论商标侵权惩罚性赔偿的司法适用

钟瑶瑶  李笑笑

【摘要】：近年来，知识产权领域的“惩罚性赔偿 ”问题日益成为司法实务界关注的重点、 难点。侵害惩罚性赔偿制度的立法体系日趋完善，该制度的设立对于进一步强化对知识产权 的保护，解决长期以来实践中一直存在的知识产权侵权违法成本低、执法成本高的问题，遏 制严重侵害知识产权行为具有重大的价值。然立法价值有待于司法实践加以实现，我国知识 产权惩罚性赔偿制度落地 7 年来，统一的司法裁判标准一直难以形成。本文立足于商标案件 审判实务， 以司法实践为视角，在 2021 年往后已审结的知识产权案件中筛选与惩罚性赔偿 直接相关的典型案例，并结合法释[2021]4 号，梳理归纳出惩罚性赔偿的基本原则、程序要 件、实体要件、隐形要件，以期进一步明晰惩罚性赔偿的司法适用条件，为诉讼实操提供研 究成果。

【关键词】：商标侵权；惩罚性赔偿；法定赔偿；赔偿基数；赔偿系数

2021 年 9 月，中共中央、国务院印发了《知识产权强国建设纲  要（2021-2035 年）》，提出“建设中国特色、世界水平的知识产权 强国 ”的总体要求，在该纲要的第三部分“建设面向社会主义现代化 的知识产权制度 ”中，明确要求“全面建立并实施侵权惩罚性赔偿制 度，加大损害赔偿力度" 。近年来，我国不断修订或颁布了一批知  识产权重要法规，目前《民法典》、知识产权各专门法都相继引入惩 罚性赔偿的规定，全国有多家法院（如北京高院、山东高院、深圳中 院等）纷纷对“惩罚性赔偿 ”规则的适用出台了相关裁判指引 、意  见、研究课题等，在世界知识产权日全国各地法院相继发布知识产权 惩罚性赔偿的典型案例，标志着惩罚性赔偿的制度构建日臻完善，知 识产权惩罚性赔偿的价值意义日益凸显。但在实践中由于程序保障不 到位、实体条件不明确、赔偿基数计算难、赔偿倍数无章可循等问题，

导致法定赔偿适用泛化，惩罚性赔偿适用甚少且适用标准不明晰。有鉴于此，本文立足我国商标案件审判实务，通过对裁判文书的梳理， 及对最高人民法院《关于审理侵犯知识产权民事案件适用惩罚性赔偿 的解释》法释[2021]4 号的解读，着力探讨惩罚性赔偿的司法适用困 境、理解与适用等，希冀能对诉讼参与人未来在知识产权案件的损害

赔偿主张中准确的理解和适用惩罚性赔偿作出提示。

一、商标侵权的惩罚性赔偿制度概述

（一）商标侵权惩罚性赔偿的内涵

惩罚性赔偿，顾名思义，系对违法行为在民事责任所规定的一般 性赔偿制度，即“填平原则 ”之外给予的惩处性质的额外赔偿。而商 标侵权惩罚性赔偿具体指：根据法律规定，被告因其主观过错和具体 侵权情节，在商标侵权诉讼中，须给原告支付的额度超过原告实际经济损失的赔偿。

（二）惩罚性赔偿的立法发展

惩罚性赔偿的规定，在我国首次出现在 2013 年修订的商标法中，规定在该法的第 63 条 。2019 年 4 月，商标法进行了几个重要条款 的修订，包括修改了第 63 条 。2020 年民法典修订，在第 1185 条规 定中新增了惩罚性赔偿条款。

鉴于此，2021 年 3 月，最高人民法院《关于审理侵犯知识产权 民事案件适用惩罚性赔偿的解释》法释[2021]4 号出台，对于惩罚性

赔偿条款如何实务操作，进行了相应的细化。

上述法律法规的规定凸显了知识产权惩罚性赔偿制度的重要性。

二、商标侵权惩罚性赔偿司法适用分析

（一）商标侵权惩罚性赔偿适用现状

本文筛选了中国裁判文书网中以“惩罚性赔偿 ”为关键词，以适 用商标法第 63 条为条件，共获得 2013—2020 年裁判的 1123 份相关 的判决书，再检索 2021 年“惩罚性赔偿 ”的商标侵权案件，共获得58 件相关的判决书。从时间分布上看，在 2013—2018 年，我国对于惩罚性赔偿的适   用还处于尝试性、试探性萌芽阶段，有个别案件进行了裁判，但是案  件数量较少，赔偿数额整体也较低。在 2019—2021 年，伴随着立法   对于惩罚性赔偿的认定不断增多，高额判赔逐年升高。从分布地域来  看，惩罚性赔偿的司法判决集中在北京、广东、江苏等沿海地区和特  大城市地区的法院，这与地区知识产权司法保护水平和司法保护力度， 是相互匹配的。从占比比例上看，法定赔偿的案件占比高达 95%以上，只有极少部分案件依据惩罚性赔偿。相关研究亦标明，即便侵权人恶意和情节严重之要件均已成就， 如果原告未能举证证明惩罚性赔偿三大计算基数，实践中多数案例仍 然适用法定赔偿。以上根源在于惩罚性赔偿的司法适用规则尚不明晰以 2015 年青岛市中级人民法院“CK ”商标案为例，被告未经许 可在其经营的网店大量销售带有被控侵权标识服装的行为，侵犯了原 告的注册商标专用权；且原告诉三家天猫网店侵害其商标专用权系列案件中，其中一家为被告自营，其余两家由被告提供发票，网店页面设计雷同，并在网点首页醒目位置使用原告商标，因此，法院认定被 诉三家网店侵权行为恶意明显，适用惩罚性赔偿原则，全额支持了原告诉请，判令被告停止侵权并赔偿原告经济损失共计人民币 210 万元。

