Abstract: Profit-oriented rights protection refers to the practice where actors exploit potential avenues for redress to gain certain benefits under the guise of rights protection.In response to such practices,judicial practice has largely developed an empirical assessment model,which has initially curtailed profit-oriented rights protection efforts,significantly reducing the number of related cases.However,this model's underlying logic prioritizes the evaluation of rights protection actors over the assessment of responsible parties,leading to several shortcomings:conflicts and deficiencies in laws and regulations hinder the effectiveness of control measures;the direct application of existing experiences across all fields in judicial practice raises questions about the appropriateness of classification criteria;and the reversal of judgment bases for punitive damages in related cases may result in extreme scenarios where punitive damages are denied based on the assessment of rights protection actors,thereby absolving responsible parties of liability for their illegal actions.Given a predetermined legality framework,courts should consider evaluating profit-oriented rights protection from both qualitative and quantitative perspectives.Qualitatively,this involves assessing the legitimacy of profit-oriented rights protection,while quantitatively,it entails examining its appropriateness.By adopting a dual-tier evaluation process of "first qualitative,then quantitative",courts can avoid erroneously penalizing legitimate entities due to a lack of legitimacy,prevent excessive gains by rights protection actors resulting from exceeding appropriateness,and ensure that responsible parties are held accountable even when the rights protection is deemed legitimate.

Key words: rights protection, profit-oriented rights protection, punitive damages, buying counterfeit knowingly, consumer fraud, professional counterfeiting crackdown