眾律國際專利商標事務所/眾律國際法律事務所

著作權聲明：本所在痞客邦所登載之文章，在下列條件下歡迎分享、轉載及轉貼

如本所為著作權人

一、必須屬於本所同仁所撰寫的文章。
二、必須用本所同意分享、轉載、轉貼的分享工具：Facebook, LinkedIn, RSS, Twitter, Google+, Line, Wechat。
三、必須揭露本所文章全文，包括文章名稱及著作權人與著作人以及文末的註釋及註腳，除非係因分享工具在選用了轉載技術處理方式的本質因素而僅連結文章在痞客邦所在網頁路徑的位址或僅呈現出文章名稱，著作權人以及部分文章內容之外，不得增刪或者改寫。 

如本所非著作權人

四、如非本所文章而係經過其他著作權人分享文章轉貼在本所本部落格者，如需再為分享，轉載或轉貼，請自行依據該著作權人的授權方式處理，以免誤觸保護他人的著作權法律。

在本部落格貼文

五、如為本所以外之第三人自行將文章在本部落格發佈者，必須同意本著作權聲明的內容，否則請勿在本部落格發佈文章。在本部落格發文者，也請勿侵害他人的著作權。

 本部落格對於貼文有侵害之虞的處理原則

六、在本部落格公布或分享之文章，如有侵害到任何第三人的著作權，或有侵害之虞者，任何人知悉時，請即時通知本所，本所一經確認會立刻將該文刪除，有必要時會另行撰文說明處理過程。

商標「善意」先使用：明知或非明知？ 實習律師李汝民 Using its trademark with Bona fide: knowingly or not knowingly? Intern Lawyer Ru-Min Lee

前言Preamble

商標法第30條第1項第3款規定：在他人商標註冊申請日前，善意使用相同或近似之商標於同一或類似之商品或服務者，不受他人商標權之效力所拘束。同款但書並規定，善意使用以原使用之商品或服務為限，商標權人並得要求其附加適當之區別標示。此即商標法所謂「善意先使用」之規定（商標法逐條釋義，頁95），其立法目的在於，商標權人於商標獲准註冊後雖享有排除他人使用其商標之權利，但為了避免過度保護商標專用權利反而造成市場自由競爭之阻礙、以及適當調和商標先註冊主義與先使用主義之衝突，故對於商標專用權利加諸一定之限制。

Trademark Act Article 30, Paragraph 1(3): by bona fide, prior to the filing date of the registered trademark, the proprietor of the registered trademark is entitled to request the party who use the trademark to add an appropriate and distinguishing indication when there is an identical or similar trademark on goods or services identical with or similar to those for which the registered trademark is protected for which the use is only on the original goods or services.

The purpose for such is for the proprietor of the registered to exclude others from using its registered trademark. Even though such third person knowingly used another person’s well-known registered trademark with bona fide (Trademark Act Interpretation, page 95). However in order to prevent overprotection on its trademark right which obstruct its free trade competition, it is important to have an appropriate reconciliation between the first register doctrine and the doctrine of first use of trademark. Therefore some of the restrictions need to be imposed on its trademark rights.

「善意」之解釋

What is ‘bona fide’?

然，所謂的「善意」，解釋上可能如同民法條文之「善意第三人」，係「不知情」之意。則「善意先使用」即須不知有他人商標，而使用相同或近似之商標於同一或類似之商品或服務，方可主張。

However the word ‘bona fide’, from its interpretation in civil law means ‘bona fides third party’, which has ‘not knowingly’ meaning. Where the trademark is identical with or similar to another person’s registered trademark in relation to goods or services, for which another person’s registered trademark is designated, does exists its likelihood of confusion on relevant consumers, would have grounds for revocation.

實務上有台灣台北地方法院93年度智字第70號判決可供參考。該判決指出，「商標法第30條第1項第3款之『善意』，係指『並非以不正當競爭為目的』，即使商標權人已使用商標，未申請註冊，但第三人明知該商標己使用，卻使用他人商標，在商標權人註冊商標後，第三人仍使用該商標，其不得主張係善意使用。」

In practice, the case of Taiwan Taipei District Court 93 years Zhi No. 70 can be used as reference. For its case, it indicates that the Trademark Act Article 30, Paragraph 1(3) ‘bona fide’ means ‘not for the purpose of unfair competition’. Despite that the proprietor of the registered has previously used its trademark, if such trademark is not registered and the third person still uses its trademark knowingly, such person is prohibited to claim prior use of such trademark after its trademark is being registered.

亦即，該判決認為第三人必須「非明知該商標已使用」方可主張善意先使用，可認為其對於商標法「善意」之解釋較為接近民法上之「善意」--即不知情。

The judicial reasoning behind this case is that the third person must ‘not knowingly use its trademark’ to claim for its bona fide prior use. You can treat the word ‘bona fide’ defined in Trademark Act similar to the ‘bona fide’ defined in Civil Law.

然亦有法院就善意之解釋採取更為寬泛之見解。台灣高等法院96年度上易字第597號判決指出，「按判斷是否符合商標法第30條第1項第1款之『善意』要件，考諸商標法為保障商標權及消費者利益，維護市場公平競爭，促進工商企業正常發展之立法目的，除視使用人是否知悉他人尚未申請註冊商標之存在以外，尚應視使用人於使用時是否意圖影射他人商標之信譽，而致影響公平競爭秩序為斷，以保護善意創用之使用人。

There is wider interpretation of ‘bona fide’ by court, the case of Taiwan Taipei District Court 96 years Zhang Yi No. 597 indicates that in order “to determine whether such element satisfies the ‘bona fide’ defined in Trademark Act Article 30, Paragraph 1(1), you need to consider whether such Trademark Act would protect consumers’ best interest and to maintain trade market fairness and to promote industrial and commercial enterprises development. Apart from knowing whether such user knowingly used its unregistered trademark, it is important to know whether such user intent to take advantage of its trademark reputation in result of disturbing its trade market fair competition. The purpose for this is to protect the first trademark user with bona fide.