该案为青岛市第一例适用惩罚性赔偿原则的案件，体现了法院对 于知名度较高的商标，以及被告恶意较为明显的“傍名牌 ”的侵权行 为，实施惩罚性赔偿的探索。但是，这个案件并非真正意义上的惩罚 性赔偿的适用，仅仅是在法定赔偿数额的确定上，考虑被告的恶意和 情节严重，酌定了一个较高的赔偿数额。这种裁判思路，表现出法院 在法定赔偿、实际损失或者侵权获利赔偿、以及惩罚性赔偿四者的关系问题是，尚存在很大的争议和混淆。

（二）惩罚性赔偿案件适用现状之成因

由于司法实践中对于商标侵权惩罚性赔偿规则存在不同理解，我国适用商标侵权惩罚性赔偿的案件比例较低，造成这种现象的原因是：

第一、惩罚性赔偿与法定赔偿在功能上有重合之处，当事人未明 确请求适用或不可适用惩罚性赔偿的，法院可否依职权主动适用接近 法定赔偿的上限确定赔偿额以体现“惩罚性 ”，法院在惩罚性赔偿制度的启用上存在较大差异；

第二、一些法院以“恶意+情节严重 ”为由适用惩罚性赔偿，一 些法院仅以“恶意 ”为由适用惩罚性赔偿，还有的法院未说明条件而直接适用惩罚性赔偿，对惩罚性赔偿适用条件的认识较为混乱；

第三、在实际损失、侵权获利、商标许可使用费倍数均难以确定 时，有的法院以计算基数不存在为由拒绝适用惩罚性赔偿，有的法院 则酌定一个数额作为计算基数，并在此基础上适用惩罚性赔偿，对惩罚性赔偿计算基数的认定不明晰；

第四、法院在按照基数的几倍确定惩罚性赔偿数额时，仅以本院认为较为合理进行说理，对于倍数的选择较为随意，对于倍数的理解也存在不同分歧；

第五、对于单独适用惩罚性赔偿，或者同时适用惩罚性赔偿与法 定赔偿裁判的案件，原告是否需要在诉讼请求中明确主张法定赔偿和 惩罚性赔偿的金额占比，还是法院查明后选择适用，各地法院法官对 于惩罚性赔偿和法定赔偿两者的关系未明晰，各地法院的裁判标准存在较大差异。

三、商标侵权惩罚性赔偿规则的理解与适用

赔偿数额的确定目前在司法实践中仍存在较大困难，惩罚性赔偿 在程序性规则、构成要件的考虑因素等方面都需要再具体细化。随着 惩罚性赔偿制度的不断热议，可以预见未来诉讼参与人主张适用惩罚 性赔偿的情形会明显增多。本文结合法释[2021]4 号的规定，对商标侵权惩罚性赔偿的适用得出以下几点研究成果：

（一）坚持“补偿为主，惩罚为辅 ”的基本原则

惩罚性赔偿与补偿性赔偿不同，其主要功能在于对重大侵害他人 权益的不法行为人进行惩罚与吓阻。知识产权惩罚性赔偿制度的法律 属性为民事责任，同时，由于其兼具惩罚的功能，因而是具有“私人罚款 ”性质的民事责任。

知识产权保护最终目的是公权和私权的相互平衡，立法的原则精 神还是以补偿为主，惩罚为辅，故应仅在侵权行为严重调整权利边界 和既定利益分配规则的情况下引入惩罚性赔偿制度予以严惩。知识产 权惩罚性赔偿制度是对现有赔偿制度的补充和完善，而不是对现有赔 偿制度的颠覆和替代，故在实际操作中仍然要坚持依法适用、平等保护、比例协调、保护权利人合法权益与维护公共利益一致等原则。但是，确定惩罚性赔偿与补偿性赔偿两者之间关系的意义主要集 中在理论研究层面，司法实践中，诉讼参与人一般并不会同时提出既 适用补偿性赔偿，又适用惩罚性赔偿的主张，而是选择主张直接适用 惩罚性赔偿。那么诉讼参与人真实的意愿是否为在惩罚性赔偿不适用 的情况下放弃法定赔偿呢？显然不是。本文较为赞同的观点为：应当 推定诉讼参与人的意图是同时适用补偿性赔偿和惩罚性赔偿，而不应 对此过分苛责，但可以要求其明确基数（即补偿性赔偿数额）与惩罚性赔偿的数额。

（二）惩罚性赔偿适用的程序要件

惩罚性赔偿的启动条件是适用该制度需要首先明确的程序性问题，该启动条件包括惩罚性赔偿的启动主体、启动时间及提出方式。根据法释[2021]4 号第 1 条第 1 款和第 2 条的规定，对于上述规定的理解，应当注意如下三点：

1.关于启动主体。惩罚性赔偿应根据权利人申请而适用，而不宜由法院依职权适用。 这一规则更符合民事诉讼法“不告不理 ”的基本原则，亦符合法院中立裁判的地位。

2.关于启动时间。权利人应当在起诉时就明确提出适用惩罚性赔偿，如果在起诉时 未提出，最迟应在一审法庭辩论终结前提出。这一规则也与民事诉讼法中关于增加、变更诉讼请求的时间规定一致。

