- 學位論文
商標侵權救濟制度之研究─以刑事責任之必要性為中心
A Study on the Remedies for Trademark Infringement ─ Focus on the Necessity of Criminal Responsibility
摘要
中文摘要 當商標持有人符合法定要件，進而取得商標權時，即對商標之使用具有排他性和獨占性。商標法對於商標侵權案件應提供商標權人救濟管道，否則該保護商標權之法律將形同具文，故多數國家就商標侵權行為規範有詳盡之民事救濟措施。然為抑制仿冒之風，及維護市場公平競爭秩序，亦有不少國家立法規範商標侵權刑事責任。例如，美國為加強保護商標權，制定了「1984年商標仿冒法」，增訂刑罰以防止個人或公司企圖產銷仿冒品。 我國商標法亦將民事救濟與刑事責任併同規範，俾為加強對商標權人之保護;然我國商標侵權刑事責任之主觀構成要件未臻明確；又實務上商標權人濫訴，或利用刑事責任脅迫行為人給付高額和解金，而造成「以刑逼民」之現象屢見不鮮，故於商標法規範商標侵權刑事責任之妥適性即令人存疑。 為減緩以刑逼民之現象，可考量商標全面或部分除罪化，如: 同屬智慧財產權之專利權除罪化。商標除罪化固為值得肯定的立法方向，然商標刑責規範保護之法益有其重要性，且為減低人民於具組織性或跨國之大規模商標侵權難以證明實際損害之困境，部分除罪化宜優先於全面除罪化為考量。就部分除罪化，本文以為應限縮構成要件，並減少刑罰種類。前者應於主觀構成要件明確規範「故意」或「明知」；後者則廢除自由刑保留罰金刑，按我國司法實務上商標侵權刑事案件獲判無罪及6個月以下有期徒刑或拘役之比例極高，且短期自由刑之期間短暫所能達到的威嚇和教化效果令人質疑。是以，本文主張應將商標罰則去除自由刑，僅規範罰金刑，如此較能抑制以刑逼民之現象，以避免人民憂慮動輒得咎，並使商標法得於保護商標權人權益和促進產業正常發展間取得衡平。
並列摘要
Summary When trademark holders meet the statutory requirements and then get trademark rights, they have exclusive rights upon the use of the trademark. Trademark law shall provide remedies for trademark holders in the case of trademark infringement, or the law of trademark protection will be meaningless. In addition to civil remedies, most countries also enacted criminal liability to prevent mushrooming counterfeiting and maintain fair competition. For example, the United States enacted the “Trademark Counterfeiting Act of 1984” to strengthen the protection of trademark rights, the addition of penalties to prevent individuals or companies from attempting to produce and market counterfeiting goods. R.O.C. also provides civil remedies and criminal liability under trademark law, so as to strengthen the protection for the trademark holders. However, criminal liability for trademark infringement of the subjective components in R.O.C. need to be clarified; in practice, the trademark holders utilize criminal prosecutions to force the alleged infringer to reach settlement, most of time, to reach much higher compensation, so the appropriateness of criminal liability under trademark law is still doubtful. The article suggests that R.O.C should adopt partial decriminalization, that is, on the one hand, to clarify the subjective components, like "willful" or "knowingly"; on the other hand, to abolish imprisonment punishment and maintain criminal fine under trademark law.