Loading...
|
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/112711
|
| Title: | 著名商標之權利侵害與救濟－以商標淡化為中心
The Infringement and remedy of well-known trademark rights, with a focus on trademark dilution |
| Authors: | 翁碧偵
Wung, Bi Jen |
| Contributors: | 沈宗倫
Shen, Chung Lun
翁碧偵
Wung, Bi Jen |
| Keywords: | 著名商標
商標侵權
商標淡化
識別性減損
信譽減損
商標淡化救濟
商標侵權救濟
混淆誤認之虞
Well-known trademark
Trademark with a reputation
Reputed trademark
Trademark infringement
Trademark dilution
Diluting of distinctiveness
Detrimental to reputation
Trademark dilution remedy
Trademark infringement remedy
Likelihood of confusion |
| Date: | 2017 |
| Issue Date: | 2017-09-13 15:01:26 (UTC+8) |
| Abstract: | 隨社會、經濟，與工商業不斷發展，科技日新月異，產品與服務推陳出新，在資本主義之經濟市場上，各企業/商號紛紛投入大量資本，不斷研發、創新、提升服務及商品之品質與效能，以期更符合消費大眾之喜好與需求，同時更透過大量廣告行銷，將自身之商品與服務之資訊，藉由傳播媒體反覆傳遞至消費者手中，以建立消費者心中之品牌形象與認知。成功建立高度識別性或品牌聲譽之企業/商號，其商標為著名商標。而在自由競爭市場上，為賦予著名商標之商標權人更完善之高度保護，使其免於遭受其他惡意攀附商譽，甚至將相同或近似於該著名商標之商標使用於同一、類似，或不類似之商品或服務，而為不公平競爭行為之第三人之權利侵害，或在其商標專用權遭侵害時，得有完善之救濟途徑，著名商標之保護與權利救濟之法規範即益復重要。
我國商標法對於著名商標之保護規範係採「擬制侵權」方式，商標權人欲依法主張侵權，僅需證明行為人之商標侵權使用，有致減損該商標之識別性或信譽之虞即足，而無需證明其有實質損害。然，此即與我國民法侵權行為之法理，有實質損害，方有損害賠償（完全填補原則）相悖。本文擬探討商標淡化對於商標權人之實質影響及其所造成之實質損害，並透過比較美國及歐洲數國之相關法規範與實務見解來印證我國現行商標法對於著名商標之保護規範與淡化侵權損害賠償計算之法律條文規定是否妥適，以形成本文之建議與看法。
In this modern world where capitalism dominates the market, businesses and enterprises often invest massive amounts of capital in research and development to provide for innovation and advancement, as well as to improve the quality and efficacy of their own products to satisfy and fulfill consumers’ needs and desires. Businesses and enterprises that strive for market success often possess strong marketing and advertising strategies, utilizing mass media to disseminate information on their products and services. Their goal is to shape or create a positive and/or distinctive brand image and brand recognition among potential consumers. A well-known trademark is the symbol of such businesses and enterprises that have successfully achieved a high degree of distinctiveness or brand reputation.
In this free, competitive market, it is of crucial importance that the related laws provide necessary and consummated protection for well-known trademarks, in order to prevent their distinctiveness or reputation from being “whittled-away” by free riders engaging in unfair competitions, as well as empowering the owners of the well-known trademarks with the legal weapon of trademark infringement remedies.
