冒犯性商標之探討

公序良俗條款在智慧財產權領域總是一個充滿爭議的議題，而在商標法領域也不例外。隨著我國智慧財產局訂定「商標妨害公共秩序或善良風俗審查基準」將商標妨害公序良俗之情事類型化介紹，無疑地已具體化商標法公序良俗條款此一消極要件。西元2017年，美國聯邦最高法院於Matal v. Tam案認為蘭哈姆法（Lanham Act）中的貶抑條款（disparage clause）限制冒犯性商標不予註冊，因為涉及觀點歧視而違反美國憲法所保障之言論自由。本文以為商標為識別商品或服務來源之標誌，目的在於避免使消費者產生混淆誤認，與他人所產銷之商品或提供之服務有所區別。雖然著眼於其保障商業競爭秩序之公益目的，但不可否認的是吾人可以藉由設計出具有創意之商標，行銷自身品牌與吸引消費者，對於此部分之創意巧思應給予最大程度之尊重。因此，本文嘗試以此判決為出發點，首先介紹何謂冒犯性商標與相關實務案例，再來藉由回顧我國關於商業言論之大法官解釋，以及觀察我國現行商標註冊實務對於冒犯性商標不予註冊之矛盾，進而探討有無放鬆對於冒犯性商標管制的可能性。

關鍵字

商標註冊；公序良俗條款；商標妨害公共秩序或善良風俗審查基準；冒犯性商標；貶抑條款；事前限制；商業言論；觀點歧視

並列摘要

The public order or morality clause is always a controversial issue in the field of intellectual property rights, and trademark law is no exception. With the “Examination Guidelines on Trademark being Contrary to Public Policy or Accepted Principles of Morality” issued by Taiwan Intellectual Property Office, it is no doubt that the guideline concretize the meaning of the clause in trademark law. In 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court in Matal v. Tam ruled that disparage clause in 15 U.S.C. §1052(a) violated the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment because of viewpoint discrimination. This thesis claims that trademarks are marks that identify the source of goods or services in order to avoid confusion and misunderstanding by consumers, and to distinguish them from goods or services provided or sold by others. Although trademarks focus on public interest to safeguard the order of competition in commerce, it is undeniable that we can develop our own brands and attract consumers by designing innovative trademarks, and giving the greatest degree of respect. Thus, this thesis attempts to start from Matal v. Tam, introducing offensive trademarks and related cases firstly. Then, by reviewing the interpretations about commercial speech of the Constitutional Court, Judicial Yuan, and observing the contradictions of refusing registration of offensive trademarks in Taiwan current practice, this thesis further discuss the possibility of deregulation of offensive trademarks.