又現行商標法第30條第1項規定為：『凡以善意且合理使用之方法，．．．』，考其真意，核與美國法上之『fairly and in good faith』相當，是此『善意』並非民法上向來所解之『不知情』，亦不以無過失為要件。」

The Trademark Act Article 30, Paragraph 1 indicates: “reasonable with bona fide…”, is similar to the American Law “fairly and in good faith” but not similar to ‘not knowingly’ defined in Civil Law, which doesn’t constitute ‘negligent’ as one of the elements.

依照上述判決，則可以主張「善意」使用他人商標之情形即有下列兩者：

From the above cases, we can know that there are two scenarios to define ‘bona fide’:

(1)   不知悉他人尚未申請註冊商標之存在。

Not knowingly the existence of other unregistered trademarks.

(2)   雖知悉他人商標之存在，但使用人於使用時並無影射他人商標信譽之意圖。

Despite knowing the existence of other trademark, but such user does not have the intention to take advantage of its trademark reputation.

(1)之情形同於前述台灣台北地方法院93年度智字第70號判決之見解，但(2)之情形即係知情卻仍能主張善意先使用之例，可知上述高等法院之判決對於商標法「善意」先使用之解釋係較民法之「善意」先使用更為寬泛，可以說是更偏向於先使用主義之判決。

What’s described in (1) is similar to the case of Taiwan Taipei District Court 93 years Zhi No. 70, however what’s described in (2) above focuses on ‘knowingly’ but with bona fide prior use. There seems to have wider interpretation of ‘bona fide’ defined in Trademark Act than what’s defined in Civil Law which is more toward the bona fide prior use doctrine.

評析 Review

我國商標法第2條於92年修法後，已將原本法條文字「確具使用之意思」刪除，且修法理由亦明示本法採註冊保護原則，故我國商標法於92年修法後應係採先註冊主義無疑。

After the amended Trademark Act Article 2 in 2003, after amendment, deleted the word ‘indeed with the use of means’, such Act inherited the registered protection doctrine and therefore after its amendment in 2003, there is no doubt that Taiwan employs a first-to-register system for trademark protection.

先註冊主義的確可能衍生濫行申請而並無真正使用商標意思之問題，但此已有繼續三年未使用等商標廢止程序可供利用。故，商標法第30條第1項第3款之「善意」先使用實不應再採取過於擴張之解釋，以免因為本條之規定反而使本法傾向於先使用主義，而與第2條總則之規定產生衝突。

However the first-to-register system has its inherent problems to register trademarks even it is not really necessary. However there is a rule set out in its Trademark Act to cease its registration if such trademark has not been used for three years continuously. Therefore Trademark Act Article 30, Paragraph 1(3) ‘bona fide’ prior use should not have any wide interpretation to prevent any conflicts between the first-to register system defined in Paragraph 2.

此外，本國係採「民商合一」制度之國家，因此商標法之解釋亦應以民法相同之法概念為依歸，否則可能造成法體系之混亂與適用之衝突。

On the other hand, Taiwan inherent Civil and Commercial combination system, therefore Trademark Act’s interpretation should be the same as the Civil Law in Taiwan otherwise there may have conflict of laws between the two systems.

最後，美國商標制度本即係採「先使用主義」，於1998年後其商標制度雖有修正，亦僅修正為「先使用與先註冊並行主義」，而非改採先註冊主義。故前述台灣高等法院96年度上易字第597號判決以美國法上之「fairly and in good faith」解釋我國商標法之「善意先使用」實對於我國與美國之商標體制差異有欠考量。綜上所述，本文認同台灣台北地方法院93年度智字第70號判決，「善意」先使用應以第三人非明知系爭商標已使用為要件。

Lastly America employs first-to-use system, despite that there was some amendment after year 1998, however it is still ‘first-to use-and-register-system’, not the first-to-register system. Therefore in the previously described case of Taiwan Taipei District Court 96 years Zhang Yi No. 597’s “fairly and in good faith” indicates Taiwan and America’s differences in Trademark’s ‘first-to-use’ system. For the summary above, the author personally believe that the case verdict from the case of Taiwan Taipei District Court 93 years Zhi No. 70, is to consider whether the third person used its registered trademark as one of the elements by employing its ‘bona fide’ prior use doctrine.

參考資料 References

1.經濟部智慧財產局，《商標法逐條釋義》，2005年5月。

Intellectual Property Office (2005, May) Trademark Act Interpretation.

2.台灣台北地方法院93年度智字第70號判決

Taiwan Taipei District Court 93 years Zhi No. 70 Case

3.台灣高等法院96年度上易字第597號判決

Taiwan Taipei District Court 96 years Zhang Yi No. 597 Case 

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. 

• 專利法第98條
• 專利法逐條釋義
• 經濟部智慧財產局 https://www.tipo.gov.tw/mp.asp?mp=1
• 與貿易有關之智慧財產權協定(Agreement on Trade-Relted Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights,TRIPS)
• 專利實務論PATENT PRACTICE 第6版 冷耀世編著
• 專利法案例式 修訂第五版 林洲富著

• 專利法第87條、專利法第88條
• 專利法逐條釋義
• 經濟部智慧財產局 https://www.tipo.gov.tw/mp.asp?mp=1
• 與貿易有關之智慧財產權協定(Agreement on Trade-Relted Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights,TRIPS)
• 專利實務論PATENT PRACTICE 第6版 冷耀世編著
• 專利法案例式 修訂第五版 林洲富著

