專利權與商標權用盡理論之解釋方法與原則

Abstract

歷來，權利用盡理論多以智慧財產權之總體面向為總括之探討，本文嘗試區別專利權與商標權之用盡理論。其二者固然皆屬智慧財產權，亦曾一併歸類為產業財產權之權利內容，共通點較之與著作權為多，惟其二者之本質與制度發展多有所不同。基於其二者相關制度規範形成之始，權利用盡即由實務歸結而出以作為解釋依據，故實務之演進乃本文主要觀察面向。自歷史發源之角度觀之，其二者權利用盡理論發源之實務論述所著重之面向即存有差異；自現代實務操作之面向觀之，其二者權利用盡理論於平行輸入爭議之適用上，僅商標真品平行輸入不以該理論為依歸，反發展出其他解釋論；故該二者之用盡理論實蘊含有不同之意義。除理論之呈現模式，理論之核心價值亦為本文解構權利用盡理論之依據，以權利用盡理論之法理基礎分析以理解其全貌。權利用盡理論百餘年來之發展，使之成為當然之解釋論；惟此理論之發展背景距今已有百餘年之隔閡，產業背景、世界交易秩序自是與現代差異甚遠。至近代，其極限於歐盟漸呈現而出，隨而於特定產業中締造出排除權利用盡理論之新秩序。為因應不同產業而區別適用或排除適用權利用盡理論，應為當代智慧智慧財產權之發展主軸，權利用盡理論非再屬於處理智慧財產權人第一次市場行為後資源重分配之唯一解釋方法。

The analysis of the exhaustion theory has long been based on a ground not without the consideration for the entire intellectual property rights, whereas this thesis undertakes to discuss the theory respectively in order to reconstruct it. Among all intellectual properties, patents and trademarks are mostly recognized as a herald of business, the commonality of which helps discover the subtleties in between. Inasmuch as the exhaustion theory has been developed by the courts in the late nineteenth century, the evolution for that should be the ground for this thesis. From the origin of the theory away back to the practical application of it nowadays, the focus of the judicial discourse differs between patents and trademarks; in addition, only the settlement for the dispute in parallel importation of trademarked goods relies not solely on the exhaustion theory. Besides the practice of the theory, the core value of the theory may contribute to the reconstruction for it. Through the findings of the jurisprudence in each theory of patent law and of trademark law, a new look for it has come. A contemporary revision for the exhausiton theory is now required, for it was developed centuries ago, when the industrial environment the theory based on was different from now. In fact, the European Union has noticed the need and has designed new orders in biological materials and phamaceutical products. In the end, to strike the balance between the free movement of goods and the interests of trademark holders or patentees, the exhaustion theory is not the only solution.