http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/188 2026-04-06T00:09:31Z http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/85957 標題: 高齡金融消費者保護之研究-以金融消費評議案件為中心; Study on FOI Ombudsman Cases for Elder Financial Consumer Protection 作者: Ching-wen Lee; 李靜雯 摘要: 據國發會推計臺灣將於2025年邁入超高齡社會，屆時每5 個人中就有1 個是65 歲以上的高齡者，高齡金融消費者除了與一般金融消費者一樣在經濟或資訊地位處於弱勢外，還可能因為身體及心理機能衰退，存在身體弱勢、認知弱勢、心理弱勢和風險識別弱勢等問題，凸顯高齡者的金融弱勢地位及脆弱性。 2011年立法院三讀通過金融消費者保護法，衡平金融服務業與金融消費者間的實質不對等；2015年12月31日金管會發佈金融服務業公平待客原則，透過落實公平待客提升金融服務業員工對於金融消費者保護之認知及金融消費者保護相關法規之遵循。本論文檢視2016年至2021年財團法人金融消費者評議中心有關銀行業的評議案件共計889件，65歲以上高齡申請人計107件；其中以投資型保單招攬爭議56件為大宗，佔高齡評議案件52%，2021年22件高齡評議案件中，投資型保單爭議占比達82%。檢視評議決定書後發現2021年高齡者評議案件援用公平合理原則判定高齡金融消費者部分有理由比例，從過往三成左右驟升至近八成，本論文歸納評議決定書見解，類型化爭議發生原因，並參考2022年3月由銀行公會擬定金管會同意備查的「銀行業公平對待高齡客戶自律規範」，提出建議以為銀行業優化內部規章辦法及流程參考，降低高齡者金融消類爭議發生。 在公平待客原則框架下，可預期銀行未來在提供高齡者金融商品或服務時，將更完善高齡者保護程序，透過內部董事會積極參與，由上而下提供高齡者差異化之商品及服務，厚植公平待客精神，形塑公平待客之企業文化，助益金融服務業永續發展。; According to the National Development Council, Taiwan will become the ultra-aging society in 2025, means that one fifth elderly in the country. In addition to similar weak economic status as general financial customers, the elder may also have physical weakness, cognitive weakness, psychological weakness and risk identification weakness due to the decline of physical and psychological functions, highlighting the financial weakness and vulnerability of the elderly. In 2011, the Legislative passed the Financial Consumer Protection Law on the third reading, which leveled the substantive asymmetry between the financial services industry and financial consumers; On 31 December 2015, the FSC promulgated the Principle for Financial Services Industries to Treat Clients Fairly to enhance the awareness and compliance of financial consumer protection in financial institution. This thesis examines a total of 889 cases related to the banking industry by the Financial Ombudsman Institution (FOI) from 2016 to 2021, and 107 cases of elderly applicants over the age of 65. Among them, 56 disputes were involved in Investment Link Product(ILP), accounting for 52% of the elderly appraisal cases, and among the 22 senior appraisal cases in 2021, the ILP disputes accounted for 82%. In additional, the Principles of Fairness and Reasonableness become the main rule of justification in elderly since 2021. The article summarizes the insights of the Ombudsman’s Final Decision, the patterns of elderly disputes, and refers the 'Self-Discipline Directive for fair treatment of elderly customers in the banking industry' to optimize policies and procedures of banking industry to avoid the disputes of the elderly. By the support of board committee, provide differentiated products and services to fit the elderly needs, cultivate the spirit of Treat Clients Fairly. It’ll help the sustainable development of the financial services industry. 2022-01-01T00:00:00Z http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/72185 標題: 首次代幣發行(ICOs)監管及美國執法之趨勢; The Trend of ICOs Regulatory and U.S. Enforcement 作者: Wei-Ming Hsu; 許維敏 摘要: 由於區塊鏈所提供之募資管道，成本較低且較具效率，ICO市場自2017年以來有爆發性成長，截至2018年6月全球募資金額已達190億美元，遠超過2017年的38.8 億美元，顯見ICO 募資已蔚為風潮，成為資本市場不容忽視之籌資與投資管道。2017年7月美國SEC發表了首份ICO項目調查報告，將DAO代幣界定為證券類別之投資契約 。2018年6月初美國SEC主席 Jay Clayton重申SEC的立場，比特幣不是證券，但大多數ICO代幣是證券，應該受到監管。然早於 2015年CFTC則主張虛擬貨幣係商品，涉及虛擬貨幣之詐騙案亦受其管轄。2018年3月6日美國紐約地方法院裁定CFTC對虛擬貨幣詐欺案具管轄權，並認為SEC、IRS、FinCen、DOJ、州層級金融主管機關、…….等，於其主管法律範圍下具有管轄權，並提及虛擬貨幣法律監管重疊之問題，在美國國會澄清此事之前，法院認為CFTC與其他州和聯邦行政機關，以及民事和刑事法院，同時有權處理虛擬貨幣相關議題，並指出虛擬貨幣雖得作為支付工具，但未被認可為法定貨幣。 自2017年以來，美國出現了大量與虛擬貨幣相關的監管指導，執法行動和集體訴訟案件。本文對美國政府機關有關ICO從不妨礙科技發展到全面執法之監管政策，作利、弊分析。