表徵民事救濟規範之探討——以公平交易法第 22 條與第 25 條為中心

本文欲探討現行公平交易法中有關表徵民事救濟之規範，觀察所有具識別性的表徵，包含註冊商標與未註冊的表徵，係如何透過目前公平交易法相關規範來保護。本文主要先從表徵整體規範的角度，對於現行規範做基礎的介紹，後續則專注在對於公平交易法第22條與第25條相關議題上的研究，點出現有規範在適用上、解釋上所面臨的相關問題，並加以分析探討。目前公平交易法第22條規範中的各項構成要件，在解釋上均仍有所分歧，本文透過此次研究，嘗試對於各要件能給出更明確且合理的定義。而對於公平交易法第25條概括條款之構成要件過於模糊且不明確的問題，亦提出相關的分析與討論，並對於所謂「補充原則」在民事程序中應如何適用，以及將尚未明文規範的表徵侵害類型，嘗試將其予以類型化。另一方面，採用非傳統的法律實證研究的方式，蒐集近十年涉及公平交易法的所有表徵民事判決，以量化分析的方式，呈現目前表徵民事實務的現況，並以不同的角度觀察表徵在民事實務上所面臨的相關問題。本文除了就現行制度所面臨之相關問題並加以探討外，亦透過法實證量化分析的方式，觀察法院對於相關規範係如何適用在表徵侵害的個案中。透過上述方式勾勒出現行表徵民事救濟規範的完整樣貌，以期能對於表徵民事救濟規範有更全面的了解。最後，現行商標法與公平交易法中涉及表徵保護之條文，從立法目的來觀察，本文認為實難認有何不同，兩者均係站在保護公平競爭的角度對於表徵提供保護，故建議能透過將所有涉及表徵侵害的規範統一納入商標法中，期能解決目前採分別規範所產生的各種適用問題。

關鍵字

不公平競爭；表徵；商標；表徵民事救濟；補充原則

並列摘要

This article aims to discuss the current regulation of civil infringement protection of marks. More specifically, how distinctive marks, including registered trademarks and unregistered marks, are protected under Section 22 and Section 25 of the Fair Trade Act is examined. As of today, there are differences in the interpretation of the constituent elements of Article 22 of the Fair Trade Act between the academic and practical fields. This article tries to give a clearer and more reasonable definition of each element. In addition, it also analyzes and discusses the problem that the elements of Article 25 of the Fair Trade Act are too vague and unclear. In particular, the application of the "Principle of Supplementariness" in the civil procedure is been clarified in this thesis. Also, the infringement of the marks is been systematized and categorized. On the other hand, a non-traditional legal empirical research approach is adopted to study the issues explored in this article. The article collects all civil marks judgments related to Fair Trade Act in the past ten years and presents the current status of civil marks judgments by means of quantitative analysis, in order to observe the problems arising from marks in civil judgments from different perspectives. Therefore, this article not only explores the problems arising from the current system, but also observes how the courts apply the relevant regulations to cases of marks infringement by means of quantitative analysis of empirical legal study. Through the above-mentioned methods, this article outlines the complete picture of the existing regulations of marks infringement. Last but not least, in view of the purpose of statute, it is difficult to identify any difference between the provisions on distinctive marks protection in Trademark Act and Fair Trade Act. Therefore, unifying all the regulations related to marks infringement into the trademark law may be able to solve the various application problems arising from the current separate regulation approach.