3.关于提出方式。权利人可以以书面形式主张适用惩罚性赔偿，也可以在庭审过程中，当庭口头要求适用惩罚性赔偿。这样处理不仅有助于提高审判效率，也保证了有据可查。

（三）惩罚性赔偿适用的实体要件

由于惩罚性赔偿制度的惩罚性，因而相比于一般侵权行为，仅满  足一般要件可能导致该制度的泛用和法律关系失衡等问题，故就现有  法律规范观之，惩罚性赔偿制度需要解构分析的要素还包括主观要素、客观要素以及隐性要素。

1.关于主观要素。

故意或恶意是一种主观心理状态，除了行为人自身明确知晓之外， 其他主体很难证明。因此，若对故意或恶意区分判定，将导致法院在  主观要件判断中出现困难。故根据法释[2021]4 号第 1 条第 2 款的规定，故意和恶意在法律规则层面上同义，不做区分理解。对于故意或恶意所包含的具体情形，法释[2021]4 号第 3 条有明确的规定 , 除此之外，在多地法院制定的指导意见中亦有对“故意” 或“恶意 ”的情形有所规定，可以供法院在具体实践中进行参考。至   于对个案中新出现的其他情形，应在体系化理解现有法律规定已例举的情况下，请求法院综合全案事实和证据谨慎认定。

2.关于客观要素。

“情节严重 ”是事件的发展演变过程在时间、程度、范围、后果 等方面的影响恶劣，一般不涉及行为人的主观状态。对于情节严重的情形认定，需要结合日常生活经验法则和侵害知识产权案件的具体情况来确定。

案例援引一：2021 年北京知识产权法院“茅台酒诉盛世大典酒 业 ”商标案中，法院认定“情节严重 ”参考了以下情况：五被告侵 犯原告注册商标专用权、攀附商标专用权人商誉的主观故意明显，客 观上也造成了市场混淆并扰乱了市场秩序。同时，考虑到原告涉案商 标的市场声誉及商业价值、茅台品牌的知名度，五被告制造、销售假 冒知名白酒,提供品质低于商标权人的同类商品，其行为严重损害了 原告及茅台品牌的市场声誉，侵权情节严重，故本案应当适用惩罚性赔偿。根据法释[2021]4 号第 4 条规定 , 通过对上述规定及现有司法  实践关于“情节严重 ”的情形进行分析，可以从以下两方面进行考虑： 一是行为方式，包括侵权手段恶劣、侵权时间长、侵权范围广、多次 侵权或侵犯多项知识产权、以侵权为业等情形。二是损害后果，补偿 性赔偿要求给权利人造成损害，故作为比补偿性赔偿更为严厉的惩罚 性赔偿制度，自然要求给权利人造成更为严重的损害后果。具体可以 表现在侵权获利巨大、对人身安全和环境资源造成危害、严重损害社会公共利益，对权利人信誉、社会评价或社会形象造成较大负面影响等方面。

3.关于隐性要素。

（1）基数确定。

在探讨惩罚性赔偿的适用条件时，无论是理论界还是实务界，均主要集中在主观要件和客观要件方面进行分析，但是，不可忽视的一点是，在适用惩罚性赔偿时一个必不可少的隐性条件便是：权利人因侵权所受到的实际损失、被告违法所得数额或者因侵权所获得的利益（以下简称侵权人获利）、许可使用费的倍数可以确定，也就是通常所称的惩罚性赔偿的“基数 ”可以确定。换句话说，如果惩罚性赔偿的“基数 ”无法确定，即使主客观要件均符合要求，依然会因“基数 ”无法确定从而无法适用惩罚性赔偿。因此，惩罚性赔偿“基数 ”的计算对于惩罚性赔偿的适用至关重要。考虑到知识产权作为无形财产的  特殊性，精确计算出侵权行为造成的权利人损失、侵权人获利、许可  使用费的可能性极低，如果司法实践一味强调对上述数额的精确计算， 则必然造成上述三种方式无法得到适用，也使得惩罚性赔偿因为“基  数 ”无法准确计算而形同虚设。因此，在权利人损失、侵权人获利和  许可使用费的计算方面，不应过分苛求精确计算，当事人既可以证明赔偿的具体数额，也可以证明赔偿数额的合理区间；既可以精确计算，也可以概括估算。

案例援引二：2021 年广州知识产权法院“精工 ”商标案 , 一审  法院采纳了原告的赔偿额计算方式，根据原告提交的来源于国家税务 机关的《增值税纳税申报表》《纳税申报明细》的纳税数据，以及原 告提供的国家统计局网站公布行业利润率数据，取代表一个行业年度 整体销售状况的行业利润平均值作为计算侵权获利的标准，因此计算 出被告的侵权获利合计 11312574 元。二审法院亦认为上述计算方式，予以驳回上诉、维持原判。

案例援引三：2021 年成都市中级人民法院“求人餐饮诉恋上爸爸 炒料餐饮 ”商标案 , 该院根据美团网第一次统计的数额作为被控店 铺的营业额，再根据《2020 中国餐饮业年度报告》公布的火锅行业平均利润率 13.73%主张以此作为计算实际利润的标准，计算得出商标部分的侵权获利为 3714136 元。

案例援引四：2021 年浙江省高级人民法院“ 惠氏 ”商标案 , 法 院认为根据原广州惠氏宝贝母婴用品有限公司提交的财务数据和以 其在行政程序中提交的经销商数量和年购货指标计算其侵权获利的 区间为 789.08 万元～5193.19 万元，并以此确定为惩罚性赔偿的基数。

