從我國實務判決探討立體商標與表徵之保護

From the practical judgments to discuss the protection of three-dimensional trademark and trade dress in Taiwan

侯啟麟(Ci-Lin Hou)

指導教授 ： 李崇僖

中原大學/商學院/財經法律研究所/碩士(2010年)

https://doi.org/10.6840/cycu201000588

摘要

本文研究主軸為我國立體商標與表徵之相關法律問題研析。從商標與表徵之區別，可知兩者不論保護要件、範圍、方式與效果皆有所間隔，公平法對表徵的保護，相當程度上可彌補商標法對未註冊商標保護之不足，然自立體商標應運而生，原合致公平法之商品表徵即可能產生重疊的現象。審視立體商標修法以來主管機關對於立體商標的定義、審查基準與實務見解，可知立體商標雖為商標種類的一種型態，其本身性質使然，立體商標獨特性的要求往往會較傳統平面商標更加嚴格，涉訟案件亦將焦點放於是否系爭商標具有識別性與功能性上，而非是否造成相關事業或消費者混淆誤認之虞，關於此是否妥適有待觀察。又以防範不公平競爭的角度而言，雖然公平法表徵之保護是毋需取得商標註冊，以此觀之是可以彌補商標法註冊主義的當然結果，然表徵之構成要件其一為必須要具備相當知名度，為相關事業或消費者所普遍認知，其對於幼稚產業而言不可不謂一重大挑戰，因從商品草創之初到建立知名度往往需要長時間的推廣行銷，如是便等同於要取得第二意義，又第二意義的證明，除了考慮消費者的認知外，尚須考量商品的特性、消費者注意程度與相關消費市場使用情形，對於幼稚產業而言可說是幾乎難以達成。在商標法與公平法皆無法對於幼稚產業的商品提供有效的保護時，是否就因此抹滅其對於商品投資心血的累積？

關鍵字

立體商標 ； 表徵 ； 識別性 ； 混淆誤認之虞、相當知名度 ； 功能性 ； 第二意義

並列摘要

The key point of the thesis is about three-dimensional trademark and trade dress related law issues in Taiwan. From the distinction between trademarks and trade dress, we can see whether the two elements of protection requirements, scope, methods and results have been well spacing, protection in the viewpoint of fair trade method, to a certain extent can make up for trademark protection on the lack of an unregistered trademark, however since the three-dimensional trademark came into being a type of trademark, protection of trade dress would overlap that of trademark in certain field.
With official examination guidelines and lawsuits, we could understand that three-dimensional trademark by its own nature is more stringent in uniqueness than traditional trademark. In a suit case, courts also has focused on whether the disputed trademark with the distinctiveness and functionality, rather than likelihood of confusion.
In the viewpoint of unfair competition, although trade dress in the Fair Trade Act is not required to be registered, undoubtedly it can certainly make up for the lack of Trademark Act registration principle. However, one of the establishments of trade dress is to be commonly known to relevant enterprises or consumers, it definitely becomes another big challenge to infant industries.
It takes a long time to build a commonly known product, in accordance with acquiring secondary meaning. Secondary meaning is, by all means, in addition to considering the consumer recognition, characteristics of goods, and use in the relevant consuming market, which could be almost impossible for infant industries to achieve. If the Trademark Act and Fair Trade Act are unable to provide effective protection to infant industries, how to preserve the accumulated investment effort made out by them?

並列關鍵字

trade dress ； three-dimensional trademark ； distinctiveness ； secondary meaning ； likelihood of confusion ； functionality

參考文獻

劉江彬，智慧財產法律與管理案例評析（三），華泰文化事業股份有限公司，初版，2005。

蔡明誠、許忠信等，「國外商標判決案例與分析研究」成果報告，經濟部智慧財產局九十七年度委託研究報告（2008）。

謝銘洋，科技發展之智慧財產權議題，翰蘆圖書出版有限公司，2005。

洪志勳，「Trade Dress保護機制的研究及台灣現況分析」，科技法律透析，第18卷第3期，頁16-22（2006）。

許淑閔，注意金莎巧克力包裝了沒—立體商標之研析，嶺東財經法學，創刊號，頁153-177（2008）。