商標侵權案件之侵權所得利益及合理權利金之研究

我國商標侵權案件判決就侵權所得利益之金錢救濟見解，受限於損害賠償「以受有實際損害為成立要件，若絕無損害亦即無賠償之可言」（最高法院19年上字第363號判例）之見解，以「賠償」商標權人的利潤損失作為侵權所得利益之理論基礎，實未能完整估算商標權人可能受到的一切損害。然而，商標侵權人除與商標權人直接競爭之獲利外，尚有節省固定行銷成本之獲利，以及兩造非直接競爭下之侵權獲利，甚至於侵權者未直接獲利，而取得其他市場利益（如與零售業者建立合作關係），實際上很難認定侵權所得利益可以完全替代商標權人之獲利損失。另外，我國法院除賠償因素外，還混合考量侵權行為不法程度、侵權者對侵權商標之認知程度、認知期間、侵權者之財富等侵權行為本身因素以及被告保有其獲利是否有違公平正義或被告是否以不正方式享有獲利等不法獲利因素，酌定金錢救濟之數額，故而以「賠償」商標權人的損害作為侵權獲利之金錢救濟理論基礎，確有不足之處。經研究指出，商標侵權案件之侵權所得利益救濟，另外還有藉由追討獲利，使不法行為無利可圖，達成「阻卻侵權行為」目的；以及被告應交出「由其持有顯屬不當」之獲利達到「防範不當得利」目的。我國商標侵權案件就侵權所得利益之金錢救濟考量，亦應由賠償目的擴展至「阻卻侵權行為」及「防範不當得利」目的，才能全體檢視侵權所得利益之金錢救濟金額合理性。再關於我國就商標法所規定商標權人得以相當於商標權人授權他人使用所得收取之權利金數額作為金錢救濟金額部分，我國實務判決認為需由原告對於其所有商標究竟授權金若干、應如何計算始為合理等疑義提出證據供法院佐參，倘原告迄至法院言詞辯論期日，仍未提出相關證據資料，以證明其究竟得收取而未能收取之授權金為何，原告訴請依其商標授權他人使用所得收取之權利金數額為其損害賠償金額，即無理由（智慧財產法院102年度民商上字第11號民事判決），亦即法院主要強調過去已建立之權利金，作為原告請求依合理權利金計算金前救濟金額之根據。惟商標權人固可就合理權利金計算損害賠償，實並不能因原告未提出相關證據資料以證明其究竟得收取而未能收取之授權金為何，而拒絕原告依據合理權利金計算金錢救濟之請求。如能在綜合考量賠償功能與阻卻侵權、防範不當得利功能之要求下，提出客觀上值得信賴、並且有利原告舉證、促進訴訟經濟之合理權利金計算公式，應可增加合理權利金作為金錢救濟適用之機會。

關鍵字

商標侵權；賠償；阻卻侵權；防範不當得利；侵權所得利益；合理權利金；納許談判解；均衡收益；產品生命週期；產品銷售與總收入；假設性協商；賽局理論

並列摘要

A trademark holder who brought an action at law for damages could seek to recover an accounting of the infringer’s profits as a surrogate measure of the trademark holder’s own injury for lost profits on diverted sales. By "compensating" the loss of the trademark holder as the theoretical basis of an accounting of the infringer’s profits, it is impossible to fully estimate all the damage that the trademarks holder may suffer. Monetary relief was designed originally to compensate for the trademark holder’s losses where the infringer competed with the trademark holder. Monetary relief now also serves the rationales of deterrence and preventing unjust enrichment, rationales that are not limited to contexts in which the infringer competes with the trademark holder. Once used only in limited contexts as a surrogate for profits on sales that a competing infringer diverted from the trademark holder, an accounting is now used in expanded contexts to deter infringement and prevent unjust enrichment. The monetary relief considerations for the infringer’s profits of trademark infringement cases in Taiwan should also be extended to the purpose of deterrence infringement and preventing unjust enrichment in order to examine the reasonable amount of monetary relief. A trademark holder suing at law was entitled to recover for all harm suffered due to the defendant’s infringement. The evidence could support an award based on harm to the plaintiff for, including an established royalty, or information that might establish a reasonable royalty. The IP court in Taiwan considers that the plaintiff who seek for a remedy at law using a reasonable royalty must have to prove an established royalty damage figure where the value of a trademark had been set through a series of existing licenses, which is established royalty rates. The court cannot refuse the plaintiff's request for monetary relief based on reasonable royalty because the plaintiff cannot submit relevant evidence to prove that it was actually charged from established royalty rates. Under the comprehensive consideration of the compensation function and the requirements of deterrence infringement and preventing unjust enrichment, it is necessary to propose a reasonable calculation formula which is objectively trustworthy and can alleviate the plaintiff's the burden of evidence. The formula for calculating the reasonable royalty for the economic litigation should increase the reasonable royalty opportunity for monetary relief. Courts should allow the use of a viable method or formula to calculate a reasonable royalty in trademark infringement cases because, if properly used, the viable method or formula just like NBS adequately applies the facts of each specific case, is grounded in sound, unmanipulable economic theory, and is more impartial than the Georgia-Pacific analysis. A proper application of the viable method or formula may takes into account the relative bargaining positions of both parties, and adjusts the royalty rate accordingly.

並列關鍵字

Trademark Infringement ； Compensate ； Deter Infringement ； Prevent Unjust Enrichment ； Infringer’s Profits ； Reasonable Royalty ； Nash Bargaining Solution ； Equilibrium Payoff ； Product Life Cycles ； Sales and Gross Revenues ； Hypothetical Negotiation ； Game Theory