論商標侵權下商標使用要件之妥適性

Abstract

什麼樣的使用方式可能構成商標侵權？網路的出現帶動商業模式的改變，使得商標「使用」的方式漸漸脫離傳統的交易習慣，隨著這些全新的商標利用型態出現的，是更為複雜的商標法爭議，商標法對於「使用」的認定標準也需要重新檢視。 本研究之起點源自美國學說對「商標使用」之爭議，欲探討「商標使用」—被告將原告之商標當作商標使用—究竟是不是判斷商標侵權的門檻要件？若是，則其妥適性又何如？本文首先就美國「商標使用理論」學說以及其反對說予以詳盡之介紹。其次，針對美國非典型使用案件進行案例研究，包括網路出現以前之非典型案件以及網路相關的使用案件，其中後者又可分為網站標記、彈跳式網路廣告以及關鍵字廣告等三種類型。 在我國法的部分，本文統整並歸納學說實務對於「商標使用」之見解，並針對智財法院判決對進行實證研究，發現與美國學說對「商標使用」之定義亦為我國所採納。本文亦將我國非典型案件中常見的幾種使用態樣予以分類，並針對類型化之案件進行深入探討，觀察「使用」要件於此類案件實際運用情形為何，並分析採取「商標使用」作為商標侵害的要件是否妥適。

What kind of “use” constitutes trademark infringement? The emergence of the Internet changes the business model and forces the fashion of trademark use away from traditional transaction custom. Along with these new types of trademark uses are more complicated controversies on trademark law. Therefore, the standard to define “trademark use” under trademark law needs to be reexamined. The idea of this thesis originates from the trademark use debate in the United States: whether “trademark use”, i.e. the use of the accused trademark by the defendant as its own trademark, should be a prerequisite of trademark infringement? If the answer of the aforesaid question is yes, how do we measure its appropriateness? In this thesis, the author first introduces in detail the “trademark use” theory and the opposition, and then conducts case study of non-typical trademark use cases, including cases which happened before and after the emergence of the Internet, the latter of which can be categorized into three groups, cases involving meta tags, pop-up advertisements and keyword advertisements. In regard to Taiwan law, through summarizing academic theories and opinions of courts on trademark use and conducting empirical analysis on the rulings of the Intellectual Property Court, the author discovers that the academic definition of trademark use in the United States is also adopted in Taiwan. Furthermore, the author categorizes the common types of trademark use of non-typical cases, analyzes the rulings of those cases in order to know the application of the trademark use requirement among those types, and argues the appropriateness of the trademark use requirement in trademark infringement.