在计算惩罚性赔偿“基数 ”时，需要将以下两种赔偿数额排除在外：一是按照法定赔偿确定的赔偿基数。二是合理开支。

案例援引五：2021 年广州市越秀区人民法院“任天堂 ”商标案⑱ , 法院将侵权损害赔偿金额的计算方式划分为了三种情况：“1.如果权 利人损失或侵权获利可以确定，则应当按照权利人损失或侵权获利计 算赔偿金额；对恶意侵权、情节严重的行为，可适用惩罚性赔偿。2. 权利人损失或侵权获利不能确定，则适用法定赔偿计算赔偿金额。3. 如果能确定部分损失或侵权获利，应当先以部分损失或侵权获利计算 赔偿金额，符合适用惩罚性赔偿要件的，以该部分损失或获利确定惩 罚性赔偿数额；不能确定损失或侵权获利的部分，仍应当适用法定赔偿。最终的赔偿金额是该两种计算方法所得出的赔偿数额之和。

（2）倍数计算。

如果说确定惩罚性赔偿的“基数 ”是在发挥填平权利人损失的  补偿性赔偿的功能，那么确定惩罚性赔偿“倍数 ”的过程则重点应从 实现惩罚、威慑、制止潜在侵权的功能方面进行考量。因此，惩罚性 赔偿的“倍数 ”应计算为补偿性赔偿的基数加上惩罚性赔偿的倍数之和。

案例援引六：2021 年浙江省高级人民法院“ 惠氏 ”商标案，最 大的特色大于，杭州市中级人民法院认定的倍数 3 倍，是以赔偿基数 ×3，但是浙江省高级人民法院认为最终确定的被诉侵权人承担的赔 偿总额应为基数数额加上惩罚性赔偿数额之和，因此赔偿总额应为基数的（1+3）=4 倍。“倍数 ”可以是整数也可以不是整数，“倍数”的确定是否科学、 合理，一定程度上也直接影响惩罚性功能的实现。在确定惩罚性赔偿“倍数”时，可围绕以下因素进行考量：

第一、若侵权人的主观过错程度越严重、侵权情节越恶劣，苛责 性的程度越高，倍数也就应当越高。根据法释[2021]4 号第6条的规定 , 法院可以在倍数区间内根据侵权人的具体侵权情节进行酌情处理。

第二、是否存在其它惩罚情况。除了民事赔偿之外，行政罚款和 刑事罚金也对侵害商标行为进行惩罚，若同时适用，将导致侵权人的 惩罚过重，因此法院在确定惩罚赔偿数额时可对行政罚款和刑事罚金的处罚情况有所考虑。根据法[2021]4 号第 6 条的规定，如果已经追究过相应处罚的，可在确定惩罚性赔偿数额时考虑较低倍数。

第三、是否构成举证妨碍。实践中，侵权人持有相关证据、无合 理理由拒不提供，或提供虚假证据，目的是为了妨碍法院查清与赔偿 数额相关的事实，此时，法院可以参考权利人的主张和证据确定补偿性赔偿数额。根据法释[2021]4 号第 5 条第 3 款的规定 , 在权利人损失、侵权人获利、许可使用费可以确定的前提下，侵权人上述举证妨碍的情 形，亦表明其逃避法律制裁、妨碍诉讼的主观过错明显，故在确定“倍数 ”时可以作为提高惩罚性赔偿金的因素予以考虑。

案例援引七：2021 年江苏省中级人民法院“大自然地板 ”商标案 ，两被告经法院要求后仍未能提供其持有的销售被控侵权产品利 润的证据，故认为原告关于单位利润的计算方式有相应的证据予以支 持，在各被告未提供相应反证予以反驳或推翻的情况下，对原告主张的计算方式予以支持。

案例援引八：2021年，吉林省长春市中级人民法院“皓月 ”商标案，该院认定加盟费为 3 万元。《皓月农贸社区专卖店合同》未 直接规定商标许可费的数额，但是根据涉案合同约定，加盟店在指定 的时间、地点使用“皓月 ”注册商标、招牌、品牌是涉案加盟合同的 重要内容，因此加盟费中包括商标许可使用费。根据加盟合同双方权 利义务等约定以及涉案“皓月 ”商标的知名度情况等，酌定商标许可 使用费为 1 万元，并以一倍的商标许可使用费即 1 万元作为计算本案赔偿数额的基数。

四、结语

惩罚性赔偿，作为加大司法保护力度，提高知识产权保护水平的 一个强有力的法律工具，适用得当，对于打击侵权的震慑作用可立竿 见影，若适用不当，将导致权利滥用，过度挤压公众行为的空间。目 前对于惩罚性赔偿的理解与适用，除了法释[2021]4 号的法律规定之 外，所依据的就是各地高级人民法院自行制定的指导意见，但指导意见并非规范法源，不能上升为全国性的司法观点，为避免各地法院出现“ 同案不同判 ”，迫切需要最高人民法院尽快发布指导性案例，统一全国裁判尺度。对于惩罚性赔偿制度，我们律师行业也应当理性看待，不盲目适 用，争取在实践中探索和总结惩罚性赔偿适用的司法路径，共同助力优化营商环境、服务创新驱动发展战略和深化“溯源治理 ”。

作者单位：浙江利群律师事务所

联系方式：15712668311   18657613220

通讯地址：台州市椒江区中心大道银泰城 6 幢 3F

On the Judicial Application of Punitive Compensation for Trademark Infringement

Zhong Yaoyao, Li Xiaoxiao

Abstract: In recent years, the issue of "punitive damages" in the field of intellectual property has increasingly become a focus and difficulty of judicial practice. The legislative system of punitive damages for infringement is becoming increasingly perfect. The establishment of this system is of great value for further strengthening the protection of intellectual property rights, solving the long-standing problems of low illegal costs and high enforcement costs of intellectual property infringement in practice, and curbing serious infringement of intellectual property rights. However, the legislative value needs to be realized through judicial practice. Since the implementation of China's intellectual property punitive compensation system 7 years ago, a unified judicial judgment standard has been difficult to form. This article is based on the trial practice of trademark cases, and from the perspective of judicial practice, selects typical cases directly related to punitive damages in intellectual property cases that have been concluded since 2021. Combined with the Fa Shi [2021] No. 4, it summarizes the basic principles, procedural requirements, substantive requirements, and hidden requirements of punitive damages, in order to further clarify the judicial application conditions of punitive damages and provide research results for litigation practice.

