新加坡專利法於2014年2月14日公佈的輔助審查（supplementary examination）程序，將於2017年取消，確切取消日期未定。凡新加坡專利申請案於上述確切取消日期之後方取得申請日者，將不允許提出輔助審查程序。然若是經由PCT進入新加坡之國際申請案，其國際申請日早於上述確切取消日期者，仍得提出輔助審查之申請，方法是在提出實質審查時，一併提交其他特定國家對應專利申請案、或是其國際專利申請案之官方最終檢索/審查結果。
輔助審查程序係指當新加坡專利申請案在其他特定國家中另有對應的專利申請案並且已有官方最終檢索/審查結果時，可以提交給新加坡專利局作為加速審查的依據。
目前提出輔助審查，並不需要繳交官方規費，但自2017年1月1月日起，提交輔助審查將須繳交官方規費，規費金額每年進行調整。
另外，新加坡專利法中“法定不予專利之事項”相關規定，將被重新審視並修訂，時程未知。
林夏陞 實習律師
學歷：
國立台北大學法律學系學士
國立台北大學法律學系財經法組碩士研究
經歷：
國科會計畫「結構體以外之工作與非重大修繕適用承攬人抵押權之探討」、「優先購買權之研究」研究助理
台北大學財經法研究中心助理
專業資格：
律師考試及格
專長：
民事及刑事訴訟
家事及少年案件
公司法
證券交易法
語言：
國語，英語，台語
In Taiwan, development of renewable energy is an irreversible trend to replace, at least partially, the fossil energy. Article 21 of the Basic Environment Law (2002) (環境基本法, the "Basic Law") ruled " Government bodies at all levels shall actively implement measures to control carbon dioxide emissions and establish related plans to mitigate the greenhouse effect." The wind power has been broadly recognized as a primary type of renewable energy, because of it less carbon emissions, sustainable power generation, lower ecological damage, and respectively higher energy conversion rate (compare to other renewable energy).
In order to ensure the energy development will not cause irreparable harm to the environment, Article 24 of the Basica Law further regulated that "The central government shall establish an environmental impact assessment (EIA) system to prevent and reduce the negative impact of government policies or development activities on the environment." Section 1(10), Article 5 of the Environmental Impact Assessments Act openly stipulated the EIA shall be conducted for "nuclear and other energy" developments. Such "other energy" include the wind power.[1]
However, a big wind power project proposed by the InfraVest Wind Power Group (a Germany company) located in Yuanli, Miaoli county, which had passed the EIA process, encountered local residences’ continual contests since 2012. What is the thing going on the EIS in this Yuan-li project? Whether the impact, caused by the noises, of the quality of residents’ life surrounding the wind turbines was not be sufficiently considered in the EIS process? This paper wants to introduce the Final Environment Impact Statement (FEIS)-- determined by the State of Hawaii-- for the Kawailoa Wind Farm project located on the north shore, as a reference. Hopefully we may have a lesson and learn for improvement on Taiwan’s environmental Impact Assessment system in the future.
This article has four parts. Part I will introduce the Kawailoa Wind Farm project. Part II is the factual and procedural background for this project. Part III is an analysis to the compliance of this project with Hawaii’s EIS regulations, and certain insufficiency of the procedure. Part IV will try to make some recommends to Taiwan’s EIS for wind power project, and conclude balance and hope in the wind power projects in Taiwan. Instead of the plans for off-shore wind power, this article will focus on the traditional inland wind turbines because it is still Taiwan’s sole wind power solution.
Part I INTRODUCTION
In 2010, Kawailoa Wind LLC[2] (“Kawailoa Wind”), proposed constructing a wind farm that included thirty sets of wind turbines and related wind energy generating facilities at the Kawailoa Plantation land (a big farm land on the north shore, Oahu, Hawaii), which was owned by Kamehameha Schools[3] (the “Project”). Kawailoa Wind prepared a final environmental impact statement (the “FEIS”) under Hawaii Restated Statutes (“HRS”) chapter 343 and Hawaii Administrative Rules (“HAR”) 11-200. Because this Project was established on highly scene-sensitive and culturally sensitive land in world famous popular visitor/tourist area (North Shore, Oahu)[4], the local residents were concerned about the aesthetical, ideological, and cultural impact.
