美国禁令制度在商业特许经营合同中的适用及其借鉴
|
摘要
美国禁令制度作为一种预防性救济措施,在商业特许经营合同领域广泛适用,以保护当事人免受难以弥补的损失,法院归纳出的适用条件主要包括实体法胜诉的可能性、申请人将遭受难以弥补的损失、双方利益损失的权衡和不得损害社会公众利益。我国实体法上的预防性救济措施——停止侵害、排除妨碍和消除危险主要适用于绝对权受到侵害或危险的情形,原则上不适用于纯债权性违约行为。我国能够针对纯合同行为适用的、与美国禁令制度最相近的就是行为保全制度,但其适用条件并不明确。可通过借鉴美国禁令制度的"四要件"适用标准对我国的行为保全制度进行完善,对商业特许经营合同当事人提供预防性救济措施,保护其合法权益免受难以弥补的损失。
As a preventive measure,injunction is applied extensively to franchise contract in America. The application conditions of American injunction concluded by the court are likelihood of success on the merits,irreparable injury,balance of harms and public interest. In China,the preventive measures such as cessation of infringement,exclusion of hindrance and elimination of dangers are applied to tort but not to nonperformance. The most similar preventive measure in China as to the American injunction,which can apply to the contract action,is the act preservation; but the application conditions are not explicit. We can perfect it by reference of the application conditions of the American injunction,in this way we can provide an effective and preventive measure for the parts of the franchise contract to protect them from the irreplaceable loss.
As a preventive measure,injunction is applied extensively to franchise contract in America. The application conditions of American injunction concluded by the court are likelihood of success on the merits,irreparable injury,balance of harms and public interest. In China,the preventive measures such as cessation of infringement,exclusion of hindrance and elimination of dangers are applied to tort but not to nonperformance. The most similar preventive measure in China as to the American injunction,which can apply to the contract action,is the act preservation; but the application conditions are not explicit. We can perfect it by reference of the application conditions of the American injunction,in this way we can provide an effective and preventive measure for the parts of the franchise contract to protect them from the irreplaceable loss.
引文
[1]叶名怡.论侵权预防责任对传统侵权法的挑战[J].法律科学,2013(2):121-131.
[2]叶名怡.再谈违约与侵权的区分与竞合[J].交大法学,2018(1):12-22.
[3]BAGDON B A,KELLERMAN M M. When will courts issue preliminary injunctions to enforce restrictive covenants in franchise agreements?[J]. Franchise Law Journal,2009,28(3):141-184.
[4]CHIONOPOULOS M E. Preliminary injunction through arbitration:the franchisor's weapon of choice in trademark disputes[J]. Franchise Law Journal,2000,20(1):15-43.
[5]CONISON J. Seeking a preliminary injunction[J]. Franchise Law Journal,1993,12(4):127-128.
[6]LANNETTI D W. The“Test”-or lack thereof-for issuance of Virginia temporary injunctions:the current uncertainty and a recommended approach based on federal preliminary injunction law[J]. University of Richmond Law Review,2015,50(1):273-324.
[7]NUSSBAUM B J. Temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions-the federal practice[J]. Southwestern Law Journal,1972(26):265-281.
[8]VAUGHN L B. A need for clarity:toward a new standard for preliminary injunctions[J].Or. L. Rev.,1989(68):839-884.
(1)Sec.&Exch. Comm'n v. Unifund SAL,910 F. 2d 1028,1039,2d Cir.,1990.
(2)参见:Bus. Franchise Guide(CCH)8742,7th Cir.,1987.该案的基本案情是:Fair汽车修理公司与Proimos等人达成汽车消音器的特许生产加工协议后,特许人Fair汽车修理公司将材料供应商的姓名、汽车消音器的替换方法和一些其他信息都告诉给了受许人Proimos等人。但后来Proimos等人单方终止特许经营合同,并向法院提起诉讼,声称双方签订的特许经营合同违反了Illinois州的法律,因而无效。在案件审理过程中,特许人Fair汽车修理公司提出反诉,并向法院申请初步禁令,要求禁止受许人Proimos等人继续使用其之前所提供特许经营信息。
(1)Yakus v. United States,321 U. S. 441,1944.