• 專利法第87條、專利法第88條
• 專利法逐條釋義
• 經濟部智慧財產局 https://www.tipo.gov.tw/mp.asp?mp=1
• 與貿易有關之智慧財產權協定(Agreement on Trade-Relted Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights,TRIPS)
• 專利實務論PATENT PRACTICE 第6版 冷耀世編著
• 專利法案例式 修訂第五版 林洲富著

各國之商標公序良俗簡介 眾律國際法律事務所實習律師陳映青

Introduction of trademark’s public order and morality in different countries

By Intern Lawyer Ying-Qing Chen (Zoomlaw Attorneys-At-Law)

壹、美國[1]

1. United States of America[1]

一、美國1946年商標法§2(a)[2]：

商標申請內容包含不道德、欺罔或可恥的事項，或由該等事項構成者，得不予註冊商標。

1. U.S. Trademark Act of 1946§2(a) (15U.S.C.§1052)

No trademark by which the goods of the applicant may be distinguished from the goods of others shall be refused registration on the principal register on account of its nature unless consists of or comprises immoral, deceptive, or scandalous matters.

二、商標審查程序手冊(TMEP)

「可恥的」在一般詞彙意義中，表示一種對行為規範具有衝擊性，對於良知、道德具有侵害性，或是具有可譴責性的詞語；法律意義上，則包含道德層面上粗俗之意義。在商標申請案之審查上，應綜合當時社會現狀下普遍大眾對於一般和法律意義面向上「可恥」意義之認知。實務常見案件類型如涉及宗教、種族、性、藥品、暴力、低俗圖文等。

2. Trademark Examination Procedure Manual (TEMPT)

The word “shame” in its general meaning means a kind of code of conduct with aggressive behavior in terms of its consciousness and morality which carries invasive nature or condemnatory words. In the eyes of the law, it includes a sense of morality. In its trademark application examination, examiner should consider what the general public thinks what “shame” is. Cases we see generally as references involves religion, race, sex, drugs, violence, and vulgar graphics and so on.

貳、澳洲[3]

2. Australia

一、澳洲1995年商標法§42[4]：

商標申請內容含有可恥事項，或尤其所構成者，不得註冊。

        1. Australia Trade Marks Act 1995-Sect 42

                An application for the registration of a trade mark must be rejected if:

                (a) the trademark contains or consist of scandalous matter; or

                (b) its use would be contrary to law.

二、商標實務及程序手冊

「可恥的」指不名譽，不道德，具有汙衊、誹謗性質，或具可譴責性之詞語。判斷上應遵循時下之社會價值，從一般相關公眾之觀點著眼，考量商標之使用情況，並避免主觀意見之滲入。

    2. Trademark Examination Procedure Manual

The word “Shame” means dishonorable, immoral which carries the nature of libelous and defamatory nature or may have condemnation of words. When making its discretion, we should consider its social value at public and how such trademark is being used to prevent any subjective point of view when examining its patent application.

參、歐盟[5]

3. European

一、歐洲共同體商標條例§7I.(f)[6]：

商標違反公共政策或公認道德原則者，不應被註冊。

1. Council Regulation (EC) No 207|2009 §7I.(f)[6]:

Trademarks which are contrary to public policy or to accepted principles of morality shall not be registered.

二、商標實務手冊

「公共政策」為民主法制所需之規範，「公認道德原則」為維繫社會功能所需之原則。

2. Trademark Examination Procedure Manual

“Public policy” is the considered necessary for its nature justice; “public moral principles” is to maintain its public social order.

肆、英國[7]

4. England

一、英國1994年商標法§3(3)(a)[8]：

商標違反公共政策或公認道德原則者，不得註冊。

1. UK Trade Marks Act 1994§3(3)(a)

A trademark shall not be registered if it is contrary to public policy or to accepted principles of morality, or of such a nature as to deceive the public (for instance as to the nature, quality or geographical origin of the goods or services).

二、商標實務手冊

「公共政策」旨在防止公共秩序、防範犯罪。「公認道德原則」則在維護宗教、社會或家庭價值。若商標之用語依其商品或服務之性質，客觀上在公眾間具有冒犯之顯著性者，即屬違反公認道德。

2. Trademark Examination Procedure Manual

The purpose of “Public policy” is to prevent social disorder and crime. “Public moral principles” is to preserve its value of religion、social and family values. If such trademark word, from an objective point of view, carries offensive characteristics which relates to its product and service, examiner would treat such application as contrary to public moral values.

伍、日本[9]

5. Japan

一、日本商標法§4I⑦[10]：

商標有妨害公共秩序或善良風俗之虞者，不得註冊。

1. Japan Trade Mark Law §4 I ⑦：

No trademark shall be registered if the trademark is likely to cause damage to public policy;

二、商標審查基準

有「妨害公共秩序或善良風俗之虞」之商標，指(1).商標本身含有低俗、歧視或負面印象之圖文，或(2).商標與其商品、服務結合後將有背於社會公益道德者。實務操作上，除符合上述兩事由之情形外，法定禁止使用、違反國際信義、混淆國家資格、獨占歷史著名人物名稱或欠缺社會妥當性之項目，亦同屬有害公序良俗之虞者。

2. Trademark Examination Procedure Manual

       If there is trademark that infringed its public order and morality, meaning (1) the trademark itself carries inferiority、discrimination or negative influence photography, or (2) trademark or other products, services together that is contrary to public moral values. In practice, except for the two conditions mentioned above, the law infringed its usage、violation of international values、confuses national qualification、possess its historical name exclusively or lack of social validity would be treated as contrary to public order and morality.

陸、我國

6. Taiwan

一、中華民國商標法§30⑦：

妨害公共秩序或善良風俗者，不得註冊商標。

1. Taiwan Trademark Act 2011 §30⑦：

A trademark shall not be registered that is being contrary to public policy or to accepted principles of morality.