First, the assessment of visual impact in the FEIS was possibly inadequate through the EIS process.
Second, the disclosure of inadequate or error information, or the misrepresentation while communicating with residents or members of local communities or groups, would be possibly argued as a violation of the purpose of EIS process which is to encourage the public participation as set forth in the HRS § 343-1.
Third, the lack of comprehensive cultural impact assessment (“CIA”) may probably be argued as a conflict to the EIS §343-2, amended by the H.B. 2895 Act 50,[5] which requires an EIS to disclose the effects of a proposed action on cultural practices of the community and the State.
[1] See Sec. 6, Art. 29 of the “Standards for Determining Specific Items and Scope of Environmental Impact Assessments for Development Activities” [開發行為應實施環境影響評估細目及範圍認定標準]: “Where one of the following circumstances applies with respect to the development of nuclear energy or other energy sources, an environmental impact assessment shall be conducted: . . . VI. The installation of wind power generation units and one of the following conditions applies. . .”
[2] The company profile of Kawailoa Wind LLC. See Manta (http://www.manta.com/c/mb0v5l2/kawailoa-wind-llc?utm_expid=82789632-25.OzEpm4oGQWOCALlDNoBDpg.0)
[3] Kamehameha Schools owns lots of lands in Hawaii from legacy. See Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamehameha_Schools
[4] See Hawaii Tourism Authority, “North Shore, Oahu,” available at http://www.gohawaii.com/en/oahu/regions-neighborhoods/north-shore/#newCustomSearch:false
[5] H.B. 2895 Act 50, 20th Leg., Reg. Sess. (Haw. 2000)
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
In 2007, Kamehameha Schools developed a North Shore Master Plan to integrate the use of their lands on the North Shore of Oahu, Hawaii. They seek the returns of culture, education, environment, economy, and community of this region (the “Master Plan”).[1] “Wind energy has shown great promise for economic returns from preliminary studies…The wind technology has a relatively small footprint will likely be compatible with most agricultural uses.”[2] Under such consideration of “economic returns,” Kamehameha School adopted the Kawailoa Wind project as a part of the Master Plan and provided the lands, which closed to the Waimea Bay--the most famous beach park in North Shore, to Kawailoa Wind.
Kawailoa Wind proposed to build renewable energy (wind power) facilities,[3] including thirty wind turbines with generating capacity of up to 70 MW per hour and other supporting structures.[4] In addition, related communication equipment was installed at two existing Hawaiian Telecom facilities on Oahu’s highest mountain--Mt. Ka`ala. Because of this installation, the EIS process was mandatorily triggered. As per Hawaii law.
Although Kawailoa Wind claimed that its goal was to increase the use of clean, renewable energy and reduce the State of Hawaii’s dependence on fossil fuels, a twenty-five (25) years power purchase agreement, [5] with stable revenues, was entered into with Hawaii Electric Cooperation (“HECO,”) which constituted a significant incentive to Kawailoa Wind-- for the sake of such substantial economic benefits.
PROCEDRUAL BACKGROUND
The Hawaii EIS process related to the Kawailoa Wind project includes:
- the trigger of EIS process;
- the scoping;
- the EIS preparation notice (EISPN);
- the draft EIS (DEIS);
- the final EIS (FEIS); and
- the mitigation methodology.
In most cases, a judicial challenge process under HRS § 343-7 would allow the public/environmental/community groups to help the decision makers better consider the new wind farm project more completely, while the Kawailoa Wind did not faced those private challenges. Here is a brief of the mentioned processes.
(1) EIS trigger: because Kawailoa Wind project used a small piece (0.27 Acres) of land o Although the Kawailoa project did not get into the n Mt. Ka’ala owned by the State, the EIS process was triggered under the HRS§ 343-5(a).[6] However, according to the HRS § 201N-8 (b), the permission for a renewable energy facility shall not be made until after final acceptance of an environmental impact statement, and a draft EIS shall be prepared at the earliest practicable time.[7] Accordingly, an EIS process shall be required for the new Pupukea Wind project.
