2 2001 12 1 1 2 < > 29 1 1999 3 2
< > 44 354 1991 4 5 1986 6 3 517-522 1993 < > 2000 < > 6 1 1998
4 2001 12 7 86-90 1994 < > 58 1997 4
8 < N > 60 4 105-1061985 9 6 27-34 6 100-101< > 44 19-211991
6 2001 12 9-20 1994 10 5 7-9 6
1. 11 3 360 12 < > 69 2001
8 2001 12 13 < > 11 1 72 1981 14 Sherman Act Clayton Act Federal Trade Commission Act 1993 15 The American Law Institute, Restatement of the Law (3rd) Unfair Competition (1995) 8
16 13 17 14 18 < > 123 12 2000 19 Intellectual Property
10 2001 12 World Intellectual Property Organization, WIPO WIPO (ed.), Introduction to Intellectual PropertyTheory and Practice 3-4 (1997) Intellectual Property Intellectual Property Right Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, TRIPS Rights 20 99 2000 10
1 21 6 103-105 II 356-357363-364 1981
12 2001 12 22 23 14 2-6 24 231 1992 12
3 25 231 26 27 Accounting 28 (a) When a violationshall have been established in any civil action arising under this Act, the plaintiff shall be entitled to recover(1) defendant s profits, (2) any damages sustained by the plaintiff, and (3) the costs of the action In assessing damages the court may enter judgment, according to the circumstances of the case, for any sum above the amount found as actual damages, not exceeding three times such amount 15 U.S.C. 1117.
14 2001 12 29 30 < 14
5 > 1 324-331 1995< > 2000 31 < > 25 39-412001 32 See Richard A. Posner, Antitrust LawAn Economic Perspective 226-27 (1976). 33 22
16 2001 12 34 35 36 1 2 3 4 37 Suntory 34 24 228-233 35 31 < > 30 1 2001 < > 1998 36 3 359 6 518-520 37 The American Law Institute, Restatement of the Law (3rd) Unfair Competition 3 7 (1995) Dennis S. Corgill, Measuring the Gains of Trademark Infringement, 65 Fordham L. Rev. 1909 (1997). 16
7 38 39 40 41 38 39 29 40
18 2001 12 42 1 2 nonrivalry collective consumption nonexcludability 245-2461998 122, 207-208 1993 41 See Herbert Hovenkamp, Federal Antitrust Policy The Law of Competition and Its Practice 239 ( 2nd ed., 1999). 42 Corgill, supra note 37, at 1917-25. 18
9 43 44 43 See The American Law Institute, supra note 36, at 397. 44 1 < > 6 82-872001
20 2001 12 45 46 47 45 22 46 See The American Law Institute, supra note 37, at 397. 646 2000 47 3 359 20
1 48 unjust enrichment 49 fiduciary 50 duty 51 48 46 648-649 1. 2. 2151998 49 22 50 Corgill, supra note 37, at 1931. 51 Id. at 1931-32.
22 2001 12 52 The American Law Institute, supra note 37, at 397. 53 Corgill, supra note 37, at 1926-29. 22
3 57 58 54 9 47-48 55 6 519 56 6 519-520 3 359 6 115 57 299 1995 58
24 2001 12 59 60 61 59 177 2000 60 6 519 61 43-44 24
5 62 63 62 6 520 63 24 230-231
26 2001 12 64 64 40 100 26
7 65 66 65 The court shall assess such profits and damages or cause the same to be assessed under its direction. In assessing profits the plaintiff shall be required to prove defendant's sales only; defendant must prove all elements of cost or deduction claimed.15 U.S.C. 1117 (a). 66
28 2001 12 67 9 118-120 28
9 68 The plaintiff has the burden of proving the defendant s gross profits with reasonable certainty; mathematical precision is not required. The defendant bears the burden of establishing which, if any, of the total sales are not attributable to the misconduct.see The American Law Institute, supra note 36, at 398. 69 the wrongful conduct need not be the sole cause of the sales on which profits are awarded. Some sales may be caused in part by the defendant s misconduct and in part by other factors such as the intrinsic merit of the defendant s goods or the convenience of purchasers. If the wrongful conduct is a substantial factor in producing a sale, the defendant is liable for the resulting profit without diminution for other contributing factors.id. at 398.
30 2001 12 30
1