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

Abstract

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.