此外，除2017年美國監管機關之執法行動 (未經註冊、詐欺) ，民事訴訟是近期值得注意的發展趨勢，與虛擬貨幣相關的民事訴訟主要是證券集體訴訟，涉及價格操縱、內線股價下跌等爭議，然而，數位貨幣的獨特特性（如智慧合約）引發了不同的問題，則尚待解決。本文試圖經由美國近期ICO及虛擬貨幣之執法及訴訟案件，了解ICO及虛擬貨幣之特性、法規框架、監管趨勢以及法律爭議，此外，並從政府機關監管介入程度，比較世界主要國家對ICO及虛擬貨幣之監管方式，分析其優、缺點，希冀對我國未來ICO及虛擬貨幣之立法政策及監管重點，提出可行之建議，並有助於ICO相關事業之生態發展。然而在區塊鏈及ICO社群所倡導「去中心化｣之理念下，尚存內部治理……等議題，如何再顯「新中心｣或「多中心｣之價植，則有待日後持續研議。; The ICO market has grown rapidly. As of June 2018, the global fundraising amount has reached 19 billion US dollars, far exceeding the 3.88 billion US dollars in 2017. It is obvious that ICO fundraising has become a trend. It is also a conduit for financing and investment that cannot be ignored in the capital market. In July 2017, the US SEC published the first ICO Project Survey Report (The DAO Report), which defines the DAO token as an investment contract for the securities category. In early June 2018, US SEC Chairman Jay Clayton reiterated the SEC's position that Bitcoin not a Security, but most ICOs are securities and should be regulated. In 2015, the CFTC advocated virtual currency is a commodity, in cases of virtual currency fraud, subject to its jurisdiction. On March 6, 2018, the US District Court in New York ruled that the CFTC had jurisdiction over virtual currency fraud and considered that the SEC, IRS, FinCen, DOJ, state financial authorities, etc. Under the scope of their competent law and regulations, they have jurisdiction over cases involving illegal. And mentioning the overlapping of regulatory and legal system of virtual currency, before the Congress clarified the matter, the court held that the CFTC had the right to deal with virtual currency-related issues with other state and federal administrative agencies as well as civil and criminal courts. The court also pointed out that virtual currency could be paid as a payment instrument, but not recognized as legal tender. 2017 saw an avalanche of regulatory guidance, enforcement actions, and class action filings related to virtual currency. This article also analyzes the advantages and disadvantages of the US regulatory policy regarding ICO from inactivities to a full enforcement. In addition to the enforcement actions of US regulatory authorities in 2017 (unregistered, fraudulent), civil litigation is a recent noteworthy development trend. The civil litigation related to virtual currency is mainly a securities class action, involving disputes such as price manipulation and stock price decline. However, the unique features of virtual currency and related digital assets like smart contracts create additional distinct questions that will need to be answered in many matters. This article attempts to understand the features, regulatory framework and legal issues of ICO and virtual currency through the recent enforcement and litigation cases. In addition, from the government agencies to supervise the degree of intervention, compare the main countries' regulatory approaches of virtual currency and ICO, and analyze their advantages and disadvantages. Hope that this article may provide feasible suggestions for ICO policy and regulatory and contribute to ICO ecological development. Under the concept of 'decentralization' advocated by the blockchain and the ICO community, there are still issues such as internal governance and other issues. How to re-display the value of 'new center' or 'multi-center' will be studied in the future. 2018-01-01T00:00:00Z http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/7504 標題: 音樂著作強制授權之研究---以錄製錄音著作為中心; A Study of a Compulsory License for Musical Works---Exploiting Musical Works to Record and Produce Sound Recordings 作者: Chia-Ping Hsiao; 蕭嘉蘋 摘要: 我國音樂著作強制授權規定賦予利用人於符合特定法定要件下，就已發行之音樂著作重製為銷售用錄音著作，僅須向主管機關申請經許可後即可於特定範圍內利用，不須再取得權利人同意。