The purpose of this study is to explore the actual effects trademark dilution has on well-known trademarks, as well as the actual damage it brings. In addition, this study compares the regulations and court decisions of Taiwan, the United States, the European Union, and several European countries. It provides conclusions/suggestions on Taiwan’s current legal protection for well-known trademarks and the methods of calculation for the compensatory awards resulting from trademark dilution. |
| Reference: | 壹、中文部分
一、書籍
1. 王澤鑑，債法原理：基本理論債之發生，2012年3月，2版。
2. 汪渡村，商標法論，2012年10月，3版。
3. 陳文吟，商標法論，2012年10月，4版。
4. 陳昭華，商標法之理論與實務，2015年10月，2版。
5. 陳昭華，商標法實例解析，2015年2月，2版。
6. 黃銘傑等，「商標使用」規範之現在與未來，2015年4月，初版。
7. 劉孔中，比較商標法，2014年9月，初版。
8. 巴黎公約解讀（2000年）【電子檔】。台北市：經濟部智慧財產局。
二、專書論文
1. 李清泉（計劃主持人）、許宏迪（協同主持人）、林繼恆（主持律師）、陳姵君（專案經理），侵害商標權損害賠償計算標準之研究成果報告書，經濟部智慧財產局101年度委託研究，2012 年11月。
2. 林洲富，商標侵權與損害賠償研究，新北市智慧財產法院研究發展報告，2013 年11月。
3. 劉孔中（計劃主持人）、王敏銓（協同主持人）、梅嘉玲、張瀞予、余金龍、陳宥銓（研究員），「著名商標名錄及案例評析」研究成果報告，經濟部智慧財產局97年度委託研究，2008 年11月。
三、期刊論文
1. 王敏銓，美國商標法救濟措施之研究，智慧財產權月刊，83期，頁54-67，1995年11月。
2. 王美花、張瓊惠，論商標之淡化，智慧財產權月刊，84期，頁68-86，1995年12月。
3. 王怡蘋，商標侵害之損害賠償計算－以民國 100 年修法為核心，輔仁法學，48期，頁1-56，2014年12月。
4. 洪裕翔，論公司名稱之保護，公平交易季刊， 3期，13卷，2005年7月。
5. 陳昭華，侵害著名商標之混淆誤認之虞與減損識別性或信譽之虞的關係－智慧財產法院一○一年度民商上字第一一號民事判決，月旦裁判時報，26期，頁44-59，2014年4月。
6. 陳雅譽，由美國法上判例看商標淡化之進展（下），司法新聲，76期，2008年11月。
7. 陳雅譽，由美國法上判例看商標淡化之進展（上），司法新聲，74期，2008年9月。
8. 陳瑞鑫，論商標民事侵害類型與商標使用，智慧財產權月刊，73期，頁16-30，1995年1月。
9. 許曉芬，論著名商標侵害態樣中之「搭便車」行為－以歐洲法院判決實務為中心，臺北大學法學論叢，87期，頁177-216，2013年9月。
10. 張志偉，論定暫時狀態處分之應用，司法新聲，57期，2006年12月。
11. 馮震宇，論市場調查於商標混淆誤認判斷之發展，智慧財產權月刊，182期，頁40-61，2014年2月。
12. 馮震宇，商標減損之認定與商標侵權，台灣法學雜誌，223期，頁145-151，2013年5月。
13. 劉孔中，從Google關鍵字廣告判決探討商標維權使用與商標侵權使用的區別，月旦法學雜誌，256期，頁91-101，2016年9月。
14. 劉真伶、鄭淑芬，歐盟商標識別性案例介紹，智慧財產權月刊，139期，2010年7月。
15. 蘇月星，淺談美國法對商標間接侵權責任的類型，智慧財產權月刊，162期，頁59-73，2012年6月。
四、學位論文
1. 王如祥，商標淡化的法制與應用-以美國、歐盟為中心，國立交通大學科技法律研究所碩士論文，2007年7月。
2. 王珍玉，從法院判決探討台灣對著名商標之保護，世新大學法學院碩士論文，2012年7月。
3. 江明軒，人格權之保護，國立中正大學法律系研究所碩士論文，2012年7月。
4. 林則言，論著名商標之保護--以美國聯邦商標淡化法為主，國立中正大學法律研究所碩士論文，2005年7月。
5. 黃如鵬，商標之判斷基準及淡化理論之研究，國立臺灣海洋大學海洋法律研究所碩士學位論文，2012年7月。
6. 扈心沂，論商標淡化之商標使用要件，國立交通大學科技法律研究所碩士論文，2011年1月。
7. 湯淑嵐，論商標侵權下商標使用要件之妥適性，國立交通大學科技法律研究所碩士論文，2010年10月。
8. 劉蘊文，從國內外司法實務論我國對著名商標之保護，東吳大學法律學系碩士在職專班法律專業組碩士論文，2014年7月。
五、判決及官方審查基準
1. 智慧財產法院104年度民商上字第17號民事判決
2. 智慧財產法院101年度民商上字第11號民事判決
3. 最高法院101年度台上字第1758號民事裁定
4. 最高行政法院101年度判字第597號行政判決
5. 智慧財產法院100年度民商上字第10號民事判決
6. 商標法第30條第1項第11款著名商標保護審查基準
7. 司法院公報資訊網，《司法院公報》，52 卷 3期，2010年3月。
六、其他
麥卡錫（計劃顧問）、趙晉枚（計劃主持人）、劉孔中（協同主持人）、黃銘傑（協同主持人）、包志成（資深研究員）、李恬野（研究員），2005年11月。商標法整體法制暨具體修法建議之研究，經濟部智慧財產局94年度委託研究。民106年1月22日，取自經濟部智慧財產局網頁：https://www.tipo.gov.tw/ct.aspxItem=286188&ctNode=6884&mp=1。
貳、外文部份
I、Books
1. Borababy, G. (2011). Recent trends in trademark protection: Leading lawyers on advising clients, reviewing trademark strategies, and responding to recent fraud litigation. Boston, MA: Aspatore.