Keywords: Trademark infringement; Punitive damages; Statutory compensation; Compensation base; Compensation coefficient

In September 2021, the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China and the State Council issued the "Outline of Building an Intellectual Property Power (2021-2035)", which proposed the overall requirement of "building an intellectual property power with Chinese characteristics and world level". In the third part of the outline, "Building an intellectual property system oriented towards socialist modernization", Clearly requiring the comprehensive establishment and implementation of a punitive compensation system for infringement and increasing the intensity of compensation for damages. In recent years, China has continuously revised or promulgated a number of important intellectual property laws and regulations. Currently, the Civil Code and various specialized laws on intellectual property have introduced punitive compensation provisions, and multiple courts across the country (such as the Beijing High Court, Shandong High Court, Shenzhen Middle Court, etc.) have successively imposed punitive compensation The application of rules has introduced relevant judgment guidelines, opinions, research topics, etc. On World Intellectual Property Day, courts across the country have successively released typical cases of punitive damages for intellectual property, marking the gradual improvement of the system construction of punitive damages, and the increasingly prominent value and significance of punitive damages for intellectual property. However, in practice, due to inadequate procedural guarantees, unclear physical conditions, difficulty in calculating compensation bases, and lack of clear rules for compensation multiples,

This has led to the generalization of the application of statutory compensation, with few punitive damages and unclear application standards. In view of this, this article is based on the trial practice of trademark cases in China. Through sorting out the judgment documents and interpreting the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on the Application of Punitive Compensation in the Trial of Civil Cases of Infringement of Intellectual Property Rights (Fa Shi [2021] No. 4), it focuses on exploring the judicial application difficulties, understanding, and application of punitive compensation, hoping to mitigate the future damage to litigation participants in intellectual property cases

Provide accurate understanding and application of punitive damages in compensation claims.

1、 Overview of Punitive Compensation System for Trademark Infringement

（1） The Connotation of Punitive Compensation for Trademark Infringement

Punitive damages, as the name suggests, are additional punitive damages provided in addition to the general compensation system stipulated in civil liability for illegal acts, namely the "filling in principle". The punitive damages for trademark infringement specifically refer to: according to legal provisions, the defendant, due to their subjective fault and specific infringement circumstances, must pay the plaintiff more compensation than the plaintiff's actual economic losses in trademark infringement litigation.

（2） Legislative Development of Punitive Compensation

The provision of punitive damages first appeared in the revised Trademark Law of China in 2013, as stipulated in Article 63 of the law. In April 2019, the Trademark Law underwent several important revisions, including the amendment of Article 63. In 2020, the Civil Code was revised to include a punitive compensation clause in Article 1185.

In view of this, in March 2021, the Supreme People's Court issued the Interpretation on the Application of Punitive Compensation in the Trial of Civil Cases of Infringement of Intellectual Property Rights (Fa Shi [2021] No. 4), which stipulates that punitive damages

The practical operation of compensation clauses has been further refined accordingly.

The provisions of the above laws and regulations highlight the importance of the punitive compensation system for intellectual property rights.

2、 Analysis of Judicial Application of Punitive Compensation for Trademark Infringement

（1） The Application Status of Punitive Compensation for Trademark Infringement

This article screened the keyword "punitive damages" from the Chinese Judgment Document Network, and obtained a total of 1123 related judgments from the period of 2013-2020 under the condition of applying Article 63 of the Trademark Law. A further search was conducted on trademark infringement cases of "punitive damages" in 2021, and a total of 58 related judgments were obtained. From a time distribution perspective, from 2013 to 2018, China's application of punitive damages was still in the embryonic stage of experimentation and exploration. There were individual cases that were adjudicated, but the number of cases was relatively small, and the overall amount of compensation was also relatively low. From 2019 to 2021, with the increasing recognition of punitive damages in legislation, high compensation awards have been increasing year by year. From the perspective of geographical distribution, the judicial judgments of punitive damages are concentrated in coastal areas such as Beijing, Guangdong, Jiangsu, and courts in mega city areas, which is matched with the level and intensity of judicial protection of intellectual property in the region. In terms of proportion, the proportion of cases with statutory compensation is as high as 95%, with only a few cases relying on punitive compensation. Related research also indicates that even if the elements of malicious intent and serious circumstances of the infringer have been achieved, if the plaintiff fails to provide evidence to prove the three calculation bases of punitive damages, in practice, most cases still apply legal compensation. The root cause of the above is that the judicial application rules for punitive damages are not yet clear. Taking the "CK" trademark case of the Qingdao Intermediate People's Court in 2015 as an example, the defendant sold a large amount of clothing with the accused infringing logo in its online store without permission, which infringed on the plaintiff's registered trademark exclusive rights; In the series of cases where three Tmall online stores were originally accused of infringing their trademark exclusive rights, one of them was self operated by the defendant, while the other two were provided with invoices by the defendant. The online store page design was identical, and the plaintiff's trademark was used prominently on the homepage of the network. Therefore, the court found that the infringement behavior of the three sued online stores was clearly malicious and applied the principle of punitive damages, fully supporting the original complaint, Order the defendant to stop the infringement and compensate the plaintiff for a total of RMB 2.1 million in economic losses.

