自美國法院見解建立我國商標仿作之定性

商標仿作（Trademark Parody）係指商標仿作人利用既有商標為基礎，對既有商標進行仿作，例如評論、嘲諷甚至是批評方式，以表達自身想法。在商標法中，商標仿作可能涉及之議題為侵害商標權致相關消費者產生混淆誤認之虞，以及致著名商標之聲譽及識別性產生減損而有著名商標之淡化侵權。惟商標仿作同時又涉及商標仿作人受憲法第11條表達自由之利益，因此商標仿作人與商標權人兩者間之權利如何衡量，為本文聚焦之核心。商標仿作之案件與其他商標侵權案件不同之處在於，商標仿作具有表達自由之利益。因此，在進行相關的討論之前，須先視本件案件是否為商標仿作，再接續判斷商標仿作人之行為是否有造成商標的一般侵權以及著名商標之淡化侵權。至於何謂商標仿作，本文就美國及我國實務、學說見解整理中得出幾項特徵，提供法院得作為參考依據。此外，本文主要以美國實務見解作為討論對象，參考美國法院遇有商標仿作案件時就混淆誤認之虞要素為標準，提出應採取調整的混淆誤認之虞較為合適；以及著名商標淡化侵權中，法院應逕自認定商標仿作不構成污損化之侵權，至於模糊化之判斷中，法院亦應對於模糊化之因素及標準予以調整。最後，本文再以美國法院所提出之相關判斷步驟及標準作為借鑒，試圖用在我國曾出現之相關商標仿作之判決。

關鍵字

商標仿作；戲謔仿作；言論自由；商標法；商標淡化修正法案

並列摘要

Trademark Parody refers to the imitation of an existing trademark by a trademark parodist, such as commentary, mockery or even criticism, in order to express his or her own ideas. Under trademark law, trademark parody may involve issues such as infringement of trademark rights that may cause likelihood of confusion among related consumers, and also infringement of famous trademarks that diminish the reputation and recognition of famous trademarks. However, the trademark parody also involves the interest of the trademark parodist in the freedom of expression under Article 11 of the Constitution, therefore, how to weigh the rights between the trademark parodist and the trademark owner is the core of this article. The difference between trademark parody cases and other trademark infringement cases is that trademark parody has the rights of freedom of expression. Therefore, prior to the relevant discussion, it is necessary to consider whether the case is a trademark parody or not, and then proceed to judge whether the trademark parody has caused infringement of the trademark and dilution infringement of the famous trademark. As for the definition of trademark parody, this article has compiled several features from the opinions of practice and doctrine in the United States and in Taiwan, which can be used as reference by the court. In addition, this article mainly discusses with the opinions of U.S. practice, and proposes that the likelihood of confusion should be adjusted (The Infusion Approach) with reference to the standard of the likelihood of confusion element in the U.S. court in the case of trademark parody. And, in the infringement of dilution of famous trademarks, the court should directly hold that a trademark parody does not violate the tarnishment of the trademark, and in the judgment of blurring, the court should also adapt the factors and standards of blurring. Finally, this article will use the relevant procedures and standards proposed by the U.S. courts as a reference to apply the trademark parody decisions that have been made in our Country.