論海關與智慧財產權－以轉運貨物及數位資訊邊境管制措施為核心

Customs and Intellectual Property Rights - Focus on Border Enforcement of Goods in Transit and Digital Data

詹喨嵎(Liang-Yu Chan)

指導教授 ： 李崇僖

共同指導教授 ： 鄭菀瓊(Wan-Chiung Cheng)

臺北醫學大學/人文暨社會科學院/醫療暨生物科技法律研究所/碩士(2017年)

摘要

智慧財產權以排除他人實施權利，維持權利人法律獨占地位的方式作為權利內容。由於智慧財產權乃依各國法律取得，性質上為主權延伸，故各國授與之智慧財產權僅於該國範圍內受到保護，即智慧財產權的屬地主義，屬地主義使各國得以依其科技發展程度與不同國家利益，形塑出寬嚴有別的智慧財產權制度。然而，面對因資訊通訊科技進步及交通運輸發達而日益興盛的國際貿易與貨物運輸行為，同一批貨物在跨越國境時，即會因各國不同的智慧財產權制度產生權利保護的落差；同時，屬地主義也割裂了侵害智慧財產權行為的管轄權，權利人必須分別至各國申請註冊登記或提出告訴方能獲得保護，對權利救濟造成沉重負擔。因此訴訟實務與學理上皆有探討應否擴張一國之智慧財產權保障，給予其域外效力之問題。惟在1948年《關稅貿易總協定》(GATT)簽訂與1995年世界貿易組織(WTO)成立後，保障貿易自由成為國際社會間所追求的重要法益，並表現在各國海關對跨國貨物運輸的開放。然而，智慧財產權排他獨占的保護模式，反而對貨物運輸進行限制，與GATT及WTO所代表的貿易自由法益間有本質上的衝突，形成智慧財產權保護與貿易自由的拉鋸。
　　對於上述抽象議題，本文嘗試從主管貨物運輸之行政機關－海關，及作為管理貨物運輸主要手段的邊境管制措施出發，並以實際案例為依據，分別探討轉運中貨物與數位資訊傳輸的管轄問題。
　　轉運中貨物因與進出口貨物不同，並不進入轉運國市場，故所受到的關注並不如進出口貨物。然而本文由歐盟的Montex v. Diesel案與WTO中巴西、印度對歐盟諮商請求案中發現，轉運國海關對於轉運中貨物的查扣，有直接阻礙貨物運輸，同時產生影響進出口國商業貿易的域外效力。因此，如何決定轉運中貨物的管轄權基礎，以及侵害智慧財產權的認定標準，即為衡平智慧財產權與貿易自由的具體問題。本文透過分析歐盟區域協定、國際條約相關規範與學理上提出之侵權標準，發現國際間尚未有對轉運中貨物管轄權與侵權認定的統一標準。故本文以國際法已存在的影響原則進行探討，並提出美國反壟斷法引用影響原則為侵害認定標準之案例，期能做為未來判斷轉運中貨物管轄與侵權認定標準的思考平台。
　　數位資訊並非實體貨物，一般認為不屬於海關邊境管制措施之客體。惟在科技發展下，智慧財產權的侵權行為亦逐漸從實體轉向虛擬。2015年美國Aligns Technology案即為透過數位資訊傳輸與3D列印侵害專利權之重要案例，該案訴訟過程中，美國國際貿易委員會(ITC)透過對美國關稅法第337條物品(article)定義的詮釋，擴展海關及邊境管制措施對數位資訊傳輸管轄的可能性，雖然ITC見解嗣後為聯邦巡迴上訴法院(CAFC)判決多數意見所推翻，但仍受到部分法官不同意見書支持而具有相當重要的意義。此外，本文亦探討美國關稅法第337條無法處理科技與智慧財產權應用發展的批評，並整理學者修正建議，作為未來制度發展的思考。
　　最後，本文則回歸我國海關的邊境管制措施比較，首先從規範探討呈現出現行邊境管制措施的全貌，再透過對於海關關員的訪談，以瞭解海關實際執行邊境管制措施的現狀與問題。並對我國因應轉運中貨物與數位資訊傳輸管轄提出可能思考方向，期能作為未來政策制定或進一步研究之基礎。

