商標權之侵害及救濟

Infringement of registered trademark and its remedy

眾律國際法律事務所|眾律國際專利商標事務所|專利工程師暨法務 簡敏丞

Zoomlaw Attorneys-At-Law|Zoomlaw IP Attorneys|Patent Engineer and Legal Assistant Cheng-Ming Jane

壹、民事責任之侵害行為及法律效果

1. Violations of Civil Liability and its legal effect

一、一般侵害之行為

(1) General Infringement                                                                       

台灣商標法第61條第2項明文規定:『未經商標權人同意,而有第29條第2款規定情形之一者,為侵害商標權。』而第29條第2項所規定之各款,即對於商標權排他效力之規定,必須要得到商標權人之同意,否則即為侵害商標權人之商標權,其包括下列情形:

Taiwan’s Trademark Act Article 61, paragraph 2 expressly indicates that: “in the course of trade, without consent of the proprietor of a registered trademark in any of the following act, constitute infringement and the right of such trademark.” Article 29, paragraph 2 listed out all grounds for refusal of registration that any of the following acts, without consent of the proprietor of a registered trademark, shall be deemed as infringement of its trademark right:

(一) 於同一商品或服務,使用相同於註冊商標之商標者。

Using a trademark which is identical with the registered trademark in relation to goods or services which are identical with those for which it is registered.

(二) 於類似之商品或服務,使用相同於註冊商標之商標,有致消費者混淆誤認之虞者。

Using a trademark which is identical with the registered trademark and used in relation to goods or services similar to those for which the registered one is designated, and hence there exists a likelihood of confusion on relevant consumers.

(三) 於同一類似之商品或服務,使用近似於其註冊商標之商標,有致 消費者混淆誤認之虞者。

Using a trademark which is similar to the registered trademark and used in relation to goods or services identical with or similar to those for which the registered one is designated, and hence there exists a likelihood of confusion on relevant consumers.

因此由上述條文可知,一般商標權之侵害要件包括:

1.未經商標權人同意,而使用其商標。

2.具有商標法第29條第2項之任何一種規定情形。

3.行為與損害具有因果關係。(行為人是否具有故意或過失為必要條件,上述條文並未明定,而目前學說上與實務上均採肯定見解,請參閱王澤鑑,侵權行為法,2005年,第69頁;台灣高等法院93年度上字第752號民事判決)

 From the above, we can know that infringement of registered trademark includes:

1. without proprietor of a registered trademark’s consent and to use its trademark.

2. satisfy any of the grounds for refusal listed in Article 29, paragraph 2.

3. causal relationship between conduct and result. (whether the actor willfully or negligently causes the accomplishment of the constituent elements of an offence, where such act is not expressly indicated. There is affirmative opinions for its theory and practice, please see Ze-Jian Wang (2005) Tort Law. Taiwan High Court 93 year Zi section No. 752 civil judgements, page 69).

二、擬制侵害之行為

Acts of Infringement (fiction)

台灣商標法第62條明文規定:『未經過商標人同意,有下列情形之一者,視為侵害商標權: 一、明知為他人著名之註冊商標而使用相同或近似之商標或以該著名商標中之文字作為自己公司名稱、商號名稱、網域名稱或其他表彰營業主體或來源之標識,致減損著名商標之識別性或信譽者。二、明知為他人著名之註冊商標,而已該商標中之文字作為自己公司名稱、商號名稱、網域名稱或其他表彰營業主體或來源之標識,致商品或服務相關消費者混淆誤認者。』因此就條文內容而言,該條為侵害商標權之擬制規定。

Taiwan’s Trademark Act Article 62 expressly indicates that: “any of the following acts, without consent of the proprietor of a registered trademark, shall be deemed as trademark infringement:

(1) knowingly using a trademark which is identical with or similar to another person’s well-known registered trademark, and hence there exists a likelihood of dilution of the distinctiveness or reputation of the said well-known trademark;

(2) knowingly using words contained in another person’s well-known registered trademark as the name of a company, business, group or domain or any other name that identifies a business entity, and hence there exists a likelihood of confusion on relevant consumers or a likelihood of dilution of the distinctiveness or reputation of the said well-known trademark.” If you infringed any of acts mentioned here would constitute acts of infringement.”

因此由上述條文第1款可知,擬制商標權之侵害要件包括:

1.『明知』為他人著名之註冊商標。

2.他人已註冊之商標

3.須有使用相同或近似之商標或以該著名商標中之文字作為自己公司名稱、商號名稱或其他表彰營業主體貨來源標識之事實。

4.須有致減損該著名商標之識別性或信譽之結果。

5.須有使用之行為且未得商標權人同意。

From the above Act, paragraph 1, we can know acts of infringements include:

1.’ knowingly’ using a trademark which is identical with or similar to another person’s well-known registered trademark

2. registered trademark of another

3. knowingly using words contained in another person’s well-known registered trademark as the name of a company, business, group or domain or any other name that identifies a business entity

4. there exists a likelihood of dilution of the distinctiveness or reputation of the said well-known trademark

5. uses such trademark without proprietor of a registered trademark of a registered trademark’s consent.