二、商標法逐條釋義

「公共秩序」指國家社會一般利益。「善良風俗」指社會一般道德觀念。判斷上，凡申請項目之形式或實質意義上，在當時社會價值觀念下依其使用情況判斷，具有下列事由者即屬之。

  2. Trademark Examination Procedure Manual

“Public order” means the welfare or well-being of the general public. “Moral standards” means morality accepted by public. By judgement, when making its application, factors below would be taken into consideration.  

 1. 損害國家、民族或社會之尊嚴者。

Damages to its country’s public image、ethnic group or social values.

 2. 鼓勵或煽惑犯罪、違法或擾亂社會秩序者。

        Encourage or to induce crimes、infringed the law or to disturb its social order.

 3. 非法組織、叛亂團體或盜匪、幫派等集團或個人之標記者。

Illegal organization、extreme groups or robbery、gangsters or other related groups.

4. 易使人產生恐怖、醜惡感而影響社會心理健康者。

Causes fears of others、ugly feelings that carries bad influences on psychosocial health.

5. 對於某一國家、種族、地區、宗教、團體、職業或個人表示侮辱或不尊重者。

Shows disrespect or insult to a certain country、race、region、religion、group、occupation or individual.

6. 違悖倫理，提倡迷信或敗壞風化者。

Unethical, promote superstition or culture of prostitution.

柒、代結論

7. Conclusion

在商標審查要求上，各國多有將「公序良俗」列入審查事由。因各國風土民情不盡相同，故其具體適用上可能產生不同之結果。然而在審查判斷上，其大體均以「客觀角度」和「當時社會價值」基準。此外，各國審查之參考項目亦得為我國之商標審查時之參考依據。

In terms of its trademark examination, many countries would take the “Public order and morality’ into consideration. Due to its cultural differences, how examiners view your application may be different according to its culture and values. However examiners would use its “objective point of view” and its “social value at that time” as fundamental examination criteria when examining its application. This is a good example of how other countries take the “Public order and morality” into consideration and we may also apply their principles to our country.

參考資料及連結：

1. 陳宏杰，商標違反公序良俗之研究—我國相關法令與歐、英、奧、美實務探討，智慧財產權月刊第158期，民國101  年2月。

2. 鍾桂華，商標違反公序良俗之研究—日本實務及案例探討，智慧財產權月刊第158期，民國101年2月。

3. 中華民國商標法逐條釋義。

References:

1. Hong-Jie Chen (2012, February). Trademark and its violation of public order and morality studies – Taiwan’s related statues with European、England、Australia and America in practice , Intellectual Property Monthly Article 158.

2. Gui-Hua Zhong (2012, February). Trademark and its violation of public order and morality studies-Japan Case studies and discussion, Intellectual Property Monthly Article 158.

3. Taiwan Trademark Act Statute Interpretation.

[1]陳宏杰，商標違反公序良俗之研究—我國相關法令與歐、英、奧、美實務探討，智慧財產權月刊第158期，民國101年2月，第24~36頁。

[2]Trademark Act of 1946§2(a) (15U.S.C.§1052).－Trademarks registrable on the principal register; concurrent registration

「No trademark by which the goods of the applicant may be distinguished from the goods of others shall be refused registration on the principal register on account of its nature unless it--

(a) Consists of or comprises immoral, deceptive, or scandalous matter; or matter which may disparage or falsely suggest a connection with persons, living or dead, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols, or bring them into contempt, or disrepute; or a geographical indication which, when used on or in connection wines or spirits, identifies a place by the applicant on or after one year after the date on which the WTO Agreement (as defined in section 3501(9) of the title 19) enters into force with respect to the United States.」

[3]同註1，第19~21。

[4]AU Trade Marks Act 1995 §42

「An application for the registration of a trade mark must be rejected if:

(a)      the trade mark contains or consists of scandalous matter.」

[5]同註1，第13~14頁。

[6]COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark

Article 7 Absolute grounds for refusal

1.The following shall not be registered:

(f)trade marks which are contrary to the public policy or to accepted principles of morality;

[7]同註1，第13~16頁。

[8]UK Trade Marks Act 1994§3(3)(a)

「A trade mark shall not be registered if it is-

(a)      Contrary to public policy or to accepted principles of morality explicit/taboo signs.」

[9]鍾桂華，商標違反公序良俗之研究—日本實務及案例探討，智慧財產權月刊第158期，民國101年2月，第38~39頁。

[10]日本商标法§4 I ⑦：

「关于下列商标，虽有前条规定，不能进行商标注册：

（７）有可能危害公共秩序或良好风俗的商标；」

國內優先權 / 專利工程師林孟萱

Domestic Priority right /Patent Engineer Meng-Xuan Lin

一.前言

1. Preface

為使申請人在國內也可享受和國際優先權相同之利益，專利法90年修整導入國內優先權制度。國內優先權的目的是為使申請人於提出發明或新型專利申請案後，可以該申請案作為基礎(先申請案)，於12個月內再提出修正或合併新的請求標的再提出新的申請案(後申請案)，且能以先申請案之申請日，作為後申請案專利要件審查基準的時間點。

In order to guarantee its applicant to enjoy priority right domestically and internationally, Patent Law amended its domestic priority right system after 2001. The purpose for such domestic priority right is that an applicant lodged its invention application or utility model application as a base (prior patent application), to where you can lodge other applications within twelve (12) months period (later patent application), the priority date claimed at the prior patent application would be used as the reference date during the patentability examination.

二.國內優先權

2. Domestic Priority Right

專利法第28條規範了國內優先權的相關規定。國內優先權只適用於發明與新型專利，且發明與新型專利之間，可互為主張優先權之基礎案，但國內優先權不適用於設計專利；主張國內優先權之先申請案與後申請案的申請人須為同一人，如先申請案的人請人是複數，則應完全一致。

Patent Law Article 28 sets out its specification of relevant provisions for domestic priority right. Such domestic priority right would only be used for invention application or utility model application. In between its invention application and utility model patent, he/she may claim for such priority right in respect of the invention or creation described in the specification or drawings submitted along with his/her prior patent application; however such principle does not apply to a design patent as such. For people who claims for its domestic priority right shall be the same applicant for its prior patent application and later patent application, same rules apply to more than two applicants that need to be the same.

