商標通用化之理論與判斷標準之研究

Abstract

商標通用化，指原受商標法保護之商標，在消費者心中變成商品或服務之 代名詞，喪失其識別功能，因而無法再受到法律之保護，影響商標權人權益甚 鉅，然而考量商標識別性之基本要求，以及維護競爭秩序與保障消費者利益等 目的，仍有其存在之必要性。我國於2003 年參考英國、德國與美國立法，新增 商標通用化廢止之規定。實務上，迄今為止向智財局申請之案件約二十多件， 成立者有四件：「玄米」、「貓眼」、「諾麗」與「御菓子」商標。於各該案中尚未 見有明白的判斷標準說明，甚至存在有主客觀判斷標準之歧異見解，尚有待實 務發展演進。是以本文蒐集整理美國法上相關案例與文獻，介紹美國關於商標 通用化之理論與各種判斷標準，期能供為我國實務發展參考。 美國著名之商標通用化案例－Bayer 案，樹立「消費者認識判準」，認為判 斷通用化時應以消費者認知為準，可用以矯正我國以往於判斷通用化時著重競 爭同業慣用之不合理情況。而於具體判斷標準部分，可參考美國聯邦商標法所 採「主要意義判準」，並因應我國現實情況與法律制度而略作調整，可稱為「修 正式主要意義判準」，例如提高通用化之證明度要求，須高於優勢證明；又因應 現代型商標多為兼具雙重功能（dual function）之混合型詞彙（hybrid term），於 適用主要意義判準時，應著重於「商業脈絡」之考量；另外，通用化制度既有 維護競爭秩序之目的，美國學說上所提出之新興判斷標準－「競爭影響性判準」 －亦值得我國參考，於通用化之判斷上應一併考量市場競爭者對該詞彙之需用 程度，以符實際。 本文後半部介紹通用化名稱回復其商標地位之案例，美國法上有SINGER 與GOODYEAR 二著名案例。關於通用名稱可否因獲得第二意義而成為商標， 有別於英國法與德國法採肯定見解，美國法與我國法對此採取否定見解，美國 法上有所謂「事實上第二意義」概念。然而，考量商標之功能與其立法保護之 目的，此種見解似有重新檢討之必要。 最後，本文將商標通用化之預防方式，分為商標權人自己使用商標之方式， 與矯正他人之行為二種，分別介紹，以期提供我國商標權人維護權利時參考。

Once a trademark becomes the generic term for the good or service, it will be cancelled immediately. This process is known as the trademark genericide; and the doctrines to determine whether a term should be deemed “generic”, hence incapable of functioning as a trademark is called genericism. The trademark proprietor will suffer substantial economic loss once upon trademark genericide. However,cancellation of a “generic mark” conforms to the distinctiveness requirement in trademark protection and benefits the public, including the competitors and the consumers. In 2003, Taiwan established the trademark genericism law. Since then,about 20 cases have been submitted to the Intellectual Property Office (herein referred to as IPO) for trademark cancellation. IPO has made 4 decisions to cancel those trademarks in question. However, there is no clear criterion for the making of those decisions. Moreover, there are some inconsistencies left to be resolved. The thesis compiles and conducts research on relevant cases and academic articles in the United States, and strives to provide a framework for our own system of genercisim. Firstly, according to the consumer perception test established in the Bayer case in the U.S., the sole question for determining a term's genericness is “What do buyers understand by the word for whose use the parties are contending?”instead of the competitors’ use. Secondly, we can adopt the primary significance test, which has been enacted in the Lanham Act. However, since society has changed nowadays and the legal system varies from the U.S. to our country, we should revise it to conform to the reality of our modern society. The revision can be called the modified primary significance test. For example, the standard of proof should be raised to be higher than preponderance of evidence. Besides, as trademarks nowadays are usually hybrid terms that serve dual function: to identify the source of the good and to identify the good itself, we should only consider whether the mark functions as a source-identifier in a commercial context. At last, after applying the modified primary significance test, we should also apply the new effect-on-competition test to review the marketing necessity,so as to accomplish the goal of genericisim. Furthermore, the thesis introduces the “recapture” cases. There are two famous“recapture” cases in the U.S., SINGER and GOODYEAR. The thesis discusses the rationality of this situation and the possibility of a generic term to become trademark by acquiring secondary meaning. Contrary to the trademark laws in the U.K. and Germany, the laws in the U.S. and Taiwan do not admit that generic terms can become trademarks by acquiring secondary meaning. There is a concept of “de facto secondary meaning.” in the U.S. However, once a term can serve the source-identify function, it should be protected as a trademark. Our Trademark Law section 29 should be reviewed. Finally, the thesis introduces many ways to avoid trademark genericiding. They can be categorized into two parts: the use of trademark proprietor himself; and correcting other’s misuse.