看不見的商標─論非視覺可感知商標保護之妥適性

Abstract

隨著經濟活動的多樣化與科技技術的進步，傳統的平面商標已不足以應付市場需求，各式各樣的新型態商標應運而生。我國商標法自民國101年7月1日起擴大商標保護之客體，聲音、氣味、觸覺和味覺商標等非視覺可感知商標，均得作為商標。然而，非視覺可感知商標無法用眼睛看到，消費者如何識別商品或服務的來源？審查機關應如何界定其權利範圍？市場競爭者應如何避免侵害此類商標？實有探討之必要。是以，本文欲探討非視覺可感知商標在實務操作上可能面臨的問題，並探討其作為商標保護客體之妥當性。

有鑑於我國非視覺可感知商標之發展尚未成熟，實務上之申請案件和判決數量亦寥寥可數，本文首先從比較法的觀點，介紹美國和歐盟之實務審查要件和相關案例，分析非視覺可感知商標在實務申請上所面臨之困難，作為我國實務操作上的參考與借鑒。接著，本文以法學實證研究之取向，透過質性訪談深入了解我國實務工作者對於非視覺可感知商標的看法。最後，本文嘗試從財產法理論的觀點，探討非視覺可感知商標所面臨之困難與挑戰。

本文認為，商標制度以有形的「商標」作為商品來源和商譽之表徵，劃定簡單且明確的權利邊界，以降低消費者和市場競爭者的資訊處理成本，使其能夠知悉商標權人之權利範圍，並避免商標權人之商譽受到侵害。然而，在非視覺可感知商標中，除了聲音商標以外，氣味、觸覺和味覺商標礙於本身之性質以及現行科技技術之限制，難以劃定明確的權利範圍，導致消費者無法透過商標來識別商品或服務之來源，市場競爭者亦無法知悉其標章是否構成商標侵害。是以，除了聲音商標以外，氣味、觸覺和味覺商標在註冊審查階段與權利執行階段均面臨諸多困難，無法達到商標法保護消費者利益、保護商譽以及維護市場公平競爭之立法目的。

With the various economic activities and the rapid development of technology, Trademark Law of Taiwan has expanded the scope of trademark protection to include sound, scent, tactile and flavor marks since July 1, 2012. However, these trademarks cannot be identified visually. It leads to the question that whether consumers can use invisible signs to identify the source of a product and service? How do examining authorities define the scope of a trademark? How do competitors avoid trademark infringement? This thesis will discuss the problems in application practice and the appropriateness of protection of non-visually perceptible trademarks. Given the immature development of non-visually perceptible trademarks in our country, this thesis introduces United States and European Union trademark registration practice and important cases, as well as the problems may occur in application practice. Next, this thesis surveys the practicality of non-visually perceptible trademarks by conducting interview with the professionals in the field of trademarks. At last, this thesis analyzes the difficulties in non-visually perceptible trademarks by using economic and legal analysis of property right theory. This thesis concludes that in order to delineate a simple boundary and minimize the communication processing cost, trademark law use a tangible mark as a symbol of source of products and goodwill. However, it is difficult to ascertain the scope of scent, texture and flavor marks as to its nature and technical obstacles. Under the circumstances, consumers cannot recognize these marks as identifying the source of goods and services, and that competitors cannot determine whether their marks may infringe on a registered trademark. Except for sound marks, scent, tactile and flavor marks face many problems in registration procedures and trademark enforcement. As a result, protection of scent, tactile and flavor marks is inconsistent with the fundamental goals of trademark law.