(1)参见:S&R Corp. v. Jiffy Lube Int'l,Inc.,968 F. 2d 371,3d Cir.,1992.该案的基本案情是:在商业特许经营合同履行过程中,受许人Jiffy润滑油国际公司未按照合同约定向特许人S&R公司支付特许权使用费导致特许经营合同被终止,但之后Jiffy润滑油国际公司未经S&R公司允许仍继续使用S&R公司的商标从事经营活动。为了维护自身合法权益,特许人S&R公司向法院提起诉讼,要求受许人Jiffy润滑油国际公司停止对其特许经营商标的侵权使用行为。
(2)Bennigan's Franchising v. Swigorski,No. 3:06-CV-2300-G,2007 WL 603370,at 4,N. D. Tex. Feb. 27,2007.
(3)Sirrah Cos. v. Budget Rent-A-Car Corp.,No. SA-06-CA-523-OG,2008 WL 637610,W. D. Tex. Mar. 3,2008.
(1)Long John Silver's,Inc. v. Washington Franchise,Inc.,209 U. S. P. Q. 146,151,E. D. Va.,1980.
(2)Curves International v. Mosbarger,525 F. Supp. 2d 1310,1315,M. D. Ala.,2007.
(3)Second Cup Ltd. v. Niranjan,Bus. Franchise Guide(CCH)7,397,Ont. Aug. 17,2007.
(1)参见:Dunkin'Donuts,Inc. v. Albirch Donuts,Inc.,96 F. Supp. 2d 146,N. D. N. Y.,2000.该案的基本案情是:特许人Dunkin油炸食品公司同意Albirch油炸食品公司作为受许人加盟其油炸食品的特许经营业务,为保证所加工食品的质量和安全,Dunkin油炸食品公司与Albirch油炸食品公司约定了一些健康和安全标准,要求Albirch油炸食品公司严格遵守。但Dunkin油炸食品公司后来发现Albirch油炸食品公司在加工相关食品的过程中并未严格执行这些健康和安全标准,于是向法院申请初步禁令,要求Albirch油炸食品公司在加工相关食品时满足这些健康和安全标准,否则终止其从事该特许经营业务的权利。
(2)参见:Rothman v. Re/Max of New York,Inc.,Bus. Franchise Guide(CCH)11,299,at 30,127,N. Y.App. Div. Oct. 27,1997.该案的基本案情是:受许人Rothman与特许人纽约Re/Max公司就特许权使用费的支付问题发生纠纷,纽约Re/Max公司要求Rothman支付拖欠的特许权使用费,但Rothman认为纽约Re/Max公司已经放弃了这一权利,双方为此申请了仲裁。但在仲裁审理悬而未决期间,特许人纽约Re/Max公司要求Rothman立即支付拖欠的特许权使用费,否则终止特许经营合同。为防止特许人纽约Re/Max公司突然终止特许经营合同而给自己造成难以弥补的损失,Rothman向法院申请初步禁令,要求纽约Re/Max公司在仲裁裁决结果作出之前不得终止该特许经营合同。
(1)Atlanta Bread Co. Int'l,Inc. v. Nine Star Enters.,Inc.,Bus. Franchise Guide(CCH)12,521,N. D. Ga.,2002.
(2)Noodles Dev.,LP v. Ninth St. Partners,LLP,507 F. Supp. 2d 1030,1039,E. D. Mo.,2007.
[2]叶名怡.再谈违约与侵权的区分与竞合[J].交大法学,2018(1):12-22.
[3]BAGDON B A,KELLERMAN M M. When will courts issue preliminary injunctions to enforce restrictive covenants in franchise agreements?[J]. Franchise Law Journal,2009,28(3):141-184.
[4]CHIONOPOULOS M E. Preliminary injunction through arbitration:the franchisor's weapon of choice in trademark disputes[J]. Franchise Law Journal,2000,20(1):15-43.
[5]CONISON J. Seeking a preliminary injunction[J]. Franchise Law Journal,1993,12(4):127-128.
[6]LANNETTI D W. The“Test”-or lack thereof-for issuance of Virginia temporary injunctions:the current uncertainty and a recommended approach based on federal preliminary injunction law[J]. University of Richmond Law Review,2015,50(1):273-324.
[7]NUSSBAUM B J. Temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions-the federal practice[J]. Southwestern Law Journal,1972(26):265-281.
[8]VAUGHN L B. A need for clarity:toward a new standard for preliminary injunctions[J].Or. L. Rev.,1989(68):839-884.