This case is the first case in Qingdao to apply the principle of punitive damages, reflecting the court's exploration of implementing punitive damages for well-known trademarks and the defendant's malicious and obvious infringement of "near famous brands". However, this case is not a true application of punitive damages, but only a higher amount of compensation was determined based on the determination of the statutory compensation amount, taking into account the defendant's malicious intent and serious circumstances. This judgment approach demonstrates that there is still significant controversy and confusion among the courts regarding the relationship between statutory compensation, actual loss or infringement profit compensation, and punitive compensation.

（2） The Causes of the Current Application of Punitive Compensation Cases

Due to different understandings of the punitive damages rules for trademark infringement in judicial practice, the proportion of cases in China that apply punitive damages for trademark infringement is relatively low. The reasons for this phenomenon are:

Firstly, there is a functional overlap between punitive compensation and statutory compensation. If the parties have not explicitly requested or cannot apply punitive compensation, can the court proactively apply the upper limit of compensation close to statutory compensation to reflect "punitive"? There are significant differences in the use of the punitive compensation system by the court;

Secondly, some courts apply punitive damages on the grounds of "malice+serious circumstances", some courts only apply punitive damages on the grounds of "malice", and some courts directly apply punitive damages without specifying conditions. The understanding of the applicable conditions of punitive damages is relatively chaotic;

Thirdly, when it is difficult to determine the actual losses, infringement profits, and multiple trademark licensing fees, some courts refuse to apply punitive damages on the grounds that the calculation base does not exist, while others choose a certain amount as the calculation base and apply punitive damages on this basis. The determination of the calculation base for punitive damages is not clear;

Fourthly, when the court determines the amount of punitive damages based on several times the base number, it only argues based on what the court considers to be more reasonable. The choice of multiples is relatively arbitrary, and there are also different understandings of multiples;

Fifth, for cases where punitive damages are applied separately, or both punitive damages and statutory compensation judgments are applied, does the plaintiff need to clearly claim the proportion of the amount of statutory compensation and punitive damages in the litigation request, or does the court choose to apply after investigation? The relationship between punitive damages and statutory compensation is not clear among judges in different courts, and there are significant differences in the judgment standards of different courts.

3、 Understanding and Application of Punitive Compensation Rules for Trademark Infringement

There are still significant difficulties in determining the amount of compensation in judicial practice, and punitive damages need to be further refined in terms of procedural rules and considerations of constituent elements. With the continuous heated discussion of the punitive damages system, it can be foreseen that in the future, there will be a significant increase in the number of litigation participants advocating the application of punitive damages. This article combines the provisions of Fa Shi [2021] No. 4 to draw the following research results on the application of punitive damages for trademark infringement:

（1） Adhere to the basic principle of "compensation first, punishment second"

Punitive compensation is different from compensatory compensation in that its main function is to punish and deter those who have seriously infringed on the rights and interests of others. The legal attribute of the punitive compensation system for intellectual property rights is civil liability, and due to its dual function of punishment, it is a civil liability with the nature of "private fines".

The ultimate goal of intellectual property protection is to achieve a balance between public and private rights. The principle spirit of legislation is still based on compensation, supplemented by punishment. Therefore, punitive compensation systems should only be introduced to severely punish infringements that seriously adjust the boundaries of rights and established rules for distribution of interests. The punitive compensation system for intellectual property rights is a supplement and improvement to the existing compensation system, rather than a subversion or replacement of the existing compensation system. Therefore, in practical operation, it is still necessary to adhere to the principles of legal application, equal protection, proportional coordination, protection of the legitimate rights and interests of rights holders, and consistency in maintaining public interests. However, the significance of determining the relationship between punitive damages and compensatory damages mainly focuses on theoretical research. In judicial practice, litigation participants generally do not propose to apply both compensatory damages and punitive damages at the same time, but choose to advocate for direct application of punitive damages. So is the true intention of the litigation participants to waive legal compensation in the event that punitive damages are not applicable? Obviously not. The viewpoint that this article agrees with is that it should be inferred that the intention of the litigation participants is to apply both compensatory and punitive damages, and should not be overly harsh on this, but it can be required to clarify the base (i.e. the amount of compensatory compensation) and the amount of punitive damages.

（2） The procedural requirements for the application of punitive damages

The starting conditions for punitive damages are the procedural issues that need to be clarified first when applying the system. The starting conditions include the starting subject, starting time, and proposing method of punitive damages. According to the provisions of Article 1, Paragraph 1, and Article 2 of Fa Shi [2021] No. 4, the following three points should be noted for the understanding of the above provisions:

1. Regarding the initiation subject. Punitive damages should be applied based on the application of the right holder, and should not be applied by the court ex officio. This rule is more in line with the basic principle of "no lawsuit, no action" in the Civil Procedure Law, and also in line with the position of a neutral judge in the court.

2. Regarding startup time. The right holder should clearly propose the application of punitive damages at the time of prosecution. If no proposal is made at the time of prosecution, it should be submitted at the latest before the end of the first instance court debate. This rule is also consistent with the time regulations for adding or changing litigation requests in the Civil Procedure Law.

3. Regarding the presentation method. The right holder may claim in writing the application of punitive damages, or may verbally request the application of punitive damages in court during the trial process. This handling not only helps to improve trial efficiency, but also ensures that it is well documented.

（3） The substantive requirements for the application of punitive damages

Due to the punitive nature of the punitive damages system, compared to general torts, only meeting the general requirements may lead to issues such as the universality of the system and the imbalance of legal relationships. Therefore, from the perspective of existing legal norms, the elements that require deconstruction analysis of the punitive damages system also include subjective elements, objective elements, and implicit elements.

