開設分店在商標善意先使用之適用限制－從智慧財產法院102年度民商上字第22號民事判決開始談起

我國商標法（以下稱本法）第36條之立法目的，乃基於保障消費者利益、維護市場公平競爭、促進工商企業正常發展之前提下，以有限之方式，限制商標權、證明標章權、團體標章權及團體商標權之執行。特別如本法第36條第1項第3款乃是針對商標善意先使用之規範，此一機制其實是平衡商標使用主義及註冊主義兩者的優缺點，因而限制商標註冊者的權利；只不過，此必須以原使用之商品或服務，且商標權人得要求其附加適當之區別標示為限。然以智慧財產法院（以下稱智財法院）102年度民商上字第22號民事判決為例，被上訴人於訴訟中主張，上訴人在其營業之同一區域分別開設四家分店，並以與其相同之「速○」圖樣，使用在相同之汽車美容項目上，所以上訴人自不得主張商標之善意先使用。可是智財法院卻認為：本法第36條第1項第3款規範中「原使用之商品或服務」之限制，實不應包含規模或地理區域之限制，故上訴人開設分店，仍難謂其不得主張商標之善意先使用。而本文將著重於本案判決之分析為本，並結合我國、美國理論和實務之見解，以剖析「原產銷規模」是否應納入限制商標善意先使用之範疇中。

關鍵字

工商企業正常發展；善意先使用；原使用之商品或服務；適當之區別標示；規模或地理區域

並列摘要

The legislative intent of Article 36 of the Taiwan Trademark Act (hereafter, this Act) attempts to limit the rights of trademark, certification mark, collective membership mark, and collective trademark to (a) protect the interests of consumers, (b) maintain fair competition, and (c) promote development of industry and commerce. In particular, regulations concerning the bona fide use of trademark ruled in Clause 3, Section 1, Article 36 of this Act (hereafter, this Clause) try to balance the advantages and disadvantages of the principles of first to use and first to file to limit trademark registers' rights, the use of which is restricted to original goods or services. The proprietor of a registered trademark is entitled to request the party who uses the same trademark to add an appropriate and distinguishing indication. Take the case of the Taiwan Intellectual Property Court's (hereafter, IP court) 2013 Min-Shang-Shang-Zi-22 as an example, the appellee argued that the appellant established four branches in the same business areas using identical ＂Speedy Clean＂ logos for car detailing businesses, and thus the appellants' actions cannot be supported by the bona fide use of the trademark. However, the IP court argued that scales or geographic areas are not included in the limitations of the original goods or services in this Clause. Therefore, the establishments of branches by the appellants are supported by the bona fide use of trademark. This article analyzes this case and integrates perspectives of theories and practices in both Taiwan and the U.S. to clarify whether scales or geographic areas added are within the scope of bona fide trademark use limitations.