商標侵權案件定暫時狀態處分審酌因素之研究

Abstract

西元2006年美國最高法院在eBay v. MercExchange中認為法院在審酌是否准許或拒絕禁制令時，應在每一個案件以衡平四要素測試法(four factor test)加以判斷進而審酌禁制令之核發。即所謂「衡平原則」要求法院在核發禁制令時適用傳統四要素測試法做為衡量標準，原告必須證明(1)本案勝訴之可能性；(2)法律所提供之救濟方法，包括金錢賠償，不能足以彌補其所受之損害；(3)衡量原告與被告所遭遇困境以及(4)核發禁制令不會危害公共利益。然而傳統上在評價個別商標侵權案件是否導致不可回復之損害─禁制令必要條件─美國聯邦法院大都一致地認定當發現商標有混淆之虞即推定具有不可回復之損害，其實商標侵權案件發現被告需負侵權責任時，標準的不可回復損害推定之適用，eBay案其實應該不能有所影響。商標權保護之立法主要係消費者及競爭者保護，為能有效地表明商品或服務來源以避免混淆。因為商標權保護在公共利益之表現上與專利權、著作權保護非常不同，法院不應倉促地引用最高法院eBay案見解至商標案件的領域。在所有eBay案之後之商標權案件，認為具有不可回復之損害是基於與商標相結合之商譽、投資在商譽之大量金錢、以及從較差品質或服務結合的商標所導致商譽之損害等事實。這些事實卻係商標權侵權案件最核心的特徵，讓法院對不可回復損害之事實推論顯得迂迴及無必要。假如商標權侵權案件成立侵權與否之檢驗標準─混淆之虞─在界定上幾乎為不可回復，則顯示不可回復損害之分析不僅多餘的，且要求原告花費額外資源證明實質不可回復損害係無效率的。 在我國商標侵權定暫時狀態處分之案件，原告常僅就本案法律關係及商標侵權行為事實提出證據資料為積極之釋明，並未積極就不可回復損害、兩造利益之衡量、是否影響公共利益等事實提出事實證據資料，而法院則以本案勝訴可能性為最重要考量之關鍵因素。再參諸我國法院就專利權及著作權案件之定暫時狀態處分之審酌，係主要以本案勝訴可能性與否、以及原告是否受有不可回復損害作為最重要之認定標準，顯然我國實務上智慧財產權案件、又尤其在商標權案件就定暫時狀態處分之聲請並不需要原告負擔所有審酌因素之舉證責任。既然商標權侵權案件成立侵權與否之主要檢驗標準-「混淆之虞」-對商品製造人及消費者之損害，本質上並不僅為金錢之認定，而且為商譽上之損害難以數字表示，便可不須要求原告花費額外資源去證明本案勝訴可能性以外之其他因素事實。

In eBay v. MercExchange (2006), the U.S. Supreme Court held that courts must apply the traditional four factor test for injunctive relief in every case. These “principles of equity” required courts to employ the traditional four factor test under which the plaintiff must demonstrate (1) a likelihood of success of the merits; (2) the existence of irreparable harm; (3) that the balance of hardships tilts in favor of injunctive relief; and (4) that granting an injunction would not harm the public interest. But when assessing whether a particular instance of trademark infringement resulted in “irreparable harm” U.S. federal courts almost uniformly presumed such irreparable harm upon a finding a likelihood of confusion. In fact, eBay should not be used to eviscerate the normal presumption of irreparable harm that attaches upon a showing of liability in trademark cases. Trademark law is a form of consumer and competitor protection that is designed to efficiently indicate the source of a product or service and to avoid confusion. Because the representation of public interest in trademark protection rests on a different protection rationale than that patent and copyrights laws, courts should not hastily import the Supreme Court precedent concerns into trademark realm. In all of these post-eBay trademark cases, irreparable harm was found based on assertion about the goodwill associated with a mark, the amount of money invested in that goodwill, and the harm to that goodwill resulting from the association of a mark with an inferior good or service. These are the central characteristics of trademark infringement, rendering the courts’ analyses both circular and ultimately unnecessary. If a likelihood of confusion is almost irreparable by definition, it appears that an explicit analysis of irreparable harm is not only redundant, but is also inefficient in that it forces plaintiffs to expend additional resources to prove actual irreparable harm. In our country when granting or denying preliminary injunction of trademark infringement cases, the plaintiff often provide a preliminary showing with regard to the existence of legal relation and trademark infringement documentary evidence , not actively providing the existence of irreparable harm, that the balance of hardships tilts in favor of injunctive relief and that an injunction is in the public interest. The court reviewing an application for preliminary injunction deliberate on the likelihood of success on the merits as the most important consideration. Compared with patent and copyright cases of the discretion of the preliminary injunction, the court mainly deliberate on the likelihood of success and the existence of irreparable harm as the most important factor. It is clear in intellectual property cases, especially in trademark cases on the set of preliminary injunction claim does not require the plaintiff the burden of all factors of trial discretion in Taiwan. Because these harms to producers and consumers stemming from a likelihood of consumer confusion are not merely monetary in nature, but they are reputational and difficult to quantify. The plaintiff do not need to spend additional resources to prove that other factors other than “a likelihood of success on the merits”.