立法目的為促進文化發展及音樂流通，避免音樂市場壟斷，衡平利用人與著作人之權益。然而此制度施行多年，成效極為有限，亦面臨諸多批評。 本文從音樂著作強制授權制度之緣起及立法背景出發，透過了解國際間相關法制之趨勢，探究世界第一大音樂市場美國及與我國音樂交流最為頻繁之中國，其強制授權實踐及面臨的問題。更進一步說明我國音樂產業現況及授權情形、探討強制授權之衡平、並與其他智慧財產權相關制度比擬，另分析我國音樂著作強制授權法治、施行成果及適用之困境及爭議。最終經由本研究結果，從法制面及產業面提供修法及授權制度改革之淺見，希望能為權利人及利用人提供更為公平合理之音樂授權機制。 2018-01-01T00:00:00Z http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/97724 標題: 電商平臺業者對使用者銷售商標侵權商品之責任分析：以「通知/取下」原則適用於商標侵權案例之可行性為中心; An Analysis of the Liability of E-Commerce Platform Operators for Users’ Sales of Trademark-Infringing Goods: Focusing on the Feasibility of Applying the 'Notice and Takedown’ Principle to Trademark Infringement Cases 作者: 楊修偉; Hsiu-Wei Yang 摘要: 伴隨電子商務蓬勃發展，商標侵權問題日漸嚴重，尤其在網路平臺環境中，侵害商標權人權益之事件頻繁發生。此類侵權行為不僅對商標權人造成重大經濟損失，亦嚴重影響消費者購物信心。如何在保障商標權人合法權益與確保電商平台穩健營運間取得適當平衡，已成為各國法制體系亟需解決之重要課題。本研究致力於探討電商平台於商標侵權情境中應負之法律責任，並透過比較台灣、美國及歐盟之相關法律架構，提出具體改善建議，冀望為智慧財產權保護制度之完善提供參考依據。 本研究採用比較法學、文獻分析及判例研究方法，深入剖析台灣、美國及歐盟在商標侵權責任認定上之法律規範與司法實踐。研究結果顯示，美國透過《數位千禧年著作權法》(DMCA)之「通知/移除」機制為網路服務提供者設立安全港條款，然而在商標侵權案件中，法院多傾向審視平臺業者之主觀認知狀態，例如是否「明知」或「可得而知」侵權行為存在。此標準雖在一定程度上保障平臺業者，但亦引發諸多爭議，特別是關於如何明確界定「明知」或「可得而知」之具體認定條件。相較之下，歐盟則藉由《電子商務指令》及《數位服務法案》建構更為完整之監管體系，強調平台業者之中介角色，並要求其採取積極措施預防侵權行為。歐盟之法制雖提供較為明確之指導方針，但在實際執行過程中各會員國間仍面臨執行力度與一致性之挑戰。 在台灣法制環境下，現行商標法中對於電商平臺上之賣家發生商標侵權時平臺責任之判斷問題，並無類似著作權法中之「通知/移除」機制規定，故實務運作仍存在顯著爭議。司法機關在評估平臺業者責任時，多著重於其經營模式及參與交易程度，例如是否直接自侵權行為獲取利益，或對侵權內容是否具有實質控制權等。然而，此種判斷模式缺乏統一性，且可能導致對平臺業者責任之過度苛責。此外，「通知/移除」機制之引進雖有助於迅速處理侵權內容，但其程序保障不足，易造成商標權人與賣家間產生利益失衡之情形，甚至可能引發誤刪合法內容之疑慮。 本研究認為，為改善上述問題，台灣可借鑑美國及歐盟之經驗及立法趨勢，建立更為客觀且明確之責任審查標準。首先，應明確界定平臺業者責任之判斷依據，主要根據其主觀認知狀態，而非單純依賴經營模式或附加服務。如此可避免因平臺業者多元化經營方式而造成之責任認定不一致問題。其次，應導入更為完善之程序保障機制，例如在接獲侵權通知後，委由獨立第三方進行初步審查，以避免過度移除合法內容。此機制不僅能保障合法使用者權益，亦可減少不必要之紛爭。最後，應藉由商標權人與平臺間之協力合作，強化對平臺業者技術能力及篩查機制，如運用人工智慧技術提升侵權檢測準確性，透過技術手段之精進，可在不增加過多負擔情況下，有效降低侵權行為發生率，同時透過平臺業者間自律規範及技術合作，共同維護網路環境之安全。 綜上所述，電商平台商標侵權責任之規範需在保障商標權人權益與維護平臺正常營運間尋求平衡點。此不僅需要法律制度之完善，更需結合技術手段，方能更有效解決此問題。本研究期望能為台灣智慧財產權保護體系提供有益參考，並為後續研究指明方向。; The rapid expansion of e-commerce has aggravated the prevalence of trademark infringement, especially within online platforms where violations of trademark owners' rights frequently occur. These infringements not only result in substantial financial losses for trademark holders but also erode consumer trust. Striking an appropriate balance between protecting the legitimate interests of trademark owners and ensuring the smooth functioning of e-commerce platforms has emerged as a pressing challenge for legal systems globally. This study investigates the legal responsibilities of e-commerce platforms in cases of trademark infringement. By examining and comparing the legal frameworks of Taiwan, the United States, and the European Union, it proposes specific recommendations aimed at strengthening intellectual property protection systems. The research adopts a multidisciplinary approach, employing comparative law, literature analysis, and case study methods to deeply examine how the determination of liability in trademark infringement is addressed in the judicial practices and legal norms of Taiwan, the US, and the EU. The findings reveal that the US, through the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), has implemented safe harbor provisions for online service providers via a "notice-and-takedown" process. However, in cases of trademark infringement, US courts tend to evaluate the subjective knowledge of platform operators—for instance, whether they "knew" or "should have known" about the infringement. While this standard offers a degree of