從認知社會語言學的角度探討台灣的商標侵權案件

A Cognitive Sociolinguistic Study of Trademark Infringement in Taiwan

楊佩綺(Pei-Chi Yang)

指導教授 ： 何德華

國立中正大學/文學院/語言學研究所/碩士(2014年)

摘要

此篇研究是從認知社會語言學的角度探討台灣近兩年來(2011-2003)的商標侵權案件。本文針對三個議題做深入的探討：(1)台美商標引起爭議的議題為何？(2)何種因素容易造成消費者混淆？(3)消費者和政府是否對產生混淆的因素具有共識？研究中所用的商標爭議案件是從新聞知識網及LexisNexis Academic語料庫中集結而成。其中包含35件在台灣發生的商標爭議案件，以及21筆在美國發生與商標爭議相關的案件。藉由邀請172受試者填寫問卷調查，來檢視商標容易造成受試者產生混淆的因素，並進一步針對法律判決結果和消費者意見做比較。問卷結果使用變異數分析來找出最容易造成商標混淆的語言因素。結果顯示(1)台灣與美國的商標在命名上有明顯的不同，台灣商標大多可從名稱知道其商品。相較而言，美國商標較少直接將販售商品直接標記於商標上。(2)在商標爭議的案件中可找到構詞、字形、語音、語意、形象標語等造成混淆的五種語言因素。其中，受試者對不同的構詞組合有不同的混淆程度；以構詞具爭議的商標來說，受試者和政府的判決基本上持相同的態度；但是，以字形具爭議的商標來說，受試者意見和政府判決結果則有較大的出入。

關鍵字

法律語言學 ； 混淆 ； 商標侵權 ； 認知社會語言學

並列摘要

This study investigated the cases of trademark infringement in Taiwan from 2011 to 2013 within the framework of cognitive sociolinguistics. Three issues were addressed in this study: (1) the issues of trademark disputes in Taiwan and the United States during the same period of time, (2) the confusing factors of trademark infringement and (3) the comparison of attitudes towards these cases between the general population and the government. Thirty-five cases in Taiwan and twenty-one cases in the United States were collected from the Newspapers in Taiwan and the LexisNexis Academic database. A questionnaire was also distributed to 172 participants to elicit their judgments on the similarity between trademarks. The data were tested statistically to determine which linguistic factors might influence people’s perceptions of trademark confusion. The results showed that the trademarks in Taiwan were explicit, while the trademarks in the United States were implicit. Besides this, five linguistic factors identified from the trademark infringement court cases involved the perceptions of morphosyntactic, graphemic, phonetic, semantic, and image/slogan similarities and differences. Moreover, the particular combinations of trademarks were found to affect participants’ perceptions of trademark confusion. Finally, the general population’s attitudes matched the government’s judgments on the morphosyntactic differences, but not on those involving the graphemic differences.

並列關鍵字

forensic linguistics ； confusion ； trademark infringement ； cognitive sociolinguistics

參考文獻

Bachstaller, I. (2010). Social Stereotypes, Personality Traits and Regional Perception Displace: Attitudes towards the New Quotatives un the UK. In M. Meyerhoff, and E. Scheef (Eds.), The Routlegde Sociolinguistics Reader. (pp. 168-182). Routledge.

Berthele, R. (2008). A Nation is a Territory with One Culture and One Language: The Role of Metaphorical Folk Models in Language Policy Debates. In G. Kristiansen and R. Dirven (Eds.), Cognitive Sociolinguistics Language Variation, Cultural Models, Social Systems. (pp. 301-331). Mouton de Gruyter. Berlin. New York.

Cotterill, J. (2004). Collocation, Connotation, and Courtroom Semantics: Lawyer’s Control of witness Testimony through Lexical Negotiation. Applied Linguistics, 25, 513-537.

Coulthard, M. and Johnson, A. (2007). Order in Court. In An Introduction to Forensic Linguistics: Language in Evidence. (pp. 95-117). Routledge.

Chung, R. F. (2009). Contrastive Analysis and Teaching Chinese as a Second Language. Taipei: Cheng Chung Bookstore.