2. Cornish, W., Aplin, T. F., .., C., & Llewelyn, D. (2010). Intellectual property: Patents, copyright, trade marks and allied rights. London: Sweet & Maxwell.
3. Cottier, T., & Véron, P. (3rd ed. 2014). Concise international and European IP law: TRIPS, Paris Convention, European enforcement and transfer of technology. Alphen aan den Rijn: Kluwer Law International.
4. Dinwoodie, G. B., & Janis, M. D. (Eds.). (2008). Trademark law and theory: A handbook of contemporary research. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
5. Fhima, I. S. (2011). Trade mark dilution in Europe and the United States. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
6. Ginsburg, J. C., Kevlin, M. L., & Litman, J. (2013). Trademark and unfair competition law: Cases and materials (5th ed.). Carolina Academic Press.
7. McCarthy, J. T. (2016). McCarthy on trademarks and unfair competition (4th ed.). Thomson Reuters. Retrieved December 1, 2016, from Westlaw.
II、Articles
1. Alexander, M. J., & Heilbronner, M. K. (1996, Spring). Dilution under Section 43(c) of the Lanham Act. Law and Contemporary Problems, 59(2), 93- 129.
2. Anemaet, L. (2016, March 15). The Public Domain Is Under Pressure – Why We Should Not Rely on Empirical Data When Assessing Trademark Distinctiveness. International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law, 47(3), 303-335.
3. Annual Review of EU Trademark Law 2015 in review. (2016, March). The Trademark Reporter, 106(2), 419-635.
4. Annual Review of EU Trademark Law 2013 in Review. (2014, March). The Trademark Reporter, 104(2), 654-660.
5. Barber, W. G. (2008). Dumping the Designation of Source Requirement from the TDRA: A Response to the Alleged Trademark Use Requirement in Dilution Cases. Santa Clara High Technology Law Journal, 24(3), 559-570.
6. Barrett, M. (2006). Internet Trademark Suits and the Demise of “Trademark Use”. UC Davis Law Review, 39(2), 371-457.
7. Beerline, J. F. (2008, January). Anti-Dilution Law, New and Improved: The Trademark Dilution Revision Act of 2006. Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 23(1), 511-535.
8. Burrell, R., & Handler, M. (2016, June 29). Reputation in European trade mark law: A re-examination. ERA Forum, 17(1), 85-99.
9. Cho, S. (2015). Empirical Substantiation of Sport Trademark Dilution: Quasi-Experimental Examination of Dilutive Effects. Journal of Legal Aspects of Sport, 25(1), 27-55.
10. Chong, S. (2005, May). Protection of Famous Trademarks Against Use for Unrelated Goods and Services: A Comparative Analysis of the Law in the United States, the United Kingdom and Canada and Recommendations for Canadian Law Reform. The Trademark Reporter, 95(3), 642-704.
11. Cooper, A. S. (2007, August). Trademark Dilution: Fame, Blurring, and Issues of Proof. The Computer & Internet Lawyer, 24(8), 10-20.
12. Dinwoodie, G. B., & Janis, M. D. (2007). Confusion Over Use: Contextualism in Trademark Law. Iowa Law Review, 92, 1597-1667.
13. Dogan, S. L. & Lemley, M. A. (2008). The Trademark Use Requirement in Dilution Cases. Santa Clara High Technology Law Journal, 24(3), 541-557.
14. Dworkowitz, A. (2011). Ending Dilution Doublespeak: Reviving The Concept of Economic Harm in the Dilution Action. Texas Intellectual Property Law Journal, 20(1), 25-56.
15. Fhima, I. S. (2006). The Actual Dilution Requirement of the United States, United Kingdom and European Union: A Comparative Analysis. Boston University Journal of Science & Technology Law,12(2), 271-313. Retrieved April 17, 2016, from https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm? abstract_id=964234.
16. Gerhardt, D. R. (2007, March 01). The 2006 Trademark Dilution Revision Act Rolls Out a Luxury Claim and a Parody Exemption. North Carolina Journal of Law & Technology, 8(2), 205-230.
17. Gielen, C. (2010). Trademark Dilution Under European Law. The Law Journal of the International Trademark Association, 104(3), 693-730.