protection to platform operators, it has sparked considerable debate, particularly about the ambiguity surrounding the definition of "knowledge" or "constructive knowledge." In contrast, the European Union has established a more comprehensive regulatory framework through the E-Commerce Directive and the Digital Services Act. These laws underscore the intermediary role of platform operators and impose obligations on them to proactively prevent trademark violations. Although the EU’s approach provides clearer legal guidelines, challenges remain in achieving consistency and effective enforcement among member states. In Taiwan, however, the current Trademark Act lacks a comparable "notice-and-takedown" provision, as seen in Copyright Act. This has created significant ambiguities in assigning liability to e-commerce platforms when trademark infringement is committed by sellers using their services. Taiwanese judicial authorities often evaluate platform responsibility based on their business models and level of involvement, assessing whether platforms financially benefit from infringing activities or exercise substantial control over infringing content. Yet, this case-by-case assessment lacks uniformity and risks imposing excessively strict liabilities on platforms. Furthermore, introducing a "notice-and-takedown" mechanism into Taiwan's legal framework could help address infringing content more efficiently, but inadequate procedural safeguards might lead to an imbalance between trademark owners’ rights and sellers’ interests, potentially resulting in the erroneous removal of legitimate content. This study offers several recommendations to address these issues. Firstly, Taiwan could benefit from incorporating the experiences of the US and the EU to develop objective and transparent standards for evaluating platform liability. Specifically, the subjective knowledge of platform operators should be prioritized as the primary criterion for liability determination, rather than relying excessively on their business models or additional services. This approach would help mitigate inconsistencies caused by the diverse operational structures of e-commerce platforms. Secondly, Taiwan should introduce robust procedural safeguards, including an independent third-party review mechanism to assess the validity of infringement claims before removing content. Such a procedure would protect the rights of legitimate users while reducing disputes stemming from unjustified takedowns. Lastly, the study emphasizes the need for close collaboration between trademark owners and e-commerce platforms. This collaboration could enhance platform operators' technical capacity and screening mechanisms. For instance, leveraging artificial intelligence to improve the accuracy of infringement detection could significantly reduce the number of violations without imposing excessive burdens while promoting a secure online environment through self-regulation and technological innovation. In conclusion, addressing the issue of trademark infringement on e-commerce platforms requires a delicate equilibrium between safeguarding trademark owners' interests and maintaining the efficient operation of platforms. Achieving this balance necessitates not only legal reform but also the integration of advanced technological solutions to better tackle these challenges. The findings of this research aim to provide valuable insights for advancing Taiwan’s intellectual property protection framework and to serve as a foundation for future academic and policy-oriented exploration. 2025-01-01T00:00:00Z