網路交易平台之商標侵權責任

The Liabilities of Online Marketplaces for Trademark Infringement

李一笑(Yixiao Li)

指導教授 ： 謝銘洋

國立臺灣大學/法律學院/法律學研究所/碩士(2014年)

https://doi.org/10.6342/NTU.2014.02865

摘要

近年來，網絡交易平台交易額迅猛增長。然而，伴隨網絡購物熱潮而生的問題是，若賣家在網路交易平台上出售仿冒品，交易平台本身可否被追責。目前對於網絡服務提供者責任的討論往往限於著作權領域，網絡服務提供者在網絡著作權侵權中應承擔的責任問題已為各家著力討論，並且已發展出較為成熟的規則。然對於網絡交易平台在網絡商標侵權中的責任問題，尚缺乏較為系統的理論。
對於第三人販賣仿冒品時網路交易平台的責任，本文的基本觀點是，網路交易平台可能因違反注意義務而需要承擔一定的民事責任，但這種責任應該較輕。
本文首先進行了比較法觀察，總結出各國目前解決本問題的方式主要有兩種：一種是在侵權構成要件上進行嚴格解釋，使得網路交易平台可能因為不滿足構成要件而不構成侵權，自然不用承擔侵權責任；第二種思路是不對侵權構成要件做嚴格解釋，再規定一個較為寬鬆的免責條款。
在基本理論分析部份，本文首先對於網路交易平台進行重新分類，將其分為參與契約類與非參與契約類，分別進行討論。本文認為在討論網路交易平台之商標侵權責任時，按照對交易之介入程度對其進行細分能方便法官判斷其責任之高低。其次，不應課以網路交易平台獨立的審查義務，但是網路交易平台有一定的注意義務。再者，「間接侵權」之概念已經被用於表達美國法中之概念，在大陸法系的民法中使用相同概念可能造成概念的混亂。另外，由於著作權和商標權之性質有區別，著作侵權中ISP與商標侵權中網路交易平台之性質亦有區別，因此不能直接類推適用著作權法中關於ISP著作侵權之規定，但可以參照其法理。
在法律實踐方面，中國大陸已經有侵權責任法之規定，所需的更多是解釋論，需要對於侵權責任法第36條規定的「必要措施」、「知道」等概念進行明確解釋。由於商標侵權、著作侵權各有特點，若能分別在商標法、著作權法中進行規定則更佳。在台灣，由於商標法未作具體規定，而民法上不承認無意思聯絡的幫助或教唆侵權，目前難以追究網路交易平台的民事責任。如有需要，可以參照著作權法的規定，對於網路交易平台之民事責任和免責事由分別做規定。

關鍵字

網路交易平台 ； 商標侵權 ； 民事責任 ； 類推適用 ； 間接侵權 ； 注意義務 ； 免責條款

並列摘要

Sales of online marketplaces are booming in the last few years. However, there’s a problem accompanying the prosperity of online trade, about whether the online marketplaces should be held liable for online sellers’ sale of counterfeits. The discussion of Internet service providers’ liabilities is often limited to the field of copyright infringement, and mature regulations have been developed for this issue. But as to the liabilities of online marketplaces, there’s no systematic theory.
The basic opinion of the thesis is that online marketplaces should be held liable for such infringement, but the liabilities shall not be too much.
Firstly, by comparing the laws and cases of several countries, it is noted that there are two ways in solving the problem of online marketplaces’ liabilities when a third party sells counterfeits: one is strictly explaining the components of infringement, and the online marketplaces may not be held liable because its action is not deemed as trademark infringement; another way is setting a loose escape clause.
In the discussion of basic theories, this thesis firstly reclassified the online marketplaces into ones that are parties of the sales contracts and ones that are not, and then discuss about them respectively, which will help in the judges’ judgment of their liabilities. Besides, online marketplaces shall not be burdened with an individual supervising duty, while they should take some duty of care to prove they are with no fault. Further, the concept of “indirect infringement” is commonly used as a concept in the U.S. law, and using this concept in the civil law system may cause a confusion of concepts. What’s more, the rules in the copyright laws shall not be directly applied to the trademark infringement due to the differences between the nature of copyrights and trademarks, as well as the nature on Internet service providers in the copyright infringements and online marketplaces in trademark infringements.
As for law practices, it is roughly regulated in the Tort Liability Law in Mainland China, so the interpretation of the laws should be done first. The concept of “necessary actions”, “awareness” should be explained clearly. Besides, since the infringement of trademarks and copyrights are of some differences, it is better to set rules respectively in trademark laws and copyright laws. In Taiwan, online marketplaces may not be held liable because the issue is not specificly provided in the Trademark Law and the theories in civil law don’t acknowledge aiding or abetting without a conscious cooperation. The Trademark Law may be revised to set rules about the liabilities and escape clauses of online marketplaces in this issue in reference to the regulations in the Copyright Law, if it is needed in Taiwan.

並列關鍵字

online marketplace ； trademark infringement ； civil liability ； application by analogy ； indirect infringement ； duty of care ； escape clause

參考文獻

鄭菀瓊（2009）。〈淺析 Tiffany v. eBay 案與網路服務提供者商標侵權責任爭議〉，《科技法律透析》，21卷7期，頁7-11。

黃心怡（2012）。〈論 C2C 網路拍賣服務提供者之商標間接侵權責任〉，《東吳法律學報》，24卷2期，頁83-126。

馮震宇（2013）。〈網路服務提供者商標間接侵權責任之研究〉，《智慧財產權月刊》，175卷07期，頁5-27。

盧怡伶（2010）。《網路服務提供者之著作權侵害責任》，國立成功大學法律研究所碩士論文（未出版），台南。

章忠信（2009）。〈2009年新修正著作權法簡析--網路服務提供者之責任限制〉，《月旦法學雜誌》，173期，頁1-20。