商標淡化理論的法制與應用─以美國、歐盟為中心

Abstract

商標淡化理論係為保護著名商標而產生，但從各國的適用情形可以發現，商標淡化理論不但無法有效保護著名商標，反而形成另一種保護的困境，而此困境的產生究竟係因為各國法條制定過多限制，抑或是實務界過於限縮解釋，此即為本研究所欲討論的問題之一。再者，我國於立法與適用商標淡化理論之際，是否會因各國的適用情形而同樣產生上述困境？而此種現象又應如何解決？此為本研究須分析的第二項問題。然而解決上述困境的結果將會擴大著名商標的保護而對其他的法益造成衝擊，則會發生哪些衝擊？而這些衝擊又該如何解決以達到各個法益間平衡的狀態？此則為本研究須探討的第三項問題。 鑑於上述爭議，本研究將以下列六章進行討論。第一章首先點出研究問題；第二章說明淡化理論的起源與理論基礎；第三章針對商標淡化理論在美國的發展進行研究；第四章將介紹歐盟地區的商標淡化概念與各國的適用現狀；第五章則回歸我國的立法與實務運作，除比較美國、歐盟與我國的差異點外，更進行國內的案例統計與分析；第六章則歸結全文，提出結論與建議。 本研究之結論認為商標淡化理論的適用障礙係因為各國在立法與實務運作上將商標淡化行為的結果要件制訂得過於嚴格所致。在考量商標淡化損害的特性與權利人救濟之急迫性後，應將淡化行為的結果要件定為「淡化之虞」而非「實際淡化」。惟放寬淡化的結果要件可能會造成限制市場競爭或言論自由的負面影響，則此可藉由提高著名商標的認定門檻與增訂阻卻淡化事由加以解決。

The trademark dilution theory arises to secure the right holder by protecting the distinctiveness and reputation of a famous mark. Yet it can be discovered that the trademark dilution theory, through its application by the U.S. and the E.U., has surprisingly formed a sort of difficulty in the protection of famous marks. Thus this study firstly copes with the question whether such difficulty arises from the flawed enactment or strict interpretation of anti-dilution laws in the U.S. and the E.U., secondly analyses whether this hardship also influences the legislation and application of trademark dilution theory in Taiwan, and then makes suggestions to effectively protect famous marks. However the broader protection for famous marks may have impact on other legal interests; therefore this study also attempts to propose a golden path to strike balance between all interests concerned. To discuss and resolve the questions mentioned above, this study is divided into six parts. Chapter One firstly points out the main goal of this study. Chapter Two explains the origin and the rational basis of trademark dilution theory. Chapter Three discusses the development of the trademark dilution theory in the United States. Chapter Four introduces the concept about dilution and its legislation and application in the European Union. Chapter Five concentrates on the current state of anti-dilution laws in Taiwan. Chapter Six lastly provides conclusions of this study and proposes feasible suggestions. In general this study concludes that the difficulty in the application of trademark dilution theory arises from the strict construction of dilution by legislators and courts. After taking into account the features of dilution and the urgency of protection for famous marks, it is “likelihood of dilution,” not “actual dilution” that the anti-dilution laws require. However, such a looser standard may cause the restriction of market competition and of free speech; thus a feasible way to prevent such impacts includes taking a high threshold of recognition for famousness and enacting more conditions for the exclusion of dilution.