1. Regarding subjective elements.

Intention or malice is a subjective psychological state that is difficult to prove by other subjects except for the perpetrator's clear knowledge. Therefore, distinguishing between intentional and malicious judgments will lead to difficulties for the court in determining subjective elements. Therefore, according to Article 1, Paragraph 2 of Fa Shi [2021] No. 4, intentional and malicious intent are synonymous at the level of legal rules and are not distinguished. Article 3 of the Law Interpretation [2021] No. 4 has clear provisions on the specific situations involved in intentional or malicious behavior. In addition, there are also provisions on the situation of "intentional" or "malicious" in the guidance opinions formulated by multiple courts, which can be used as a reference for courts in specific practice. As for other newly emerging situations in the case, it is necessary to request the court to carefully determine the facts and evidence of the entire case based on a systematic understanding of the existing legal provisions that have been cited.

2. Regarding objective elements.

Serious plot "refers to the adverse impact of the development and evolution process of an event in terms of time, degree, scope, consequences, etc., and generally does not involve the subjective state of the actor. For the determination of serious circumstances, it is necessary to combine the principles of daily life experience and the specific circumstances of intellectual property infringement cases to determine.

Case citation 1: In the trademark case of "Maotai Liquor v. Shengshi Dadian Liquor Industry" by the Beijing Intellectual Property Court in 2021, the court found that the "serious circumstances" referred to the following circumstances: the subjective intention of the five defendants to infringe on the plaintiff's registered trademark exclusive right and the goodwill of the trademark exclusive right holder was obvious, objectively causing market confusion and disrupting market order. At the same time, considering the market reputation and commercial value of the plaintiff's trademark involved in the case, and the popularity of the Maotai brand, the five defendants manufactured and sold counterfeit well-known Baijiu and provided similar goods of lower quality than the trademark owner. Their behavior seriously damaged the market reputation of the plaintiff and the Maotai brand, and the infringement was serious, so punitive compensation should be applied in this case. According to Article 4 of Fa Shi [2021] No. 4, by analyzing the above provisions and existing judicial practice regarding the situation of "serious circumstances", the following two aspects can be considered: first, the mode of behavior, including malicious infringement methods, long infringement time, wide infringement scope, multiple infringements or infringements of multiple intellectual property rights, and business based infringement. The second is the consequences of damage. Compensatory compensation requires causing damage to the right holder, so as a more severe punitive compensation system than compensatory compensation, it naturally requires causing more serious consequences of damage to the right holder. Specifically, it can be manifested in the huge profits from infringement, the harm to personal safety and environmental resources, the serious damage to social public interests, and the significant negative impact on the reputation, social evaluation, or social image of the rights holder.

3. Regarding implicit elements.

(1) Determine the base number.

When exploring the application conditions of punitive damages, both theoretical and practical circles mainly focus on analyzing subjective and objective elements. However, it cannot be ignored that an essential implicit condition when applying punitive damages is: the actual losses suffered by the right holder due to infringement, the amount of illegal gains obtained by the defendant, or the benefits obtained from infringement (hereinafter referred to as the infringer's profits) The multiple of the license fee can be determined, which is commonly referred to as the "base" of punitive damages. In other words, if the "base" of punitive damages cannot be determined, even if both subjective and objective elements meet the requirements, it will still be impossible to apply punitive damages because the "base" cannot be determined. Therefore, the calculation of the "base" of punitive damages is crucial for the application of punitive damages. Considering the particularity of intellectual property as intangible property, the possibility of accurately calculating the losses, profits, and licensing fees caused by infringement is extremely low. If judicial practice blindly emphasizes the accurate calculation of the above amounts, it will inevitably result in the inability to apply the three methods mentioned above, and make punitive damages meaningless because the "base" cannot be accurately calculated. Therefore, in terms of calculating the losses of the rights holder, the profits of the infringer, and the licensing fees, precise calculations should not be excessively demanded. The parties can prove the specific amount of compensation and also the reasonable range of compensation amount; It can be accurately calculated or summarized for estimation.

Case reference 2: In the "Jinggong" trademark case of Guangzhou Intellectual Property Court in 2021, the first instance court adopted the plaintiff's compensation calculation method, based on the tax data submitted by the plaintiff from the "Value Added Tax Declaration Form" and "Tax Declaration Details" of the national tax authority, as well as the industry profit margin data published on the website of the National Bureau of Statistics provided by the plaintiff, Taking the average industry profit representing the overall sales situation of an industry year as the standard for calculating infringement profit, the total infringement profit of the defendant is calculated to be 11312574 yuan. The second instance court also considered the above calculation method and rejected the appeal and upheld the original judgment.

Case reference three: In the trademark case of "Qiren Catering v. Love Dad's Fried Food and Beverage" filed by the Chengdu Intermediate People's Court in 2021, the court used the first statistics from Meituan.com as the revenue of the accused store, and based on the average profit margin of 13.73% in the hot pot industry published in the 2020 China Catering Industry Annual Report, claimed that this was the standard for calculating actual profits. The court calculated the infringement profit of the trademark part to be 3714136 yuan.

Case reference 4: In the "Wyeth" trademark case of the Zhejiang Provincial High People's Court in 2021, the court held that based on the financial data submitted by the original Guangzhou Wyeth Baby Maternal and Child Products Co., Ltd. and the number of distributors and annual purchase indicators submitted in administrative procedures, the range of infringement profits calculated was 7.8908 million yuan to 51.9319 million yuan, and determined this as the base for punitive damages.

When calculating the "base" of punitive damages, the following two types of compensation amounts need to be excluded: first, the compensation base determined according to legal compensation. The second is reasonable expenses.