(2) Scoping: Scope is an important step in the EIS process after it is triggered. Scoping is to determine the scope of the EIS, and to determine the significant issues to be discussed in the EIS.[8] An applicant may segment the proposal into separated pieces thus to evade the possible EIS process and defeat the purpose of EIS review. Therefore, a proposal shall be well scoped to prevent improper segmentation.[9] In Hawaii, there are four scenarios of actions will be treated as a single action in order to avoid “segmentation”.[10] Maimea Valley may monitor such scoping-relevant activities noticed by the Office of Environmental Quality Control (OEQC)[11] in order to step in earlier.
(3) EISPN: On September 23, 2010, First Wind LLC prepared an EIS Preparation Notice (EISPN) and submitted tothe Hawaii State Energy Office of Department of Business, Economic Development and Tourism (the “DEBDT”) in accordance with the HRS § 201N-8 (2013) and HRS § 343-5(e), without Environmental Assessment (the “EA,” which is usually the first stage of environmental impact evaluation.)[12] A thirty-day consultation period expired on October 30, 2010.[13]
(4) DEIS: On February 23, 2011, First Wind LLC prepared a Draft of EIS (DEIS) and submitted tothe DEBDT. A forty-five day review period under HRS§343-5(e) expired on August 9, 2011. During the thirty-day consultation period under EISPN and the forty-five day review period under the DEIS, Kawailoa Wind communicated with and gave presentations to local community groups such as the North Shore Chamber of Commerce and the North Shore Neighborhood Board.[14] Kawailoa Wind received twenty seven letters with comments and replied to them.[15]
(5) FEIS. On July 9, 2011, First Wind LLC prepared and submitted the FEIS to DEBDT. Eleven days later, on July 20, 2011, the DBEPT quickly accepted that FEIS.[16] A sixty-day period after the acceptance of the FEIS expired without any challenge or request for judicial review[17] from the public.
(6) Mitigations: Kawailoa Wind presented two major approaches in the FEIS,[18] inter alia, to mitigate certain unresolved issues, including: to amend the original layout of the construction or to remove certain turbines on the Kawailoa plantation thus minimize the impact on military flight and ground training practices in that area,[19]and to establish a Habitat Conservation Plan ("HCP")[20] for endangered species[21] as required by the Hawaii Endangered Species Act.[22] A separate FEIS for the above mentioned HCP was made and accepted by the authorized agency.[23]
[1] See. “The Plan”, pp.2-4, the attachment of North Shore Plan website ( http://www.ksbe.edu/nsplan/)
[2] Id. p 4.
[3] The proposed action including: See the “Proposed Action”, FEIS, pp. Summary-5
[4] Including: interconnection facilities; communication towers; an operations and maintenance building and temporary laydown area; meteorological monitoring equipment; and onsite access roads which may use some lands owned by individuals other than Kamehameha Schools.
[5] See. “Application of Hawaiian Electronic Company Inc for Approval of Power Purchase Agreement for as available renewable energy with Kawailoa Wind LLC” Daily Active Report as of 12/12/2011, the Public Utility Commission of State of Hawaii, Docket No. 2011-0224, Decision and Order No. 30012. (http://dms.puc.hawaii.gov/dms/DailyActivityReport.jsp?reportDate=12/12/2011)
“Construction Begins on Kawailoa Wind Project in Hawaii”, Feb 27, 2012, Industry News, Enegyonline. See http://www.energyonline.com/Industry/News.aspx?NewsID=7561&Construction_Begins_on_Kawailoa_Wind_Project_in_Hawaii
[6] The land where two communication sites located on Mt. Ka’ala was classified as a conservation district, the EA was also required to be applied by the Applicant. HRS §343-5 (2) “Proposed any use within any land classified as a conservation district by the state land use commission under Chapter 205.”
[7] HRS§343-5 (e )
[8] Roger W. Findley and Daniel A. Farber, “Environmental Law In a Nutshell”, 7th edition, Thomson West, p. 36.
[9] Id. p.37.
[10] HAR §11-200-7.
[11]HRS §343-3 (b).
[12] On June 27, 2012, the Act 172 (2012) was passed by Hawaii Congress (Gov. Msg. No. 1275) to amend HRS §343-5 (e), saying that “if the agency determines, through its judgment and experience, that an environmental impact statement is likely to be required, the agency may choose not to prepare an environmental assessment and instead shall prepare an environmental impact statement that begins with the preparation of an environmental impact statement preparation notice as provided by rules”. Before the Act 172, there was a divergence in practice: OEQC insisted to have a EA first even the EIS is inevitable required; but the applicants or agency was jump to the EIS stage. The Kawailoa Wind Farm project is the case to skip to EIS stage.
