商標詼諧模仿之研究

Abstract

商標詼諧模仿(trademark parody)係指以詼諧、諷刺或批判等娛樂性之方式模仿他人商標，並能同時傳達與模仿目標對立之訊息而言。商標詼諧模仿涉及混淆誤認、淡化、搭便車、言論自由之保障等諸多面向，是如何判斷其合法性、應參酌何等因素，乃本文之探討主題。 於商標權侵害法制，美國基於言論自由之保障，於2006年制定商標淡化修正法，將詼諧模仿納入合理使用範疇中。實務上，美國將詼諧模仿之特殊性質融入混淆誤認之虞及淡化之虞之判斷，俾使判決結果符合個案正義。歐盟及日本雖無詼諧模仿之特殊規定，然德國有進行基本權之利益衡量，認定藝術自由優先於財產自由而受保障之先例。日本學界則認為現行法即足以評價商標詼諧模仿問題。於商標註冊制度，我國法同日本法採絕對審查制度，即主管機關就所有拒絕註冊事由為實質審查，而詼諧模仿之商標欲申請註冊，主要涉及是否有混淆誤認之虞、淡化之虞及是否違反公序良俗等之判斷。 經比較各國法律及案例分析，於法制面，本文認為我國法並無效仿美國增訂合理使用規定之必要，惟仍應將言論自由納入個案之利益衡量。於實務面，我國實務有將搭便車與混淆誤認之虞、商標減損混為一談而非難之者，並不妥當，實應釐清。最後，本文試圖提出商標詼諧模仿問題之判斷步驟及準則。

Trademark parody is defined as a form of imitating a trademark in a humorous, satire or critical way, which simultaneously conveying messages that contrary to the original one. Trademark parody is concerned not only with the traditional trademark infringement, but also raise questions of trademark dilution, free-rider and the freedom of speech. The article attempts to speculate the legality of trademark parody and the standards used in its judicial cases from the perspective of comparative law. With the passage of the Trademark Dilution Revision (TDRA) in the U.S.,2006, parody has been exception as “fair use” based on the protection of freedom of speech. In judicial practice, the U.S. courts evaluate factors in determining whether alleged parody creates a likelihood of confusion or dilution in consideration of the distinct nature of parody. As for European Union and Japan, European Community Trade Mark Regulation (CTMR) and Japan trademark law both have no statutory provision for trademark parody. In judicial practice, there was a case that the German court balanced the interests of the freedom of art of the parodist and property right of the trademark owner, and considered that the former was worthier to be protected than the latter. In Japan, most of the scholars believe that the existing law is well enough for trademark parody cases. Besides trademark infringement, trademark parody is also concerned with the application for registration. Differing from the U.S. and the European Union, the register office of Taiwan, same as Japan, absolutely review all grounds of refusal whether it is about public interests or not when examining the application for registration. And it focuses on whether alleged parody creates a likelihood of confusion, dilution or is contrary to the public policy or accepted principles of morality. In comparison with other country’s law and cases, this article reaches the conclusions as follow. First, Taiwan trademark law doesn’t need the parody exception as TDRA’s, while it’s still necessary to take the freedom of speech into consideration in trademark parody cases. Second, it’s inappropriate that the courts of Taiwan often apply the provision for likelihood of confusion or dilution to condemn free-rider while trademark law has no provision for free-rider. Finally, this article tries to provide a set of guidelines for trademark parody cases.