減弱中之反淡化保護合理基礎：美國商標淡化法的符號學分析

Abstract

摘 要

本文最主要的目的在透過符號學（semiotics; semiology）此一分析工具，對商標進行分析，釐清商標構型（structuration）與功能上之變化，由此迥異於一般傳統視野之面向，就商標識別性、商標淡化、商標侵害保護等商標法原理，重新加以詮釋。除了希望能夠解開商標法上兩種救濟模式：商標侵害（infringement）以及商標淡化（dilution），為何自淡化理論提出伊始即有著糾纏不已、支持者相互攻訐之因緣，並尋求調和之道。本文考察美國聯邦商標法淡化訴因之建立、FDTA以及TDRA兩項聯邦商標淡化法案適用上之問題與一脈相承之缺失後，詳盡地對於謝希特提出商標淡化理論之思緒理路、歷史背景等進行分析，並且以FTDA司法實踐中兩大核心爭議作為探討淡化本質之場所。佐以學者憂心淡化保護可能限制競爭、獨攬商標救濟領域之疑慮、認知心理學上對淡化理論假設之損害模式所進行之實證研究，以及學者解讀TDRA可能延續爭端或至少無法發揮定紛止爭之功能後，本文在法制上總結淡化實際上為法學上面對傳統商標侵害無法配合現代商業生活所產生之適應不良，設法突破、調整之結果，而本身亦不幸過時。

接著，本文介紹符號學兩大分支之開山始祖：索緒爾（Ferdinand de Saussure）以及皮爾斯（Charles Sanders Peirce）之學說 ，指出符號學對於符號模型、符號系統運作，即符號化過程（semiosis）之解釋。再次，延伸前述對於符號學考察所得，以其與商標法原理間存在的相似之處，分析商標內部之結構，以求澄清商標法原理原則曖昧不明之處，嘗試提供可供運作的結構主義平台。在說明傳統商標內部符號結構後，本文集中聚焦於商標法制之關鍵概念：識別性（distinctiveness），將其由原本先天性及後天性之區分，重行概念化為新二分法：來源識別性（source distinctiveness）、差異識別性（differential distinctiveness）。前者將標示商品來源，後者將該商品與其他商品相區別。接著將運用上述分析，應用於商標淡化之概念，區分模糊淡化（dilution by blurring）與謝希特氏原始構想的獨特性淡化（dilution of uniqueness）；前者乃是傳統商標侵害的本質上地倒想形式（essentially inverted form），後者則在絕對範圍內（absolute in scope）保護差異識別性。並且藉由前述FTDA以及TDRA所勾勒出來的淡化爭議輪廓，經由數個核心議題之討論，為前述兩種商標法所提供之救濟模式，為何始終表現出糾纏不休的重疊性，提出符號學上之解釋。

最後，本文挑戰著名學者Barton Beebe對於商標進行符號學分析後，面對前述救濟模式之重疊性，認為依照價值差異創造意指作用之符號邏輯，任何模式之反淡化保護都會衰退成保護完整財產權（property rights in gross）之條款，即淡化之絕對主義（absolutism）此種看法。本文試圖點出當前商標之發展，帶動了符號學視野新一輪的關注焦點。例如來源識別性之沒落以及差異識別性之興起後，符號價值的（大宗）商品化（the commodification of sign-value），使商標符號之傳統構型開始崩潰，現代商標、品牌蛻變成漂浮的能指（floating signifier），因而成為目前商標法規範之中心。 本文最後一章，利用商標法上解讀商標為雙重系統之主張以及羅蘭．巴特之神話學，來分析商標作為漂浮之能指，其懸浮飄流的姿態。在結論上，本文主張，商標係由雙重之符號系統所構成，包括擔任語言學上直述系統之後設語言，以及構成符號學上引申義系統之神話。此雙重系統交疊而錯位，導致後者之能指係以前者之符號整體所擔任。配合品牌擴張及物件丟失之後現代情狀， 如此一來，商標擔當起舉有三重特性之能指，首先是直述系統中後設語言之能指，協助完成之後被引申義系統挪為形式之意指作用；第二則是在引申義系統中能指之一構成部分；最後面臨真實系統的崩潰，符號價值起飛的情形下，商標只好充當最後的物件，兩者一同墜入真實系統，無法分離 。

淡化企圖要保護第二系統之能指以及所指等要素時，無法不經由對第一系統之整個意指作用進行管制來達成。在現實死於價值的沖擊後，商標經由意義的生產與再製形塑表達整個世界，尤其是透過商品及其消費達成意識形態的大宗商品化，並且這些帶有價值體系之物件包圍整個消費者日常生活，將之暗渡為自然秩序的明顯法則。商標法即使立意要保護商標權人，亦應自我省察，以商標功能之正常運作為界。管制商標音素在任何社會生活脈絡下之同位音（allophones），容易涉及到在各種文化、政治場域中發言與再現等各項意識形態實踐活動之單一性、獨語性，並非妥適。本文主張，以傳統商標侵害模式為基底，建構單一之商標侵害救濟模式。

