Webpage-Freezed”. “Webpage-Freezed” is of the same judicial nature as preliminary injunction, so the obligee should file a lawsuit within 15 days as long as the e-commerce platform adopts “Web Page-Freezed”. And the sellers have the right to sue the obligee to confirm non-infringement action of intellectual property. The obligee should be prohibited to put forward “Notice” repeatedly regarding the same infringement.

参考文献/References:

[1]杨明.《侵权责任法》第36条释义及其展开[J].华东政法大学学报,2010(3):123-132.
[2]张新宝,任鸿雁.互联网上的侵权责任:《侵权责任法》第36条解读[J].中国人民大学学报,2010,24(4):17-25.
[3]永斌,余水.剖析“眼球经济”[J].经济工作导刊,2000(16):11.
[4]司晓,范露琼.知识产权领域“通知-删除”规则滥用的法律规制[J].电子知识产权,2015(Z1):91-99.
[5]何琼,吕璐.“通知-删除”规则在专利领域的适用困境——兼论《侵权责任法》第36条的弥补与完善[J]. 电子知识产权,2016(5):14.
[6]夏璇.知识产权确认不侵权之诉研究[D].重庆:西南政法大学,2012.

备注/Memo

备注/Memo:
作者简介:刘铁光,法学博士,湘潭大学法学院、知识产权学院副教授,博士生导师,法治湖南建设与区域社会治理协同创新中心研究人员; 李志达,湘潭大学法学院、知识产权学院硕士研究生。
基金项目:国家社会科学基金一般项目“新媒体时代信息流动、传媒产业发展与版权制度变革研究”(15BFX143)。
更新日期/Last Update: 2017-08-01