中文摘要
数字技术和宽带互联网接入的广泛普及，使得在世界最偏远地区的个人也能够侵犯他人的知识产权。这就使权利人追究直接侵权人责任的难度加大。因此，商标权人不得不调整自己的诉讼策略，实现他们的权利。商标权人不再追究个人直接侵权责任，而是将目光转移到间接侵权者—在线交易网站身上，他们为用户擅自销售假冒商品提供场所便利。在全球化的的热潮还未消减的时候，同时在线交易网站就发现他们自己被困在官司的热潮之中。不仅仅是在中国，美国、法国、德国、比利时等国家都会发现在线交易网站的身影。仅在2008年4月至6月之间，eBay这个全球最大的在线交易网站就在四个不同的国家五次成为被告，诉因是为其网站上的售假行为提供方便。问题是在不同国家的法院中判决的结果各不相同。这些国家法院的判决分歧的核心是下面的问题：在线交易网站交易过程中的要履行什么样的注意义务？如何才能正确的分配责任而是商标持有人与在线交易网站之间责任达到平衡？为了更好的解决在线交易过程中这些问题，本文试图通过四部分对在线交易市场和各国的司法实践分析，提出对我国商标间接侵权制度的完善建议。
关于在线交易市场的现状和商标间接侵权与相关概念关系。首先在线交易市场是机遇与挑战并存，在线交易网站要像发展下去既要抓住机遇也要迎接假冒泛滥的挑战；其次，介绍了直接侵权与间接侵权关系—前者是后者存在的前提；再次，论述间接侵权就是共同侵权；最后，阐述了商标间接侵权与版权间接侵权的区别和联系。
关于在线交易网站商标间接侵权责任归责原则和判断标准。首先，详细论述过错责任原则在商标间接侵权责任认定过程中的具体适用，明确过错要件是判断间接侵权责任的核心，是最重要和最终要件。其次，列举出在线交易网站承担间接侵权责任的构成要件：在线交易商品是否是侵权商品；在线交易网站是否知道用户侵权；在线交易网站是否尽到了合理的事前审查义务；在线交易网站是否采取了合理的事后补救措施。
第三部分，欧美国家关于在线交易网站是否承担责任的比较分析。首先，是美国关于反假冒的立法和相关商标间接侵权案例的分析。其次，是法国的反假冒立法和法国著名奢侈品牌诉eBay案的分析。再次是德国与比利时的反假冒立法和对德国Rolex诉Ricardo.de与比利时Lancôme 诉eBay案分析。讨论美国、法国、德国和比利时法院在如何处理在公开访问的网站假冒产品销售问题，并通过比较和对比几个法院的判决和可能产生的影响。最后得出些许启示：在线交易网站和商标权人要密切合作开发搜索程序，修正商标间接侵权制度平衡双方利益。
关于我国商标间接侵权制度不足和完善建议。一是关于我国商标间接侵权的现状和不足：未确定混淆作为认定商标侵权的基础地位，商标间接侵权构成要件不明确，网络环境下商标间接侵权规定的缺失，在线交易法的缺失。二是关于间接侵权制度的完善建议：确定混淆作为商标间接侵权认定的基础地位；明确商标间接侵权构成要件；制定网络环境下的商标间接侵权规则和在线交易法。
关键词：在线交易 商标侵权 商标间接侵权
Abstract
The widespread availability of digital technology and broadband internet access has enabled individuals in the most remote regions of the world to violate intellectual property rights. It is more difficult to pursuing the direct infringers. As a result, stakeholders have had to fine-tune their litigation tactics to enforce their rights. Instead of pursuing the direct infringers on networks, the right-owers set its sights on indirect infringers - online auction providers that enabled users to sell counterfeit goods without authorization. With global warming and globalization, online auction providers found themselves caught not only in the summer heat of 2008 but the legal fanfare of different jurisdictions. Online auction providers were sued not only in China but also in America, France, German and Belgium. From late April to the end of July of 2008, eBay, the largest online auction provider in the world, had appeared as a defendant five times before four different national courts for its role in facilitating the sale of counterfeit products on its site. The online auction providers such as eBay and Ricardo.de AG., confronted with such lawsuits, different national courts have adopted different approaches to resolve the dispute. Whatever the verdicts of these national courts were, at the heart of the debate are these questions: what kind of obligationg should online auction providers fulfill in the online auction trade? And what is the proper approach to strike a fair balance in allocating responsibilities between the trade mark owners and the online auction providers? In order to solve theses problemsThis paper which is divided into four parts would solve these problems.
The first part introduces the online auction market situation and the relationships between trademark infringement and related concepts. Firstly, online auction market face both opportunities and challenges. If the online auction providers want to develop, it is necessary to not only seize the opportunity to also meet the challenges of the phenomenon of the proliferation of counterfeit. Secondly, describes the relationship between direct infringement and indirect infringement: the former is the premise of the latter. Thirdly, introduces the relationship between indirect tradmark infrigement and joint tort. Finally, introduces the relationship between indirect tradmark infrigement and indirect copyright infrigement.
The second part describes the principle and criterions of indirect tradmark infrigement liability. Firstly, details fault liability is the principle and insure fault is the core of liability. Secondly, lists the constructive conditions of indirect tradmark infrigement liability:a)whether goods which w
