摘要
惡搞文化於當今社會非常流行，惡搞者常利用他人著作並融入創意來嘲諷社會事件，除了著作外，知名商標也常成為嘲諷的對象，就嘲諷者而言，將商標略加修改後，藉以表達其評論，應受言論自由之保障，但可能造成公眾對商標來源之混淆，且有損害商標財產權之風險，故權利保護上之權衡，是個難解的問題。 商標嘲諷性使用之研究，於美國存在已久，自1980年代起即有文章加以討論，反觀我國文獻較少，直到民國100年嬌蕉包以類似愛瑪仕商標的圖樣申請註冊，於訴訟中，援引美國法上嘲諷性合理使用之概念後，才開始有較多的文章探討。此為國內目前唯一與商標嘲諷性使用有關之案例，故無法窺探嘲諷性使用於我國商標侵權案件中，法院會抱持何種態度。 我國商標法並未有嘲諷性合理使用之規定，雖有文章建議增設嘲諷性合理使用條款，於修法前可援引合理使用之法理或以言論自由作為其免責基礎，但本文於分析我國商標侵權之架構、探討該言論之本質與搭便車之惡性後，認為無增設嘲諷性合理使用之必要。 本文爰探討是否有於實務判決中，加入嘲諷性合理使用思考之必要。於混淆誤認之虞領域，本文認為混淆誤認之虞，乃為保障公眾免於被誤導和欺騙之公益，此為商標法之核心，不容遭受破壞，若該嘲諷性使用構成混淆誤認之虞，反而應認為其不滿足嘲諷性使用之要件，縱使具有言論表達元素，仍不得依此主張得准予註冊/因其為嘲諷性使用而應修正原先混淆誤認之虞的判斷標準，否則將背於商標法之核心價值。 於淡化領域，著名商標與嘲諷性商標皆為商業性言論，但商標權人長時間投注心力、財力所促成之財產權，應給予較一般非著名商標權利人較多之保障，故權衡下，著名商標權利人之商標權較嘲諷者之商標權更需受到保障，因而於判斷是否構成淡化時，無須考量嘲諷性使用者言論自由之特質，而遵循原先之判斷標準即可。
並列摘要
Nowadays, kuso other’s writing is very popular. Parodists often provide enter-tainment by parody other writings. In addition to writings, famous trademarks are of-ten parodied by others. To parodist, varied other’s mark to comment something is protected by freedom of speech, but that will let consumers to confuse the mark own-er and dilute the mark. It will be a difficult problem. Since 1980’s parody defense has existed. In our country, scholars seldom discuss parody until the case “BANANA TAIPEI”. In that case, the “BANANA TAIPEI” user claimed that was fair use. This is the first case in Taiwan, so we couldn’t predict Court’s position in parody cases. In our trademark law, there’s no parody fair use provision. Some scholars suggest to include parody to our fair use exemption. In my opinion, it is not necessary because of the following reasons: 1. In our trademark law, parodist will infringe trademark owner’s right when they use their mark as a mark and use in commerce. 2. It’s free riding. 3. In America, this type is not sufficient to parody exemption. Then I think it’s not necessary to alter approaches in infringement and dilution areas due to the following reasons: 1. In the likelihood of confusion, which is the most important issue in trademark law. If there is likelihood of confusion, it would not be a good parody. 2. In the dilution area, well-known trademark owners spend much time and money on promoting their trademarks. It’s necessary to provide them with more protection than other trademark owners. In our country, if there is trademark in-fringement, I believe well-known trademark owner’s right is much more important than parodist’s speech right.