主張國內優先權可於後申請案增加、補充先申請案未揭露的技術內容，擴大專利保護範圍；也可透過主張國內優先權，將判斷申請案是否符合新穎性、進步性或先申請原則的專利要件的審查基準日提前到先申請案的申請日，但不是將申請日回溯至優先權日。因此，申請人可利用國內優先權制度，在先申請案優先權期限將到期前，提出後申請案，讓專利權保護期限延長近1年。

For people who seek for domestic priority right, they can do so by adding up its application and to add more details on its technical contents, for which has not been previously disclosed in the prior patent application so as to expend its coverage for patent protection. Through domestic priority claim, we can determine whether such application satisfied its patent application requirement in terms of its novelty, progressive or prior patent application’s application elements. Where an applicant files a further application based on a prior invention application or utility model application, he/she may claim for the priority right in respect of the invention or creation along with his/her prior patent application within twelve (12) months from the filing date of the prior patent application. For a patent application claiming for its priority, the priority date shall be used as a reference date during the patentability examination.

然國內優先權不可累積主張，先申請案已主張國內優先權或國際優先權之部分，不得於後申請案中主張國內優先權。先申請案分割之子案或改請案亦不得再被另一案主張國內優先權，但分割後存續之原申請案不在此限。若先申請案被已公告、被審定不予專利、已撤回或被智慧財產局處分不受理時，則不可作為國內優先權的基礎案。

一申請案主張國內優先權之後，先申請案將自後申請案申請日後滿15個月，視為撤回，以避免重覆公開以及審查 。即使後申請案僅就先申請案的部分主張優先權，該先申請案仍全部被視為撤回，若要保留先申請案未被主張國內優先權的部分，須於主張優先權前，先對先申請案提出分割申請。

However you cannot accumulate its domestic priority claim especially for its application which has been used for its domestic or international priority claim nor to use the later patent application for its prior patent application. For its divisional application, you cannot use this as another case to claim for its domestic priority right; however exception applies if such division coexists with the prior patent application. However if such prior patent application is published and it was determined not to grant such patent, be withdrawn, or if such application is rejected on procedural grounds or on the ground of the ineligibility of the applicant, such prior patent application cannot be used as domestic priority right application.

-where claiming for such priority is made and the examination decision has been made in respect of the prior patent application, such application shall be deemed to be withdrawn after 15 months from its filing date to avoid repetitive disclosure and examination. Even the later application claim for its priority right for its prior application, such application shall be deemed to be withdrawn. If you wish to preserve the part that has not claim for its domestic priority right for its prior patent application, prior to such priority claim, you would need to lodge a divisional application to do so.

參考資料：

專利法逐條釋義

專利審查基準

經濟部智慧財產局https://www.tipo.gov.tw/mp.asp?mp=1

References:

Step by Step interpretation of Patent Law

Patent Examination Guidelines

Intellectual Property Office <https://www.tipo.gov.tw/mp.asp?mp=1>

簡介專利申請案檢索報告 / 專利工程師 林孟萱

Brief Introduction for its search report which is published together with the application / Patent Engineer Meng-Xuan Lin

一.檢索報告之目的

The purpose for search report

專利申請案檢索報告是用來記錄實體審查的過程中，審查人員認為與申請案請求項相關之文獻段落，關聯之程度與種類會使用關聯性代表加以標註。檢索報告無須申請，通常該報告會與「審查意見通知函」或「核准審定書」一同寄給專利申請人。

The search report which is published together with the application is to record the process of substantial examination. The examiner will consider whether its patent applicant is relevant by looking at relevant claims. The degree of relevance and its patent types would be marked with its associated representatives. Under general circumstances, such report and “observation of the examination” or “Approved Examination Report” would be sent to the patent applicant at once.

二.何時不會有檢索報告

When there is no search report?

當申請案之全部請求項或部分請求項有下列情事者，會先以「審查意見通知函」通知申請人，待申請人於期限內提出可排除下列情事之申復說明或修正說明書後，才會於後續審查程序檢附檢索報告，否則將直接進行審定。

When it comes to patent application requesting to review all or partial items as follows, the Patent Authority may, in the course of examining an invention patent application, notify its patent applicant with a “observation of the examination” to make a supplement or amendment to the specification and/or drawings within a specified time limit, otherwise such application would go directly to its examination process without any follow up search report.

發明為非利用自然法則之技術思想之創作者。（專利法第21條）The term “invention” is used herein refers to any creation of technical concepts by utilizing the rules of nature (Patent Act Article 21).

為專利法規定不予發明專利者。（專利法第24條各款）Items shall not be granted an invention patent according to its Patent Act. (Patent Act Article 21 listed items).

專利說明書發明說明未明確且充分揭露發明技術特徵內容，導致無法瞭解發明內容者。(專利法第26條第1項) If the description of invention did not contain a sufficiently clear information and have not disclosed its contents completely, in result not to understand its contents fully (Patent Act Article 26, Paragraph 1).

為非可供產業上利用之發明者。(專利法第22條) An invention which is not industrially applicable (Patent Act Article 22).

與另一發明或新型專利申請案為相同之發明。(專利法第31條) if such patent application is identical for another Invention patents or Utility model patents (Patent Act Article 31).

不符發明單一性規定者。(專利法第33條) Not consistent with its exclusiveness requirement (Patent Act Article 33).