Case reference 5: In the "Nintendo" trademark case of the People's Court of Yuexiu District, Guangzhou City in 2021, the court divided the calculation method of compensation for infringement damages into three situations: "1. If the loss or infringement profit of the right holder can be determined, the compensation amount should be calculated based on the loss or infringement profit of the right holder; for malicious infringement or serious behavior, punitive compensation can be applied If the loss or infringement profit of the right holder cannot be determined, the legal compensation shall be applied to calculate the compensation amount. 3. If partial losses or infringing profits can be determined, the compensation amount should be calculated based on the partial losses or infringing profits. If the applicable punitive compensation requirements are met, the punitive compensation amount should be determined based on the partial losses or profits; If the loss or infringement profit cannot be determined, legal compensation should still be applied. The final compensation amount is the sum of the compensation amounts obtained by these two calculation methods.

(2) Calculation of multiples.

If determining the "base" of punitive damages is to play the role of compensating compensation to fill in the losses of the rights holder, then the process of determining the "multiple" of punitive damages should focus on realizing the functions of punishment, deterrence, and stopping potential infringement. Therefore, the "multiple" of punitive damages should be calculated as the sum of the base of compensatory damages and the multiple of punitive damages.

Case reference 6: In the "Wyeth" trademark case of the Zhejiang Provincial High People's Court in 2021, the biggest feature was greater than the multiple determined by the Hangzhou Intermediate People's Court, which was three times the compensation base × 3. However, the Zhejiang Provincial Higher People's Court believes that the final total amount of compensation borne by the accused infringer should be the sum of the base amount and the punitive damages, so the total amount of compensation should be (1+3)=4 times the base amount. The "multiple" can be an integer or not, and whether the determination of "multiple" is scientific and reasonable also directly affects the implementation of punitive functions to a certain extent. When determining the "multiple" of punitive damages, the following factors can be considered:

Firstly, if the subjective fault degree of the infringer is more serious, the infringement circumstances are worse, and the severity of the liability is higher, the multiple should also be higher. According to Article 6 of Fa Shi [2021] No. 4, the court may handle the case at its discretion within the multiple range based on the specific infringement circumstances of the infringer.

Secondly, is there any other punishment situation. In addition to civil compensation, administrative fines and criminal fines also punish trademark infringement. If applied simultaneously, it will result in excessive punishment for the infringer. Therefore, when determining the amount of compensation for punishment, the court may consider the punishment of administrative fines and criminal fines. According to Article 6 of Law [2021] No. 4, if the corresponding punishment has been pursued, a lower multiple may be considered when determining the amount of punitive damages.

Thirdly, does it constitute a hindrance to providing evidence. In practice, the infringer holds relevant evidence, refuses to provide it without reasonable reasons, or provides false evidence in order to prevent the court from investigating the facts related to the amount of compensation. In this case, the court can refer to the claims and evidence of the right holder to determine the amount of compensatory compensation. According to Article 5 (3) of Fa Shi [2021] No. 4, on the premise that the loss of the right holder, the profit of the infringer, and the license fee can be determined, the situation of the infringer's obstruction of proof mentioned above also indicates that their subjective fault of evading legal sanctions and obstructing litigation is obvious. Therefore, when determining the "multiplier", it can be considered as a factor to increase punitive damages.

Case reference 7: In the 2021 Jiangsu Intermediate People's Court "Nature Floor" trademark case, the two defendants, upon request by the court, still failed to provide evidence of their profits from selling the accused infringing products. Therefore, it is believed that the plaintiff's calculation method of unit profit has corresponding evidence to support it. In the absence of corresponding counter evidence to refute or overturn the defendant's claim, the plaintiff's calculation method is supported.

Case reference 8: In 2021, the Intermediate People's Court of Changchun City, Jilin Province, in the "Haoyue" trademark case, determined that the franchise fee was 30000 yuan. The "Haoyue Farmers' Trade Community Monopoly Store Contract" does not directly specify the amount of trademark license fees. However, according to the contract in question, the use of the "Haoyue" registered trademark, signboard, and brand by the franchise store at the designated time and location is an important content of the franchise contract in question. Therefore, the franchise fee includes trademark license fees. According to the rights and obligations of both parties in the franchise contract, as well as the popularity of the "Haoyue" trademark involved, a trademark licensing fee of 10000 yuan is determined, and a double of the trademark licensing fee of 10000 yuan is used as the base for calculating the compensation amount in this case.

4、 Conclusion

Punitive compensation, as a powerful legal tool to increase judicial protection and improve the level of intellectual property protection, can be applied appropriately and have an immediate deterrent effect on combating infringement. If applied improperly, it will lead to abuse of rights and excessively squeeze the space for public behavior. At present, the understanding and application of punitive damages, in addition to the legal provisions of Fa Shi [2021] No. 4, are based on the guidance opinions formulated by higher people's courts in various regions. However, the guidance opinions are not standardized legal sources and cannot be elevated to a national judicial perspective. In order to avoid the occurrence of "different judgments in the same case" in various courts, it is urgent for the Supreme People's Court to issue guidance cases as soon as possible and unify the national judgment scale. For the punitive compensation system, our lawyer industry should also approach it rationally and not blindly apply it. We should strive to explore and summarize the judicial path of punitive compensation application in practice, and jointly help optimize the business environment, service innovation driven development strategy, and deepen "traceability governance".

Author's unit: Zhejiang Liqun Law Firm

Contact information: 15712668311 18657613220

Mailing Address: 3F, Building 6, Yintai City, Zhongxin Avenue, Jiaojiang District, Taizhou City