商標法上公眾審查制－論異議制之存廢

吳聆嘉(Wu ling chia)

指導教授 ： 陳文吟

國立中正大學/法學院/財經法律學系/碩士(2013年)

摘要

現行法下，商標在註冊後，有兩種公眾審查制，分別為異議制與評定制。當異議和評定對象都係已取得註冊之商標，而且申請異議和評定事由又完全相同，加上商標專責機關對評定人之利害關係認定寬鬆，則提起異議和評定之資格差異幾乎不存在，使異議制與評定制形成疊床架屋，應修法消除此現象。

專利法修正前，亦同時設有異議制與舉發制。但專利權授予前須通過異議程序曠日費時，甚至，使有心人士得藉異議程序妨礙申請人取得專利權。鑑於異議、舉發事由大致相同，審查程序、行政救濟途徑並無二致，專利法乃整合議異議制與舉發制，而將異議制廢除。然而，商標法對存有相同疑慮之商標異議制，卻選擇保留之，本文認為無合理差別待遇之理由。

本文分別從保留異議制和廢除異議制之立場，討論異議制之修正方向。若欲維持異議制與評定制並存，且避免該二制度重複規範而無區分實益，得於審查申請案階段改採部分審查制，或參考美國聯邦商標法將異議制規定在商標取得註冊前。反之，若選擇直接廢除異議制，為無損公眾審查制之功能，需一併修正評定制之規定，放寬現行法對評定人之資格限制。為立即解決公眾審查制疊床架屋之問題，並防止異議制延宕權利之取得，同時簡化爭訟流程、節省行政成本，本文建議修正商標法將異議制廢除。

關鍵字

公眾審查制 ； 舉發制 ； 評定制 ； 異議制 ； 商標 ； 利害關係人

並列摘要

After registered, our country provides two public examination systems under trademark law, such as opposition and invalidation. Functions of opposition and invalidation are reiterative because(1)both object to a registered trademark；(2)both are filed on the same grounds；(3)the standing requirements of both are hardly distinguished due to the broad definition of “interested party”. The author suggests that we should amend the law.

Prior to 2003, our patent law provided opposition and invalidation. Since (1)grounds for opposition and invalidation are roughly identical；(2) the examination proceedings of opposition and invalidation are the same, (3)administrative remedies of opposition and invalidation are not different, R.O.C. consolidated opposition and invalidation under patent law. However, R.O.C. retains opposition under trademark law even if the law has equal issues. Between trademark and patent opposition are not reasonable different treatment.

The thesis respectively discusses how to change trademark law from the standpoint of retaining and abolishing opposition. In order to prevent opposition and invalidation from stipulating reiteratively, R.O.C. could trend towards the following legislative examples. One is IPO will not start examining relative grounds until a petitioner files an opposition. The other is opposition proceeds before trademark registered conferring to U.S. trademark law. On the contrary, if the law abolishes opposition, it must loosen up restriction on the standing requirement for invalidation. The thesis suggests that R.O.C. should abolish opposition so as to simplify administrative litigation, reducing executive cost, and obtain trademark more efficiently.

並列關鍵字

public examination ； invalidation ； opposition ； trademark ； interested party

參考文獻

6. 葉俊榮，憲法位階的環境權：從擁有環境到參與環境決策，臺大法學論叢，第19卷1期，第129-153頁，民國78年12月。

6. Guggenheim, Jack Achiezer, Renaming The Redskins (And The Florida State Seminoles?): The Trademark Registration Decision And Alternative Remedies, 27 FLA. ST. U.L. REV. 287(1999).

8. 經濟部智慧財產局編，商標法逐條釋義，經濟部智慧財產局，民國102年2月。

10. 經濟部智慧財產局，現行專利審查基準彙編，經濟部智慧財產局，民國95年。

11. 經濟部智慧財產局編，歷年商標法規彙編，經濟部智慧財產局，民國96年1月。