實質上非為兩個以上之發明而為分割申請，該分割案以不符分割之實體要件處分不准分割時。(專利法第33條) In the case of a patent application which substantially involves two or more inventions, such division does not satisfy the division requirement and decided not to divide its patent application into two or more separate divisional applications (Patent Act Article 33).

申請專利所為說明書、申請專利範圍或圖式之修正內容，超出申請時原說明書或圖式所揭露之範圍者。（專利法第43條第2項）For its patent application especially when interpreting the scope of claims, the description and drawings, when such application exceed the scope of contents as disclosed in the original specification and drawings submitted along with the patent application (Patent Act Article 43, Paragraph 2).

此外，檢索報告是實體審查制度下的產物，故未經實體審查之新型專利，不會有專利申請案檢索報告。

In addition, such search report is the product of substantive examination; therefore if its utility model did not go through its official substantive examination, there won’t be any search report on its patent applications.

三. 關聯性代碼之意義

Relevant Codes and its meaning

關聯性代碼通常會在專利申請案檢索報告最下方作說明，代碼意義如下：

Relevant codes would usually

代碼X：單獨引用即足以否定發明新穎性或進步性之特別相關文獻。

“X” indicates that a single document is particularly relevant for reasons of novelty.

代碼Y：結合一篇或多篇其他文獻下，足以否定發明進步性之特別相關文獻。

“Y” indicates document particularly relevant if combined with another “Y” document.

代碼A：顯示一般技術水平而不能否定發明新穎性或進步性之文獻。

“A” used for a document representing “state of the art not prejudicial to the novelty or inventive step of the claimed invention

代碼D：申請案之說明書中已記載之文獻。

“D” represents document cited in the application.

代碼E：申請在先、公開/公告在後之本國專利文獻。

“E” represents when there is potentially conflicting patent documents, for which documents bearing a filing or propriety date earlier than the filing date of the application searched but published later than that date and the content of which would constitute prior art relevant to novelty.

代碼O：關於口頭揭露、公開使用、販賣或展覽陳列之文獻。

“O” represents non-written disclosure such or oral revealed、public use、sell or exhibit display of literature.

代碼P：介於申請日與優先權日間公開之文獻。

“P” represents documents published on dates falling between the date of filing of the application being examined and the date of priority claimed, or the earliest priority if there is more than one.

代碼L：其他理由所引用之文獻。如違反專利法第31條規定先申請原則及一案兩請之專利文獻及其他文獻。

“L” represents documents cited for other reasons. For example if you breached its Patent Law Article 31 when two or more applications are filed for the same invention only the application filed first may be granted an invention patent.

四. 結語

4. Conclusion

由專利申請案檢索報告可看出審查人員對該專利申請案是否具可專利性之意見。於申復答辯時，須根據檢索報告所列出之不具新穎性、進步性或其他不具專利性之相關項目文獻進行分析、提出資料佐證或修改申請專利範圍，來使得專利申請案符合「新穎性」、「進步性」、「擬制喪失新穎性」與「先申請原則」。

According to the search report which is published together with the application, we can know whether patent examiners have any opinions toward its patent application. This is especially important when filing a statement of defense; you need to provide all the evidences or to make a supplement or amendment to the specification and/or drawings within a specified time limit to counter examiner’s queries in terms of their concerns that lacks novelty, progressive or any other claiming that its examiner think should be excluded from its specification in order to fulfill its patent application requirement of novelty、progressive、loss of novelty function or first application principle.

參考資料：

專利法逐條釋義

專利審查基準

經濟部智慧財產局 專利Q&A

https://www.tipo.gov.tw/lp.asp?CtNode=7633&CtUnit=3732&BaseDSD=7&mp=1

References:

Step by Step interpretation of Patent Law

Patent Examination Guidelines

Intellectual Property Office Patent Q&A

https://www.tipo.gov.tw/lp.asp?CtNode=7633&CtUnit=3732&BaseDSD=7&mp=1

我國發明專利侵害鑑定之方法（下）  專利工程師  /  陳詠容

專利範圍雖無歷史禁反言之適用，惟如被控侵權對象與先前技術相同，或依先前技術所能輕易完成者，為避免專利權人藉由均等論擴張後之範圍，涵蓋與先前技術相同或依先前技術所能輕易完成之部分，造成公眾利益受有損害。被控侵權對象經判斷與某一先前技術相同，或為一先前技術與專利申請時之所屬技術領域中的通常知識之簡單組合，或為二以上先前技術之簡單組合，則得依先前技術阻卻主張不適用均等論。

而發明專利權範圍，以申請專利範圍為準；於解釋申請專利範圍時，得審酌說明書及圖式，此乃《專利法》第58條第4項所明文。說明書或圖式中有揭露，但並未記載於專利之請求項的技術手段，非屬專利法所賦予專利權的保護範圍內，專利權人不得以均等論重為主張或復奪(recapture)其原可於專利請求項中申請，卻不申請之技術手段。貢獻原則的意旨便在於，如說明書或圖式中有揭露但未於請求項主張之技術，應被視為貢獻給社會大眾，專利權人不得藉由均等論而重為主張其原可申請卻不申請之技術手段。

誠如國內學術文章已指出，美國最高法院在肯認均等論保護專利範圍的，認為此種不確定性乃是為了保護創新所必要付出的代價的原則之下，惟趨勢上，仍呈現出一股限縮均等論適用之浪潮。主要係均等論的適用會使得申請範圍具有不確定性，難以清楚劃定專利權範圍的界限，容易導致競爭者產生難以預期的訟爭，或者後進者在投入產品生產製照後，對於侵權與否，存有高度的不確定性，造成司法資源有浪費之疑慮。此種趨勢，亦促使我國於「2015年專利侵害要點草案」中，擬納入申請歷史禁反言、先前技術阻卻及貢獻原則等限制均等論之相關規範。