[13] HAR § 11-200-15 (b) “Upon publication of a preparation notice in the periodic bulletin, agencies, groups, or individuals shall have a period of thirty days from the initial issue date in which to request to become a consulted party and to make written comments regarding the environmental effects of the proposed action”.
[14] See. FEIS. p. SUMMARY-7.
[15] “List of Comments Received on Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Kawailoa Wind Farm Project”, Table F-1 of the FEIS.
[16] See supra note 12.
[17] HRS §343-7
[18] “Unresolved issues” See. Section 4.5 of the FEIS
[19] July 20, 2011, Letter of Acceptance of Kawailoa Wind Farm Project Final Environment Impact Statement, A. “Background”
[20] On September 27, 2011, as the mitigation of the unresolved issues under the FEIS, a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) was established by the Kawailoa Wind to submit to the State of Hawaii Department of Land and Natural resources, Division of Forestry and Wildlife (DOFAW). Such HCP described the voidance and minimization measures to minimize collision risks to those species, including to development and contribute funds for research of the bird migration and other behaviors, and to restore of wetland or forest habitat for bat. The DOFAW grant Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) on to compliant with the provisions of HRS§343-5 (c).
[21] The wind farm would affect the habitats for at least six federally protected endangered species and one state-listed endangered species Newell’s shearwater, Hawaiian duck, Hawaiian stilt, Hawaiian coot, Hawaiian moorhen, Hawaiian short-eared owl, and Hawaiian horay bat. See. Section 3.5.2.3 of the FEIS.
[22] Endangered species may be possibly injured or killed if they collided with the wind-turbine generators or other infrastructure facilities. To compliant with Section 10 of the Endangered Species Act ( ESA ), 16 U.S.C §1538, which forbids “taking” any endangered species, Kawailoa Wind prepared a preparing Habitat Conservation Plan and applied for an Incidental Take Permit (ITP) and Incidental Take License (ITL) for the Kawailoa wind farm project. Such ITP and ITL allow “take” of those species, provided that the “take” is incidental to otherwise lawful activities. According to 50 CFR §17.3, “Take” means to harass, harm, pursue, hurt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect species listed as endangered or threatened, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct.
[23] “A Notice by the Fish and Wildlife Service on 08/24/2011”. Daily journal of the United State government (https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2011/08/24/2011-21614/kawailoa-wind-energy-generation-facility-oahu-hi-draft-habitat-conservation-plan-and-draft)
根據8月23日蘋果日報報導，日本有人設計「翻群機器人」程式，製造出虛擬ID後加入某個Line群組，然後可以在一瞬間解散群組。新北市某少女取得翻群機器人程式後，用來解散了一個網購服飾群組，經營該群組的賣家非常生氣，套出某少女的實話後，向警局報案，警局以妨害電腦使用罪函送法院少年法庭，最重可以處五年以下有期徒刑等。
隨著網路社群的風行，各式社群出現了群組功能，基於不同目的、身分而產生各種群組，社群成員也有機會加入各種群組，群組的管理因此變得日漸重要。而群組的管理方式，例如新增、移除群組成員，或是改變成員的權限，視系統（社群業者）之設定而異。例如臉書的社群，只有具管理者權限的成員，才能夠移除成員；至於Line的群組，在功能上，並沒有管理者與一般成員的區別，也就是說，人人都具有管理者權限。所以Line群組的成員名單，其實任何一個成員都可以編輯，換句話說，Line一開始就授予每個群組成員可以新增或刪除成員的權限。所謂翻群機器人，也不過就是在加入某群組之後，以程式自動化地、快速地把所有成員一個一個刪除，直到刪光所有成，群組自然就解散了。
報導內容只說警方以「妨害電腦使用罪」函送少年法庭，但沒有說明使用的法條。對照刑法妨害電腦罪章的可能適用法條，不外乎刑法第358條、第359條和第360條，以下簡單地逐條檢討：
一、刑法第358條規定：無故輸入他人帳號密碼、破解使用電腦之保護措施或利用電腦系統之漏洞，而入侵他人之電腦或其相關設備者...