而上述條文第2款擬制商標權之侵害要件包括:

1.『明知』為他人著名之註冊商標。

2.他人已註冊之商標

3.須有使用相同或近似之商標或以該著名商標中之文字作為自己公司名稱、商號名稱或其他表彰營業主體貨來源標識之事實。

4.須致商品或服務相關消費者產生混淆誤認之結果。

5.須有使用之行為且未得商標權人同意。

From the above Act, paragraph 2, we can know acts of infringements include:

1.’ knowingly’ using a trademark which is identical with or similar to another person’s well-known registered trademark

2. registered trademark of another

3. knowingly using words contained in another person’s well-known registered trademark as the name of a company, business, group or domain or any other name that identifies a business entity

4. there exists a likelihood of confusion on relevant consumers in relation to goods or services similar to those for which the registered trademark or collective trademark is designated.

5. uses such trademark without proprietor of a registered trademark’s consent.

三、侵害商標權之民事責任

Trademark Infringement and its Civil Liability

商標權人受侵害時,得主張:

Proprietor of a registered trademark may commence civil legal proceedings against a party which infringes its registered trademark when:

1.行使損害賠償、排除侵害或防止妨害請求權。

The rights to demand for damage compensations、infringement injunction or to prevent nuisance.

2.銷毀或其他必要處置之請求(商標法第61條第3項)

Request destruction or other necessary disposition (Trademark Act Article 61, Paragraph 3)

3.判決書內容之登載(商標法第64條)

The content of verdict (Trademark Act Article 64)

至於商標權之損害賠償請求方面,計算方式得就下列『擇一』

For its damage claim, you can choose ‘one’ of the following calculation methods:

1.具體計算(民法216條)

The actual calculation (Civil Law Article 216)

2.差額(通常所獲得之利益減去受侵害之利益)

Its difference (usually that is calculated based on the difference between the benefit received in general minus benefits received from infringement)

3.侵害所得利益

Benefits received from such infringement  

4.銷售額

Total Sales

5.零售單價乘以500-1500倍或是總價(商標法第63條第1項3款、同法63條第2項)

Retail price times 500-1500 or its total price (Trademark Act 63, paragraph 1(3) 、Trademark Act 63, Paragraph 2)

貳、刑事責任之侵害行為與罰則

商標法第81條、同法第82條及第83條均對於侵害商標權之刑罰作出具體規定,分別科處三年以下有期徒刑、拘役或併科新台幣二十萬元以下罰金;一年以下有期徒刑、拘役或併科新台幣五萬元以下罰金;並對於侵害商標權所製造、販賣、陳列、輸出或輸入之商品,或所提供於服務使用之物品或文書均沒收之,除了滅失之情況外,不問是否扣案或是屬於何人所有,法院並無斟酌餘地,須宣告沒收。

Violations and penalties for criminal responsibility

Trademark Act 81、Trademark Act 82 and 83 all have specific provision for trademark infringement, shall be liable to imprisonment for a period not exceeding three years and/or a fine not exceeding NT$200,000; be liable to imprisonment for a period not exceeding one year and/or a fine not exceeding $50,000; manufacturing, possessing, displaying, selling, exporting or important labels, tags, packaging or containers that have not been applied in relation to services, knowing that such articles would likely infringe its trademark rights, unless it is loss, the court shall demand confiscation regardless of whether such articles or documents belong to the offender.

參考資料:

References:  

商標法(民國100 年06 月29 日修正),智慧財產法院,全國法規資料庫

Trademark Law (amended on 29 th June 2011), Intellectual Property Rights Court, Laws & Regulations Database of the Republic of China.

http://law.moj.gov.tw/LawClass/LawContent.aspx?PCODE=J0070001

商標法施行細則(民國101 年06 月29 日修正),智慧財產法院,全國法規資料庫

Trademark Law Enforcement Rules (amended on 29 th June 2011), Intellectual Property Rights Court, Laws & Regulations Database of the Republic of China.

http://law.moj.gov.tw/LawClass/LawContent.aspx?PCODE=J0070002

台灣高等法院94年智上易字第5號判決。

Taiwan High Court 94 years Chi Yi Zi No. 5 Case.

最高法院48年台上字第1934號判例。

Supreme Court 48 years Tai No. 1934 Case.

最高法院79年台上字第249號判決。

Supreme Court years 79 Tai No. 1934 Case.

最高法院91年台上字第2576號判決。

Supreme Court years 91 Tai No. 2576 Case.

最高法院88年台上字第1944號判決。

Supreme Court years 88 Tai No. 1944 Case.

最高法院80年台上字第1773號等判決。

Supreme Court years 80 Tai No. 1773.

汪渡村,商標法論,台北,五南,2011年,第275-341頁。

Du-Chun Wang (2011) Trademark Law Theory, Taipei, Five South, page 275-341.

徐振雄,智慧財產權法,台北,新文京開發出版,2010年,第151-158頁。

Zhen-Xiong Xu (2010) Intellectual Property Law, Taipei, Xinwen Beijing Development Publisher, page 151-158.

謝銘洋,智慧財產權法,台北,元照,2009年,第334-337頁。

Ming-Yang Xie (2009) Intellectual Property Law, Taipei, Yuanzhao, page 334-337.

陳銘祥、吳尚昆、陳昭華、張凱娜,智慧財產權與法律,台北,元照,2009年,第90-95頁。

Chen, M.Y., Wu, S.K., Chen, Z. H., Zhang, K.N., Intellectual Property Right and Laws, Taipei, Yuanzhao, page 90-95. 

文章標籤
創作者介紹

眾律國際專利商標事務所/眾律國際法律事務所

ZoomlawPatent 發表在 痞客邦 PIXNET 留言(0) 人氣()