參考資料：

• 專利侵害鑑定要點，經濟部智慧財產局，2004年。
• 專利侵害鑑定要點草案， 經濟部智慧財產局，2015年。
• 專利法。
• 劉尚志、張添榜、陳薈潁，專利均等侵害判斷之判決分析：由美國專利案例觀照臺灣最高法院判決，台灣法學雜誌第219期，2013年，第112-143頁。

我國發明專利侵害鑑定之方法（中）  專利工程師  /  陳詠容

相對於均等論，專利範圍雖符合文義讀取，惟倘其技術手段與被控侵權對象所使用之技術原理，係以實質不同的手段，達到相同或類似的功能或結果，即使被控對象落入專利之文義範圍內，應判斷其適用逆均等論，不構成侵權。然而，逆均等論所欲避免的「文義相同但實質不同」的目的，近年來，在美國專利實務上，大多在鑑定流程的第一步，解釋申請專利範圍時便已解決，逆均等論僅是在判決中附帶的論述，似無直接適用逆均等論而認定不侵權的案例。配合實務現況，我國「2015年要點草案」擬刪除逆均等論之相關規範。

有鑑於文字之敘述有其侷限性，無法合理期待專利權人於申請專利時能將所有無法預見但實質相同的技術特徵寫入請求項中，因此，專利權範圍不應僅侷限於文義範圍，而應包含均等範圍，此乃均等論之意旨。然而，均論一方面藉由擴張專利範圍的方式，保全專利權人之權益，另一方面，卻造成公眾無法由專利公告的字面得知專利權的範圍，使得專利侵權的判斷充滿不確定性，甚至提高訴訟與社會成本。在這樣的情況之下，均等論實有必要被適當的限縮。相較於2004年的「專利侵害鑑定要點」，我國智財局於「2015年專利侵害鑑定要點草案」納入均等論之限制事項。倘專利符合申請歷史禁反言、先前技術阻卻及貢獻原則，則被控侵權對象應視為未落入專利範圍內。

呈上，專利權人於專利申請過程為符合專利申請要件或為維護專利，而所為之修正、更正或申復，導致最後限縮專利權範圍，則專利權人便無法依據均等論主張其於申請專利時無法預見但實質相同的技術特徵。換而言之，該修正、更正或申復將導致放棄的部分，專利權人不得再藉由均等論而重為主張其所放棄之申請標的，此即所謂的歷史禁反言。

參考資料：

• 專利侵害鑑定要點，經濟部智慧財產局，2004年。
• 專利侵害鑑定要點草案， 經濟部智慧財產局，2015年。
• 專利法。
• 劉尚志、張添榜、陳薈潁，專利均等侵害判斷之判決分析：由美國專利案例觀照臺灣最高法院判決，台灣法學雜誌第219期，2013年，第112-143頁。

我國發明專利侵害鑑定之方法（上）   專利工程師  /  陳詠容

為了保護發明人的智慧財產權，我國專利法授予專利權人於一定的期間內，享有法律賦予之專利權，排除他人未經其同意而實施其專利。而當他人未經專利權人同意而製造、販賣、為販賣之要約、使用或為上述目的而進口其專利物品時，專利權人得依《專利法》及《民法》請求損害賠償。倘專利侵權案件有爭議，雙方當事人得尋求法律途徑解決。法院在受理發明專利訴訟案件時，依據《專利法》第103條第2項及第3項規定，得囑託司法院指定之侵害專利鑑定專業機構為鑑定。經濟部智慧財產局（以下簡稱「智財局」）為有助於侵害專利鑑定機構提昇作業之正確性，遂提出「專利侵害鑑定要點」供法官於送鑑定時參考。

智財局於2015年草擬的「專利侵害鑑定要點草案」（以下簡稱「2015年要點草案」）中指出，在判斷專利是否有被侵害時，應先解釋專利範圍之文字意義，以合理界定專利權範圍。後比對經文字解釋後之專利技術特徵，及被控侵權對象之技術內容的差別。文字意義解釋的用意在於確認專利是否完全對應表現在被控侵權對象中（文義讀取）。一般常見被控侵權物雖未落入文義讀取的範圍內，惟其僅就其申請專利範圍之技術特徵稍作非實質之改變或替換，基於保障專利權人利益的立場，專利權範圍得擴大至，與專利範圍之技術特徵均等的範圍，而非僅侷限於專利之文義範圍（均等論）。

我國有部分法院見解在判斷被控侵權物是否落入均等範圍時，已採取美國的三步測試法，比較兩者之間是否以實質相同的手段，達成實質相同的功能，進一步判斷是否產生實質相同的結果。值得注意的是，均等論如被過度廣泛應用，勢必將會與智財局公告的專利保護範圍產生衝突，而法院判決並沒有權利擴大專利局核准的專利範圍。因此，均等論與文義讀取皆應建立在全要件原則的基礎上，專利範圍請求項經智財局公告的專利範圍，都被視為決定專利範圍的重要限制，亦即，申請專利請求項中的技術特徵，均用於比對被控侵權對象。

參考資料：

• 專利侵害鑑定要點，經濟部智慧財產局，2004年。
• 專利侵害鑑定要點草案， 經濟部智慧財產局，2015年。
• 專利法。
• 劉尚志、張添榜、陳薈潁，專利均等侵害判斷之判決分析：由美國專利案例觀照臺灣最高法院判決，台灣法學雜誌第219期，2013年，第112-143頁。