18. Goodberlet, K. (2006). The Trademark Dilution Revision Act of 2006: Prospective Changes To Dilution Definition, Claim Analyses, and Standard of Harm. Journal of High Technology Law, 6(2), 249-279.
19. Handler, M. (2016, May). What Can Harm the Reputation of a Trademark? A Critical Re-Evaluation of Dilution by Tarnishment. The Trademark Reporter, 106(3), 639-692.
20. Heald, P. J., & Brauneis, R. (2011, July). The Myth of Buick Aspirin: An Empirical Study of Trademark Dilution by Product and Trade names. Cardozo Law Review, 32(6), 2533-2577.
21. International Annual Review The Eighteenth Yearly Review of International Trademark Jurisprudence. (2011, May). The Trademark Reporter, 101(3), 1126-1127.
22. Jonas, K. U. & Pröm, C. (2008, January). Evolution of German law on well-known marks. World Trademark Review, (11), 70-71.
23. Keller, K. L. (1993, January 01). Conceptualizing, Measuring, and Managing Customer-Based Brand Equity. Journal of Marketing, 57(1), 1-22.
24. Kim, P. E. (2001). Preventing Dilution of the Federal Trademark Dilution Act: Why the FTDA Requires Actual Economic Harm. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 150(2), 719-760.
25. Klimkevičiūtė, D. (2010). The Legal Protection of Well-Known Trademarks and Trademarks with a Reputation: The Trends of the Legal Regulation in the Eu Member States. Social Sciences Studies, 3(7), 229-251.
26. Kuhn, P. & Slocum, J. (2013, June). Losing a trademark under naked licensing law. World Trademark Review, (43), 134-135.
27. Luepke, M. H. H. (2008, May). Taking Unfair Advantage or Diluting A Famous Mark — A 20/20 Perspective On The Blurred Differences Between U.S. and E.U. Dilution Law. The Trademark Reporter, 98(3), 789-833.
28. Magid, J. M., Cox, A. D., & Cox, D. S. (2006, Spring). Quantifying Brand Image: Empirical Evidence of Trademark Dilution. American Business Law Journal, 43(1), 1-42.
29. Malynicz, S. (2015, March 17). Applying the law on trade mark dilution. ERA Forum, 16(1), 49-60.
30. McCarthy, J.T. (2004, November). Dilution of a Trademark: European and United States Law Compared. The Trademark Reporter, 94(6), 1163-1181.
31. McDowall, K. (2015, spring). A Critical Look At “Use” Under The Lanham Act. New York University Journal Of Intellectual Property And Entertainment Law, 4(2), 226-252.
32. McKenna, M. P. (2012), A Consumer Decision-Making Theory of Trademark Law, Virginia Law Review, 98, 67-141.
33. Meadway, R. J. (2015, November). Dilution Damages — Real Remedy Or Not. Retrieved October 24, 2016, from http://www.eckertseamans.com/wp- content/uploads/2015/11/Jacobs-Meadway-CommercialDamages-0212.pdf.
34. Meyer, M. A. (2007, April). Intellectual property protections in Romania. European Newsletter, 44, 5-8. Retrieved December 3, 2016, from Westlaw.
35. Milchior, R. & Benattar, E. (2011, May 24). France. World Trademark Review, (30), 87-94.
36. Mulder, S. (2008, January). Well-known and famous trademark protection in Italy. World Trademark Review, 11, 72-73.
37. Rebecca, T. (2015). What`s the Harm of Trademark Infringement? Akron Law Review, 49(3),627-646.
38. Rierson, S. L. (2012). The Myth and Reality of Dilution. Duke Law & Technology Review, 11(2), 212-312.
39. Robinson, W., Pratt, G., & Kelly, R. (2013, March 18). Trademark Law Harmonization in the European Union: Twenty Years Back and Forth. Fordham Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal, 23(2), 731-770. Retrieved December 2, 2016, from Westlaw.
40. Shaeffer, J. (2010). Trademark Infringement and Dilution Are Different--It`s Simple. The Law Journal of the International Trademark Association, 100(3), 303-335.
41. Schechter, F. I. (1927, April). The Rational Basis of Trademark Protection. Harvard Law Review, 40(6), 813-833.
42. Sheff, J. N. (2014, March 17). Dilution at the Patent and Trademark Office. SSRN Electronic Journal. Retrieved from https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2410069.
43. Sobol, A. (2015). Damages calculation for trademark and denomination of origin violations: interesting outcome, but unconvincing reasoning: Emmentaler Switzerland v Wick Kase GmbH. European Intellectual Property Review, 37(11), 744-747. Retrieved December 3, 2016, from Westlaw.
