探討網路購物平台提供者之商標侵權責任

To Study the Liability of Online Shopping Platform Providers on Trademark Infringement

賴靖基(Lai, Jingji)

指導教授 ： 陳文吟

國立中正大學/法學院/財經法律學系/碩士(2012年)

摘要

現代社會網際網路普及，多數人在生活上運用網路服務滿足各種日常需求的現象愈加普遍。網路世界商業行為的興起誕生了網路購物平台─由平台提供者於網路上架構一開放空間，讓使用者刊登商品，進行交易。在提供網路購物便利性的同時，商標仿冒之情形愈加猖獗，從而產生平台提供者對此應否負責之爭論，蓋其本身具有媒介之性質，雖不介入雙方之行為，卻有監控管理能力。

　　美國2004年時，高級珠寶公司Tiffany發現，在網路拍賣平台eBay上販賣的Tiffany商品中，仿冒品比例高達73%，遂對eBay提起商標侵權訴訟，主張eBay採取的保護商標權措施效果不彰，並且從侵權商品交易中獲取利益，應負商標侵權責任。審理本案的美國紐約州南區地方法院援引Inwood法則作為判決標準，其指出，若製造者或經銷者有意誘使他人為侵害商標權之行為，或持續提供其產品予直接侵權行為人，而其知悉或有理由知悉該侵權行為之存在者，該製造者或經銷者對於該侵權之結果，須負間接侵權之責。

　　我國目前雖無類似案例，然在實體百貨公司則有相關實務見解，法院指出，百貨公司之專櫃涉及商標侵權時，其有無責任應以百貨公司與專櫃簽約時是否已盡查證義務為斷，簽約後則視百貨公司是否受商標權人通知而知悉侵權情事，如其知悉後不加阻止，即應負商標侵權責任。網路購物平台提供者對使用者之商標侵權行為應否負責乙節，得否援用前揭實務見解，或應立法規範，尚待討論。

　　本文以為宜立法明定之。惟，立法要求網路購物平台提供者為使用者之商標侵權行為負責時，應審酌其於商品交易中有無保持中立、營利之情形如何、監管能力以及對使用者之商標侵權行為是否知悉等因素，避免其負擔過輕或過重之責任。並且，得參考美國實務引用之Inwood法則，及我國實務針對百貨公司之判決見解，作為網路購物平台提供者是否構成商標間接侵權之審查標準，亦即，以其對於使用者之不法行為是否具體知悉，且於知悉後是否停止服務作為判斷。再者，目前我國著作權法，已增訂網路服務提供者之免責條款，使其得於使用者涉及著作權侵害時主張免責，本文以為商標法亦應參考著作權之修法，增訂免責條款，俾使身為網路服務提供者之網路購物平台有所依循。

關鍵字

網路服務提供者 ； 免責條款 ； 網路購物平台 ； Inwood法則 ； 間接侵權

並列摘要

Due to the popularity of the Internet, more and more people use it to meet their daily needs, such as shopping online. Online shopping platform providers give some network spaces to their users, allowing them to trade goods conveniently, however, the advantage also makes trademark counterfeits increase significantly, and it raises a dispute that whether the platform providers are liable for the trademark infringement.
　　In 2004, Tiffany & Co., the luxury jewelry company, filed a lawsuit against eBay (the online auction website) in the United States, alleging eBay was liable for infringing Tiffany’s trademark because it gained profits from the infringement and its measures to protect trademarks are inefficient. The eBay court applied the Inwood rule, as to the rule, a manufacturer or distributor was contributorially responsible for infringement when it intentionally induced another to infringe a trademark, or it continued to supply its product to one whom it knew or had reason to know was engaging in trademark infringement. Since eBay took appropriate steps to remove listings and suspend service when possessed the knowledge, it should not be liable.
　　Though there is no similar case in our country, there are judicial decisions relating to the department store. When a department store signs contracts with its counter owners, it needs to make sure the owners sell the genuine products, in doing so, it may relieve liability. However, the department store must take action to stop the infringement, when notified by the trademark owners.
　　Legislation is necessary so as to clarify the rights and obligations of online shopping platform providers. The Inwood rule and our judicial holdings may be good references. While deciding the liability of platform providers, some factors should be taken into consideration, for example, whether the providers (1)stay neutral during the trading, (2)gaining profits from the infringement, and (3)have knowledge of the infringement, in addition, how is their control ability. Furthermore, We may also adopt the safe harbor clauses into trademark law, providing adequate protection for all ISPs, including online shopping platform providers.

並列關鍵字

Safe Harbor Clause ； ISP ； Internet Service Provider ； Online Shopping Platform ； Inwood Rule ； Secondary Infringement

參考文獻

16. 陳昭華，商標侵害與救濟之實務及策略，經濟部智慧財產局，民國96年2月。

8. 張淑青，Yahoo！奇摩超級商城的下一步─「三個颱風環伺」vs「三種網路購物平台的競爭」，明德學報35期，頁36-47，民國100年7月。

11. 鄭菀瓊，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，民國98年7月。

4. 最高法院85年度台上字第2681號民事判決。

6. 最高法院91年度台上字第992號民事判決。