Punitive damages in trademark infringement disputes in China: challenges and prospects

IF 0.4 4区 社会学 Q3 LAW Queen Mary Journal of Intellectual Property Pub Date : 2021-08-01 DOI:10.4337/qmjip.2021.03.05
Yanan Zhang
{"title":"Punitive damages in trademark infringement disputes in China: challenges and prospects","authors":"Yanan Zhang","doi":"10.4337/qmjip.2021.03.05","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Punitive damages were introduced into the intellectual property field in China by legislation permitting their imposition for malicious and serious infringements. This paper offers a comprehensive legal framework of punitive damages regarding trademark infringement and a critical analysis of the application of punitive damages in trademark infringement disputes in Chinese judicial practice. My research reveals that punitive damages have rarely been imposed since the punitive damages provision, Article 63 of the Trademark Law, took effect in 2014, whereas statutory damages have been applied extensively. The reason for this is that there are few guidelines for the application of this provision. The challenges to the application include undefined statutory requirements, difficulties in not only assessing compensation but also providing evidence and determining the multiple of compensation, and an unclear relationship between statutory damages and punitive damages. The 2019 Amendment of the Trademark Law retains these problems. Fortunately, the recently released Judicial Interpretation and typical cases concerning punitive damages contribute to resolving them. Moreover, those cases in which punitive damages have been applied have gradually revealed some basic principles for their application. Reform suggestions are offered in order to stimulate the development of a more thorough and uniform application of the punitive damages provision.","PeriodicalId":42155,"journal":{"name":"Queen Mary Journal of Intellectual Property","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2021-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Queen Mary Journal of Intellectual Property","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4337/qmjip.2021.03.05","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Punitive damages were introduced into the intellectual property field in China by legislation permitting their imposition for malicious and serious infringements. This paper offers a comprehensive legal framework of punitive damages regarding trademark infringement and a critical analysis of the application of punitive damages in trademark infringement disputes in Chinese judicial practice. My research reveals that punitive damages have rarely been imposed since the punitive damages provision, Article 63 of the Trademark Law, took effect in 2014, whereas statutory damages have been applied extensively. The reason for this is that there are few guidelines for the application of this provision. The challenges to the application include undefined statutory requirements, difficulties in not only assessing compensation but also providing evidence and determining the multiple of compensation, and an unclear relationship between statutory damages and punitive damages. The 2019 Amendment of the Trademark Law retains these problems. Fortunately, the recently released Judicial Interpretation and typical cases concerning punitive damages contribute to resolving them. Moreover, those cases in which punitive damages have been applied have gradually revealed some basic principles for their application. Reform suggestions are offered in order to stimulate the development of a more thorough and uniform application of the punitive damages provision.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
中国商标侵权纠纷中的惩罚性赔偿:挑战与展望
中国立法允许对恶意和严重侵权行为征收惩罚性赔偿,从而将惩罚性赔偿引入知识产权领域。本文提出了商标侵权惩罚性赔偿的法律框架,并对我国司法实践中惩罚性赔偿在商标侵权纠纷中的适用进行了批判性分析。笔者的研究发现,自2014年《商标法》第63条惩罚性赔偿条款生效以来,惩罚性赔偿很少被实施,而法定赔偿却被广泛应用。其原因是很少有适用这一规定的准则。该申请面临的挑战包括:法律要求不明确;在评估赔偿、提供证据和确定赔偿倍数方面存在困难;法定损害赔偿与惩罚性损害赔偿之间的关系不明确。2019年《商标法修正案》保留了这些问题。值得庆幸的是,最近出台的司法解释和惩罚性赔偿典型案例有助于解决这一问题。此外,在适用惩罚性赔偿的案例中,也逐渐揭示了适用惩罚性赔偿的一些基本原则。提出了改革建议,以促进惩罚性损害赔偿条款的更彻底和统一的适用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
10
期刊最新文献
Pharmaceutical corporate power, traditional medical knowledge, and intellectual property governance in China Book review: Karine E Peschard, Seed Activism: Patent Politics and Litigation in the Global South (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA 2022) 208 pp. Judicial and legislative approaches to employee patent rights in France Page against the machine: the death of the author and the rise of the producer? The universe identification and sampling design of consumer surveys in trade mark lawsuits
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1