專利進步性之判斷（三） —  我國於進步性之原則     專利工程師  /  陳詠容

三、我國專利法對於進步性之判斷準則

對照美國判例所建立之原理原則與我國《專利法》與《專利審查基準》之進步性判斷標準大體上為一致的。我國於在判斷進步性時依循下列步驟^[1]：(1) 確定申請專利之發明的範圍；(2) 確定相關先前技術所揭露的內容；(3) 確定申請專利之發明所屬技術領域中具有通常知識者之技術水準；(4) 確認申請專利之發明與相關先前技術之間的差異；(5) 該發明所屬技術領域中具有通常知識者參酌相關先前技術所揭露之內容及申請時之通常知識，判斷是否能輕易完成申請專利之發明的整體。且判斷時應以專利申請發明整體為對象，綜合考量其是否有動機而明顯結合相關先前技術，包含技術領域、所欲解決之問題、功能或作用的關連性或發明的教示或建議。發明雖經上述判斷不具進步性，惟倘其具有無法預期之功效、解決長期存在的問題、克服技術偏見、獲得商業上的成功，則申請專利之發明仍應視為非能輕易完成。

四、我國判例對於進步性之判斷準則

審視最高法院廢棄智慧財產法院或台灣高等法院之判決或裁定中，最高法院所持判斷爭議專利是否具進步性（非顯而易知）之理由，其主要包含如下[2]：(1) 爭議專利是否具功效之增進；(2) 爭議專利是否係所屬技術領域中具有通常知識者依申請前之先前技術顯能輕易完成；(3) 爭議專利是否為熟習該項技術者所能預期之一般性技術發展；(4) 先前技術所揭露者於欲解決之問題是否提供教示建議或動機；(5) 爭議專利是否可達成不同之功效。其中又以專利是否具功效之增進為主要判斷標準者占大多數，而先前技術對於爭議專利是否提供教示建議或動機則占少數，與美國實務上判斷進步性之準則相符。

而最高行政法院對各引證之考量則係著重於引證案是否教示或揭露系爭專利之技術特徵，未探究引證案是否教示系爭專利所欲解決之問題[3]。此與KFR案中美國最高法院所教示兩原則一致，即應以請求項之客觀範圍為判斷標的，而先前技術與爭議專利所欲解決的問題雖未必完全相同，不能因此即不考慮以引證專利所揭露之技術作為證據。且應設想一位通常知識者在面對問題時，有可能利用的所有解決方式，不應將技術領域侷限於該發明之所屬領域。

專利進步性之判斷（二）—美國判例於進步性之原則          專利工程師  /  陳詠容

呈上篇，2007 年美國最高法院於 KSR v. Teleflex 案[1]除了重申Graham判決提出的分析方法應為廣泛、彈性，更指出TSM 檢測法之運用不宜僵化^[2]，認為[3] (1) 引證案不應侷限於所欲解決的問題相同：在探求一專利請求項是否具備非顯著性時，應以請求項之客觀範圍為判斷標的，而非專利權人企圖解決什麼問題上或受到什麼特定的啟發 。縱然先前技術解決的問題，未必與爭議發明完全相同，不能僅因引證專利主要目的與爭議專利標的不同即不考慮以引證專利所揭露之技術作為證據；(2) 先前技術應涵蓋所有技術領域：且一位通常知識者在面對問題時有可能利用的所有解決方式，因此不應將技術領域侷限於該發明之所屬領域； (3) 「教示、建議或誘因」的考量不應僅限於先前技術：市場改良的渴望與顧客的需求所形成的市場力量，亦可形成新發明技術的因果關係；(4) 可預見之成功並非發明：一個擁有通常技術的人因市場需求而採取某種解決方式，而創造出原先預期之成功時，這不是發明而是常識，為顯而易見的嘗試(obvious to try)，不符進步性應為非顯而易見之規定。

KSR案使得非顯而易見性在進步性的審查上較為嚴格，請求項易受到先前技術之挑戰，新申請之專利取得趨於困難，而已取得專利之申請案則易於遭受不具進步性而撤銷其專利權之挑戰[4]。而如欲舉證專利權不具進步性，發明人在專利所屬技術領域所受之訓練或教育程度、對系爭發明之成功的合理預期或發明是否由常用的研發方式研發出來，皆成為KSR案後得做為判斷因素之證據。

專利進步性之判斷（一）—美國判例於進步性之原則—   專利工程師  /  陳詠容

一、前言

新穎性、進步性與產業可利用性為取得專利權之三大要件，發明欲取得專利權需同時兼具該三要素。然而綜觀專利行政爭訟與民事訴訟之案例，不難發現近期與進步性相關的爭議佔了絕大部份之比例。本文分作四篇，前兩篇先帶讀者了解美國判例對於進步性所建立出之判斷準則，接著檢視該準則與我國現行專利法與專利審查基準對於進步性判斷基準之異同，最後探討我國實務判決之判定標準。

二、美國判例於進步性之原則

美國對於進步性之判斷，早已豎立了TSM檢測法，即教示（Teaching）、建議（Suggestion）及動機（Motivation）。而1966年美國最高法院於Graham v. John Deere Co.^[1]案（以下簡稱「Graham案」）提出進步性分析原則^[2]：(1) 確定先前技術之範圍與內容；(2) 確定先前技術與有爭議之專利範圍請求項間之區別；(3) 確定相關領域一般技術之水準。如經此三步驟判斷出爭議專利範圍請求項係其所屬領域中具通常知識者可輕易完成者，則該發明則為顯而易見，惟仍須同時考量爭議之專利範圍是否有商業上成功、解決長期未解決之問題、或他人皆無法成功發明等次要衡量因素。然而，TSM檢測法在美國實務運作卻產生引證資料只限於明示，且忽略所屬技術領域中具有通常知識者之角色等問題[3]。

2007 年美國最高法院於 KSR v. Teleflex 案[4]除了重申Graham判決提出的分析方法應為廣泛、彈性，更指出TSM 檢測法之運用不宜僵化^[5]，認為[6] (1) 引證案不應侷限於所欲解決的問題相同；(2) 先前技術應涵蓋所有技術領域； (3) 「教示、建議或誘因」的考量不應僅限於先前技術；(4) 可預見之成功並非發明。