商標反向混淆誤認之研究

Abstract

反向混淆屬於混淆誤認之虞所衍生出的新形態特殊態樣，為相對於傳統正向混淆的概念。不同於正向混淆中，後使用人藉由「攀附」先使用人而獲取利益的搭便車現象；反向混淆為商標後使用人的知名度遠勝於先使用人，在大規模的廣告促銷下，以致於「壓過」或「淹沒」先使用人在市場上的商業識別，導致消費者反而誤認先使用人為仿冒者，以為後使用人的商品或服務係源自先使用人或與其相關。自美國第十巡迴上訴法院1976年之Big O案後確立至今，由一系列的案例逐漸形塑其理論內涵。其在適用「混淆誤認之虞」審查基準時，並不同於傳統的正向混淆，應特別注意參酌因素之修正適用；此外，由於反向混淆涉及商標權人、後使用人及消費者之間的利益衡平，有損害賠償難以計算的特性，因此在救濟方法上也應從三者之間的衡平切入，以達到保護商標權人，並同時將商標價值利用最大化的結果。而我國近年來也陸續出現反向混淆的案件，於有效性行政訴訟，自早期考慮導入美國「反向混淆」理論，至近期「德商愛迪達和將門案」已明文否認「反向混淆」理論之適用。然而¬爾後的「智富Smart商標異議案」似又實質肯認反向混淆理論之內涵；至於商標侵權訴訟，案件量並不多，但從「CK商標侵權案」觀察，智慧財產法院似乎認為先使用人得以「反向混淆」提起商標侵權訴訟。本文以美國理論與實務為主，建構反向混淆理論的骨幹，探討參酌因素之修正適用及救濟方式的衡平，並檢討我國商標實務，在遇到「反向混淆」案件時，該如何因應，最後對此提出相關建議。

Reverse confusion is classified as a type of “likelihood of confusion” which arose out of the traditional concept of forward confusion. In contrast to forward confusion, reverse confusion is a complete opposite concept. While forward confusion occurs when customers mistakenly think that the junior user's goods or services are from the same source as or are connected with the senior user's goods or services; in reverse confusion situation, rather than trying to profit from the senior user's mark, the junior user has no intention of taking a free ride on the good will and reputation of the small, local user. In the end, the junior user saturates the market and “overwhelms the senior user, and the costumers would purchase the goods that of the senior user’s while under the mistaken impression that the goods are of the junior user’s. Since the establishment of the case, “Big O” in 1976 by the 10th Circuit, a series of cases gradually shaped its theoretical implications. The likelihood of confusion tests for forward confusion cannot be equally applied to reverse confusion. In addition, in reverse confusion, the interests of trademark owners, junior users, and consumers are often in tension. Due to balancing their interests in the case, remedies should also be based on equity among the three, in order to protect trademark owner, and also to maximize the result of the use of the trademark value. In recent years, the emerging of reverse confusion cases in Taiwan, “reverse confusion” was initially considered, to the recent Adidas v. Jump case, the denial of the Supreme Administrative Court. However, afterwards, The Smart Net case seemingly recognize the substance of reverse confusion. Even though there is not much trademark infringement litigations but by observing "CK" case, the Intellectual Property Court considered that “likelihood of confusion” language of our Trademark Act is broad enough to encompass reverse confusion. This thesis uses sources from USA to construct the backbone of reverse confusion theory and to investigate and discuss the correction factors applicable and equitable remedies. This could also contribute to reviewing of our current trademark practice and further aiding the local "reverse confusion" cases with a better response and suggestions.