關鍵字：商標侵害、商標淡化、符號、淡化證明標準、混淆誤認、淡化之虞、實際淡化、著名性、商標識別性、聯繫、污損、模糊、符號學、來源識別性、差異識別性、意指作用、價值關係、符號價值、漂浮的能指、神話學、直述系統、引申義、後設語言、意識形態、Nabisco、Ringling Bros.、Moseley、Schechter、Saussure、Peirce、TDAR、FTDA

ABSTRACT

Applying the knowledge field of Semiotics (Semiology) which studies the sign system and its governing and constituting laws, this thesis, seeks to achieve the reconciliation between two parallel devices of relief granted to trademark by related laws, “infringement” and “dilution,” having being confronting, competing, yet as well, tangled with each other from the very point of proposition in Schechter’s seminal article, the Rational Basis of Trademark Protection, arguing “the preservation of the uniqueness of a trademark should constitute the only rational basis for its protection.”

This thesis begins with archeology in chapter 2, involving the excavation of legislative history of FTDA and its substitute, TDRA and exhaustive expatiation upon Schechter’s original ideal and concern about how trademark-related laws should adapt to rapidly changing environment of business reality in early 19th century. What follows is the critics of this dilution scheme. Particularly, the “circuit split” amongst federal circuit courts into two sides led respectively by Nabisco court and Ringling Bros court during the era of FTDA undermined the objects in Schechter’s design. Though FTDA is no more in effect, the retrospection still guarantees a clearer picture of what trademark law practitioners encounter today.

In chapter 3, this thesis first put focus on the resurrection of infringement and consumer confusion test from the plague of confining elements such direct competition and product category by adopting good-will as bridging factor to expand the infringing scenario. Also in this chapter, more theoretically, looking at the experiments of cognitive psychology, this thesis contends that there is no solid empirical evidences which can verify the notion often held by dilution proponents that dilution is like infection and that it is merely a device designed to cure the obsolescence of infringement but in its turn caught in reverse obsolescence of over-shooting. Later, this thesis explores the possibility of resistance to the explicit terms of TDRA with an interpretatively alternative perspective on four-part definition of blurring dilution.

It is the object of chapter 4 to introduce semiotics or semiology. This thesis summarizes the work of two pioneers, Ferdinand de Saussure and Charles Sanders Peirce, and their vision of the structure, nature, and functions of sign. Employing the homologies found in both jural and semiotic accounts of trademark mentioned above, this thesis refines and recontextualize primary trademark doctrines, including trademark distinctiveness and famousness which are the focal issues of courts’ practicing Lanham Act. Then this thesis accordingly combs the threads of cases surrounding the standard of proof in FTDA and argues that traditional inherent-distinctive-oriented Abercrombie hierarchy failed to explain the subject-matter and scope of trademark protection. Thus this thesis agrees that the transformation of distinctiveness echoing two trademark function, identifying and distinguishing. Accordingly we have source distinctiveness and differential distinctiveness, and the infringement of intra-mark signification and the dilution of inter-mark value. By especially introducing the structural evolution of trademark as sign from triadic towards dyadic, even monadic structuration (floating signifier), observed by trademark commentator, this thesis notices that the logic absolutism in semiotics should not considered the destiny of trademark dilution. When it comes to the floating signifier carry sign-value, this thesis turns to mythology.

Last, in chapter 5,after incorporating Roland Barthes’ mythology into this academic journey, this contends that the trademark as sign is constituted by two imbricated and staggered semiotic systems: denotation (meta-language) and connotation. The former as a global sign serves as the first term of the later, the signifier (connotator). In this fashion, trademark itself is a threefold entity: (1)as the signifier of denotation system, identifying ,through linguistic turn, the source, shape, flavor, and function of product or service; (2) together with the signified in denotation system, as sign and the signifier of connotation system at the same time; (3)under the post-modern condition of object failure, as the last object embracing sign-value. The simultaneity of those three characters in trademark has long rattled and stumbled trademark legislators and practitioners as well. From Barthes, the signified of connotation system is some fragments of certain ideology and it stays behind the turnstile of meaning and form, both role played by denotation system’s sign. It inappropriate for trademark law to govern the allophones of a mark in any context, whether cultural or political. And since structurally the articulation of the signified of connotation system necessitate the sign of whole denotation system, a regulation model focusing on infringement relief should be satisfying if read properly and does not risk the bereavement of cultural and political democracy. TDRA is ,to its best, only of re-denomination, not a saving grace.

Key Words: Actual dilution, association, blurring, connotation, consumer confusion, denotation, dilution, differential distinctiveness, distinctiveness, famousness, floating signifier, FTDA, ideology, infringement, likelihood of dilution, mythology, metalanguage, Nabisco, Peirce, Ringling Bros., Saussure, semiology, semiotics, sign, sign-value, Schechter, source distinctiveness, tarnishment, TDRA, value