44. Sobol, A. (2013, September 19). Gucci v Guess trade mark battle: the Italian judgment came as a surprise? European Intellectual Property Review, 35(10), 618-623. Retrieved December 3, 2016, from Westlaw.
45. The Twentieth Yearly Review of International Trademark Jurisprudence. (2013). The Trademark Reporter, 103(3), 567-720.
46. Thurmon, M.A (2011). Federal Trademark Remedies: A Proposal for Reform, Akron Intellectual Property Journal, 5(2), 137-184.
47. Tushnet, R. (2008). Gone in Sixty Milliseconds: Trademark Law and Cognitive Science. Texas Law Review, 86, 507-568.
48. Weber, N. & Grabienski, K. (2009, June). Germany. World Trademark Review, (19), 90-91.
III、Dissertation
1. Kruger, H. (2014, April). Trademark and Brand Dilution: An Empirical Investigation (Thesis in partial fulfilment for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Business Management and Administration, Business School of Stellenbosch University). Retrieved April 26, 2017, from http://scholar.sun.ac.za/handle/10019.1/86565.
2. Tam, P. N. (2011). Well-known trademark protection. A comparative study between the laws of the European Union and Vietnam (Doctoral dissertation, Lund University and Ho Chih Minh City University of Law). Retrieved January 23, 2017, from https://lucris.lub.lu.se/ws/files/5994712/4024269.pdf.
IV、Other
1. International Trademark Association (2004, May). What constitutes use of a registered trademark in the European Union (including New Member States). Retrieved January 25, 2017, from http://www.inta.org/Advocacy/Documents/INTATrademarkUseEurope2004.pdf.
2. McKenna, M. P. (2008, April 22). Testing Modern Trademark Law’s Theory of Harm. Paper presented at the 2008 Chicago Intellctual Property Colloquium. Retrieved May 2, 2017, from http://www.chicagoip.com/speakerprofilesandpapers08S.html.
3. Ronald B. Standler. (2011, July 13). Elements of Torts in the U.S.A.. Retrieved from http://www.rbs2.com/torts.pdf.
4. The International Association for the Protection of Intellectual Property (2015, June 07). Taking unfair advantage of trademarks: parasitism and free riding. Retrieved March 3, 2017, from http://aippi.org/wp-content/uploads/committees/245/GR245france.pdf.
5. The International Association for the Protection of Intellectual Property (2010, March 18). Protection against the dilution of a trade mark. Retrieved March 3, 2017, from https://aippi.org/download/commitees/214/GR214france_en.pdf.
6. World Intellectual Property Organization (2004). WIPO Intellectual Property Handbook: Policy, Law and Use. Retrieved January 24, 2017, from http://www.wipo.int/about-ip/en/iprm/.
V、Cases
1. Adidas-Salomon AG v. Fitnessworld Trading Ltd., C408/01(2003)
2. General Motors Corp. v. Yplon SA, C-375/97(1999)
3. Gucci America, Inc. v. Guess, Inc. et al, 868 F.Supp.2d 207 (S.D.N.Y. 2012)
4. Interflora Inc. v. Marks & Spencer plc, C‑323/09 (2011)
5. L’Oréal SA v. Bellure NV,C‑487/07(2009)
6. Louis Vuitton Malletier S.A. v. Haute Diggity Dog, LLC, 507 F.3d 252 (4th Cir. 2007)
7. Miss World Limited v Channel 4 Television Corporation (Pumfrey J; [2007] EWHC 982 (Apr. 16, 2007) (Pat)
8. Moseley v. V Secret Catalogue, Inc., 537 U.S. 418, 123 S. Ct. 1115 (2003)
9. 32Red PLC v. WHG (International) Limited, WHG Trading Limited and William Hill PLC, [2013] EWHC 815 (Apr. 12, 2013) (Ch)
10. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals v. Doughney, 263 F.3d 359 (4th Cir. 2001)
11. Romag Fasteners, Inc. v. Fossil, Inc., 817 F.3d 782, 784 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
12. Sabel BV v. Puma AG, Rudolf Dassler Sport, C-251/95(1997)
13. Starbucks Corporation v. Hitman Glass, 2016 WL 6126255 (C.D. Cal. 2016) |
| Description: | 碩士
國立政治大學
法律科際整合研究所
103652010 |
| Source URI: | http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0103652010 |
| Data Type: | thesis |
| Appears in Collections: | [法律科際整合研究所] 學位論文
|
Files in This Item:
| File |
Size | Format | |
|---|
| 201001.pdf | 2345Kb | Adobe PDF2 | 571 | View/Open |
|
All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.
|
