資訊、符號與觀眾— 論我國產地證明標章之立法妥適性

Abstract

從法國釀造的「波爾多紅酒」到印度種植的「大吉嶺茶葉」；「瑞士製造」的精密鐘錶到澳洲生產的「100%羊毛」，上述皆為國際貿易組織（World Trade Organization）下所保護的地理標示（geographical indication）。該制度之目的在於辨識特定商品所具備的品質、聲譽或其他特性，主要歸因於會員國領域內特定地區的地理因素。台灣雖有許多遠近馳名的地方產業，但仿冒抄襲甚至商標搶註的事件在國際上層出不窮。為加強保護各地具特色且在國際上享有盛譽的產品，我國自2002年成為WTO會員國後，於2011年商標法修法時增訂「產地證明標章」、「產地團體商標」等制度。 目前台灣總共有32起產地證明標章，包括「池上米」、「燕巢芭樂」、「日月潭紅茶」等。若仔細觀察產地證明標章的特性，會發現眾多與一般商標不同之處。本文以產地證明標章為研究核心，以符號學、語言學、資訊成本理論分析產地證明標章從註冊、權利行使、侵權規定等階段與一般商標之差異。 任何符號都可作為一種溝通及資訊之傳遞。在商標權利行使的部分，本文以Smith的溝通理論出發，回到產地證明標章的社群觀察如何將社群內密集資訊的文化習慣（custom）去脈絡化後與一般大眾溝通，並界定權利範圍。為保護產地證明標章特殊的產地與產品之連結，也因背後的群體性使得在權利性質上帶有準公有（semicommon）的財產權性質色彩，商標法也設計多重機制避免投機行為（strategic behavior）。 在侵害權利的部分，實務上對商標淡化適用要件紊亂，原因在於不清楚淡化所保護之法益。本文認為淡化規範應回歸Frank I. Schechter提出以保存商標的獨特性（uniqueness）的基礎上，除了衝突商標要同一或近似外，淡化商標之客體應僅限於著名商標，且原、被告兩者商品市場區隔必須明顯。延續前文脈絡，本文認為產地證明標章應限縮為夙具盛名的地理標識，惟在淡化規範上因與一般商標之權利性質有所差異，而無法完全適用商標法對於反淡化之規定，為避免保護不周，本文認為商標法應增設另一種特殊的侵權態樣—搭便車（unfair advantage taken of the distinctive character or the repute of that mark）以完整保護產地證明標章之權利，此外，更應限縮合理使用的空間，禁止伴以同「類型」、「等級」、「風格」等類似說明，以避免產地標章通用化。 不同於國內其他文獻討論地理標示應由商標法或特別法保護，本文聚焦在於對現行商標法提出實質的修法建議，並評論實務對於地理標示之判決，包括池上米侵權案、大吉嶺茶葉案、讚岐烏龍麵案、K．SWISS案等，以期在我國加入WTO後陸續簽署許多貿易協定下，提供更完善的機制以保護我國產地證明標章的權利及特殊的文化價值。

From “Bordeaux” wine to “Darjeeling” tea, and “SWISS MADE” watch to “100% lamb wool”, all contain geographical indications (hereinafter “GI”) protected by the World Trade Organization (hereinafter “WTO”). GIs identify a good’s origin within the territory, region locality of a Member, where a given quality, reputation or other characteristics of the good is essentially attributable to its geographical origin. Taiwan is specifically famous for its local products but counterfeiting is rampant in the international market. After joining WTO in 2002, Taiwan passed the new trademark act which included “geographical certification mark” and “geographical collective trademark”to protect some specific products with strong geographical association in Taiwan. Taiwan currently has 32 geographical certification mark, including “Chih Shang Rice”, “Yan Chao Guava” and “Sun Moon Lake Black Tea". Even though geographical certification marks are stipulated under trademark act, there are many differences between trademarks and the geographical certification marks. This paper focuses on geographical certification mark and applies semiotics, linguistic approaches and information-cost theory to analyze the multiple trademark stages including registering, use and infringement. Any kind of symbol could be considered as a way to communicate and send information. With regard exercising rights, I apply the communicative tradeoff theory to analyze the community’s culture, customs and values behind the geographical certification mark—how they exchange information intensively within and communicate their custom to the outside public across many cultural contexts. The paper further explores how the trademark act designs a unique “semicommon” system, which protects the special association between a good and a place in the geographical certification marks and avoids strategic behavior. In the stage of infringement, the courts have split rationales when the infringement happens. The reason is judges do not have the consensus on what interest the dilution of trademark protects. In order to answer the question, this paper incorporates the dilution theory proposed by Frank I. Schechter, who argued that “the preservation of the uniqueness of a trademark should constitute the only rational basis for its protection.” Under his theory, the requirements for trademark dilution are only limited to famous marks and applies the mark in the non-competed market. However, due to the differences between trademarks and geographical certification marks, the anti-dilution law doesn’t apply directly, resulting in limited protection for marks. Therefore, this paper proposes a novel framework to be adopted into the trademark act, to protect geographical certification marks, against unfair advantage taken from the distinctive character or the repute of that mark, by limiting the space for fair use and by forbidding expressions such as “kind”, “type”, “flavor”, “style”, “imitation” attached to the products that are not certified. Unlike other previous works that discuss whether to protect the GIs via sui generis or trademark law, this paper focuses on the current protection scheme and proposes revisions to provide more thorough protection. Moreover, the paper also examines several landmark cases in Taiwan and offers a new perspective about incorporation precious cultural heritage into the trademark system.