關鍵字

智慧財產權 ； 屬地主義 ； 域外效力 ； 海關 ； 邊境管制措施 ； 影響原則 ； 關稅法第337條

並列摘要

Intellectual Property rights, excluding the rights of others and maintaining the rights of the owner’s exclusive position as its content, is acquired by national law of each country, and it is classified as the extension of sovereignty. Therefore, the border of intellectual property rights protection is based on the countries’ different technological development scope and national interest, that is named as the territorialism of Intellectual Property rights. Facing the increasingly prosperous of international trade and cargo transport which is a blessing of the development of the Information and Communication Technology and Transport Facilities progress, but however, when the same batch of goods crosses the border, the different intellectual property rights system of the state of import and export would probably provide a gap between the extent of Intellectual Property rights protection; at the same time, the territorialism of Intellectual Property rights would also fragment the jurisdiction of intellectual property rights infringement lawsuits.
This puts a heavy burden on the remedies to the owners as they must apply for intellectual property rights registration or to raise a lawsuit separately in each country in order to obtain protection. Consequently, no matter litigation practice or theory field discuss about whether lifting a ban to extraterritorial effect, which could expand a country's intellectual property rights protection.Since the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) signed in 1948 and the World Trade Organization (WTO) established in 1995, “Freedom of Trade” turns to become an important legal interest pursued by the international community and is manifested as the opening of transnational cargo transport by national customs.
However, the exclusive characteristic of intellectual property rights protection pattern tends to place restrictions on transshipments, which raise the conflicts between the GATT and WTO regulations, with the purpose of “Freedom of Trade” that lies behind.
This thesis would discuss the issues mentioned above by starting from the customs, the main administrative body of transshipment, and the border measures which is the main regulatory means. Then attempts to analyze the jurisdiction of the goods in transit and the digital data transshipment respectively according to the practical cases.
Goods in transit, which does not enter the market of the transit country, is different from imported goods or exported goods, so it does not receive much attention. But as this thesis studying through the Montex v. Diesel of the European Union and the request for consultations by India and Brazil under WTO, the customs seizure of goods in transit in the state of transit not only can build impediments towards the transport of goods directly, but also can influences the state of import/export’s exterritorial effect of commercial trade. Therefore, how to determine the jurisdiction of the goods in transit, as well as the judgment standards to infringement of intellectual property rights is the specific answer to balance intellectual property rights protections and freedom of trade.

This thesis found out that there is no unified standards on the jurisdiction and infringement identification of the goods in transit after analyzing the standards of infringement that EU regional agreements、the relevant norms of international treaties and theory field putting forward. In addition, this thesis discussed from the Effect Principle in international law to the case that the US antitrust law refers to the Effect Principle as the standard of infringement, hope to find a filter for the future judgment of jurisdiction and infringement identification of the goods in transit.

The target of customs border measures are limited to tangible goods in present time. While IPRs infringement is changing from substance to virtual world due to the technology development. the Aligns Technology case happened in USA , 2015, is an important case of infringements of digital data transshipment and 3D printing. The US International Trade Commission (ITC) extended the possibility of customs and border measures for the jurisdiction of digital data transshipment through the interpretation of Article 337 of the US Tariff Act, although ITC was subsequently overturned by the Court of Appeals Court (CAFC), but it was still of considerable importance because of the dissent opinion made by part of the judges.
Furthermore, this thesis also discussed the criticism which is about the Article 337 cannot deal with the development of science and technology and intellectual property rights, and collated scholars’ suggestions for revision in order to amend the law and policy.

This thesis would turn back to the comparison on Taiwan’s border measures by expressing the whole picture of the border measures in operation, then finding out the actual implementation as well as the pros and cons of border measures through interviewing the customs officers. Finally, this thesis provides suggestions to improve Taiwan’s current regulations towards the jurisdiction of goods in transit and digital data transshipment for the future policy development or further studies.

並列關鍵字

Intellectual property rights(IPRs) ； territorialism ； extraterritorial effect ； customs ； border measures ； effect principle ； Customs act article 337

參考文獻

8. 黃丞儀(2015)，〈潔淨空氣，如何解釋？從Duke Energy(2007)與Massachusetts v. EPA(2007)論美國行政法中立法目的、行政解釋和司法審查之關係〉，《臺大法學論叢》，第44卷第3期，頁665-744。

1. 洪爾謙(2014)，《著作權法下管制侵權內容之法律研究 ─以封鎖境外網站為中心》，國立清華大學科技法律研究所碩士論文。

6. 海關查緝侵害智慧財產權案件統計表 (106年第1季)，關務署網站，https://web.customs.gov.tw/ct.asp?xItem=79388&ctNode=13159 (最後瀏覽日：05/20/2017)。

7. 海關查緝侵害智慧財產權案件統計表（105 年），關務署網站，https://web.customs.gov.tw/ct.asp?xItem=78641&ctNode=13159 (最後瀏覽日：05/20/2017)。

2. OECD, Trade in Counterfeit and Pirated Goods: Mapping the Economic Impact, (2016).