面对现存诸多网络侵权问题，《民法典》第1195条和第1196条，规定了“通知—删除”规则，以实现私权保护和互联网产业发展之间的平衡。一个合格的通知原则上应采取书面形式，但口头形式也并无不可。关于通知中“构成侵权的初步证据”的认定，目前虽无统一标准，但实现准确定位的被诉侵权商品或服务信息以及侵权对比文件理应包含在内，并以“一般善意网络服务提供者的通常判断标准”来认定。法律应允许网络服务提供者自行设置投诉规则，但并不一定对通知人发生效力，而是应该根据是否已提前公式、证明材料是否是判断侵权行为所必需的等因素综合考虑。转通知和采取必要措施是“通知—删除”规则要求网络服务提供者承担的义务，两者是并列关系，而非包含关系。同时，网络服务提供者采取必要措施也应受到“合理期限”的限制，以防止利益失衡。一旦网络服务提供者违反上述义务，则应就损害的扩大部分与网络用户共同承担连带责任，事后对网络用户有权部分追偿。《民法典》第1195条第2款与第1197条，在适用条件上、法律效果上均存在一定的差异。现实生活中，错误通知、恶意通知等案例层出不穷，因此需要明确行为人的责任，区分错误通知人的损害赔偿责任和恶意通知人的惩罚性赔偿责任，减少恶意投诉的发生，营造一片良好的网络净土。

Faced with many existing network infringement issues, Articles 1195 and 1196 of the Civil Code stipulate the Notification Delete rule to achieve a balance between private rights protection and the development of the internet industry. A qualified notice should in principle be in written form, but oral form is also necessary. Regarding the determination of "preliminary evidence constituting infringement" in the notice, although there is currently no unified standard, the accused infringing goods or services information and infringement comparison documents that achieve accurate positioning should be included and determined based on the "common judgment standards of general good faith Internet Service Providers". The law should allow Internet Service Providers to set complaint rules on their own, but it does not necessarily have any effect on the notifying party. Instead, it should be comprehensively considered based on factors such as whether the formula has been formulated in advance and whether the supporting materials are necessary to determine the infringement behavior. The obligation of Internet Service Providers under the Notification Delete rule is to transfer notifications and take necessary measures, which is a parallel relationship rather than an inclusive relationship. At the same time, Internet Service Providers should also be subject to "reasonable deadlines" when taking necessary measures to prevent interest imbalances. Once the Internet Service Providers violates the above obligations, they shall jointly bear joint and several liability with the network user for the expanded part of the damage, and have the right to partial recovery from the network user afterwards. There are certain differences in the application conditions and legal effects between Article 1195 (2) and Article 1197 of the Civil Code. In real life, there are numerous cases of incorrect notifications, malicious notifications, and so on. Therefore, it is necessary to clarify the responsibility of the perpetrator, distinguish the liability for damages caused by the incorrect notification person from the punitive liability of the malicious notification person, reduce the incidence of malicious complaints, and create a good network of clean soil.