(1)Sec.&Exch. Comm'n v. Unifund SAL,910 F. 2d 1028,1039,2d Cir.,1990.
(2)参见:Bus. Franchise Guide(CCH)8742,7th Cir.,1987.该案的基本案情是:Fair汽车修理公司与Proimos等人达成汽车消音器的特许生产加工协议后,特许人Fair汽车修理公司将材料供应商的姓名、汽车消音器的替换方法和一些其他信息都告诉给了受许人Proimos等人。但后来Proimos等人单方终止特许经营合同,并向法院提起诉讼,声称双方签订的特许经营合同违反了Illinois州的法律,因而无效。在案件审理过程中,特许人Fair汽车修理公司提出反诉,并向法院申请初步禁令,要求禁止受许人Proimos等人继续使用其之前所提供特许经营信息。
(1)Yakus v. United States,321 U. S. 441,1944.
(1)参见:S&R Corp. v. Jiffy Lube Int'l,Inc.,968 F. 2d 371,3d Cir.,1992.该案的基本案情是:在商业特许经营合同履行过程中,受许人Jiffy润滑油国际公司未按照合同约定向特许人S&R公司支付特许权使用费导致特许经营合同被终止,但之后Jiffy润滑油国际公司未经S&R公司允许仍继续使用S&R公司的商标从事经营活动。为了维护自身合法权益,特许人S&R公司向法院提起诉讼,要求受许人Jiffy润滑油国际公司停止对其特许经营商标的侵权使用行为。
(2)Bennigan's Franchising v. Swigorski,No. 3:06-CV-2300-G,2007 WL 603370,at 4,N. D. Tex. Feb. 27,2007.
(3)Sirrah Cos. v. Budget Rent-A-Car Corp.,No. SA-06-CA-523-OG,2008 WL 637610,W. D. Tex. Mar. 3,2008.
(1)Long John Silver's,Inc. v. Washington Franchise,Inc.,209 U. S. P. Q. 146,151,E. D. Va.,1980.
(2)Curves International v. Mosbarger,525 F. Supp. 2d 1310,1315,M. D. Ala.,2007.
(3)Second Cup Ltd. v. Niranjan,Bus. Franchise Guide(CCH)7,397,Ont. Aug. 17,2007.
(1)参见:Dunkin'Donuts,Inc. v. Albirch Donuts,Inc.,96 F. Supp. 2d 146,N. D. N. Y.,2000.该案的基本案情是:特许人Dunkin油炸食品公司同意Albirch油炸食品公司作为受许人加盟其油炸食品的特许经营业务,为保证所加工食品的质量和安全,Dunkin油炸食品公司与Albirch油炸食品公司约定了一些健康和安全标准,要求Albirch油炸食品公司严格遵守。但Dunkin油炸食品公司后来发现Albirch油炸食品公司在加工相关食品的过程中并未严格执行这些健康和安全标准,于是向法院申请初步禁令,要求Albirch油炸食品公司在加工相关食品时满足这些健康和安全标准,否则终止其从事该特许经营业务的权利。
(2)参见:Rothman v. Re/Max of New York,Inc.,Bus. Franchise Guide(CCH)11,299,at 30,127,N. Y.App. Div. Oct. 27,1997.该案的基本案情是:受许人Rothman与特许人纽约Re/Max公司就特许权使用费的支付问题发生纠纷,纽约Re/Max公司要求Rothman支付拖欠的特许权使用费,但Rothman认为纽约Re/Max公司已经放弃了这一权利,双方为此申请了仲裁。但在仲裁审理悬而未决期间,特许人纽约Re/Max公司要求Rothman立即支付拖欠的特许权使用费,否则终止特许经营合同。为防止特许人纽约Re/Max公司突然终止特许经营合同而给自己造成难以弥补的损失,Rothman向法院申请初步禁令,要求纽约Re/Max公司在仲裁裁决结果作出之前不得终止该特许经营合同。
(1)Atlanta Bread Co. Int'l,Inc. v. Nine Star Enters.,Inc.,Bus. Franchise Guide(CCH)12,521,N. D. Ga.,2002.
(2)Noodles Dev.,LP v. Ninth St. Partners,LLP,507 F. Supp. 2d 1030,1039,E. D. Mo.,2007.