在此暫不檢討立法本身的問題（以下兩條也是）。使用翻群機器人，是把程式裝在自己的手機或電腦上，合法送出刪除成員的指令到Line的伺服器，Line的系統也依照上述系統的權限設定，接受並在伺服器執行刪除成員的指令，而其他成員是在自己的手機或電腦上看到執行的結果，其間並沒有「入侵他人電腦或相關設備」的行為，不成立刑法第358條之罪。
二、刑法第359條：無故取得、刪除或變更他人電腦或其相關設備之電磁紀錄，致生損害於公眾或他人者...
使用翻群機器人之後，會造成Line伺服器與群組及使用者有關的電磁紀錄被修改（變更）甚至刪除，但請回頭看看條文內容， 一開始就是「無故」兩個字（另外兩條也是），作何解釋呢？在此忍不住向當年參與制訂草案的學者專家小小抱怨一下，立法者在強調明確性的刑法上加上不確定性高的用語，風險是要由司法來承擔的！從美國法（18 USC 1030）或歐洲理事會網路犯罪公約的用語可以看出，「無故」應限於「無授權（without authorization）」或「無權利（without right）」的情形。翻群機器人雖然變更或刪除了電磁紀錄，但這本來就是Line系統設定的權限所容許，所以沒有「無故」，也不成立刑法第359條之罪。
三、刑法第360條：無故以電腦程式或其他電磁方式干擾他人電腦或其相關設備，致生損害於公眾或他人者...
刑法第360條的干擾電腦罪，是以電磁方式破壞對於電腦的可用性（Availability），參照立法理由，本條處罰之對象乃「對電腦及網路設備產生重大影響之故意干擾行為」，例如以DDoS方式攻擊電腦，當然成立，就本案來說，刪除這個群組，造成使用者的不便，對於可用性的確發生影響，但是影響極微，算不上是對於電腦及網路設備的重大影響，而且是權限所允許，也不符「無故」的要件，所以恐怕也不會成立。
那麼警局函送少女，表示警方錯了？不，警方沒有不移送的權利，有人告，就要送，但從警方是「移送」或「函送」，可以看出警方的態度。後者的意思是：有人這麼告，但我們（警方）覺得好像，可能，不確定是有那麼一回事，所以請您（檢察官或法院）參考看看吧！
歐洲專利如何在指定國生效
眾律國際專利商標事務所專利專案副理陳弘易
2015-08-12
EPO及其締約國家/區域
歐洲專利組織（European Patent Organization，EPO）係基於歐洲專利公約（European Patent Convention，EPC）而成立，官方單位為歐洲專利局（European Patent Office）。
截至目前（2015/8/12），EPO共涵蓋了38個締約國家/區域，分別是阿爾巴尼亞、奧地利、比利時、保加利亞、克羅埃西亞、塞普勒斯、捷克、丹麥、愛沙尼亞、芬蘭、法國、德國、希臘、匈牙利、冰島、愛爾蘭、義大利、拉脫維亞、列支敦斯登、立陶宛、盧森堡、馬其頓、馬爾他、摩納哥、荷蘭、挪威、波蘭、葡萄牙、羅馬尼亞、聖馬力諾、塞爾維亞、斯洛伐克、斯洛伐尼亞、西班牙、瑞典、瑞士、土耳其和英國（Albania, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lichtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Macedonia, Malta, Monaco, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, San Marino, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey and United Kingdom）。各締約國家/區域加入EPO的時間點可參考[1]。
指定國的定義
若前述的國家/區域，在一件歐洲專利的申請日為有效的EPO締約國家/區域，即當然成為該件歐洲專利的指定國（designated contracting state）（EPC Art. 79(1),[2]）。然該件歐洲專利必須在特定官方期限（檢索報告公開後6個月）前繳納指定國家費方能在獲證（grant）後生效（EPC Art. 79(2),[2]）。一件歐洲在專利獲證前，隨時可以取消任一締約國家/區域的指定國資格（EPC Art. 79(3),[2]）。
值得注意的是，前述的締約國家/區域中，最後加入EPC的是塞爾維亞，加入日期為2010年10月1日[1]。
如何進入指定國生效
根據EPC第64條第1項[3]的規定，一件歐洲專利獲證，並於部份或是全部的指定國進行生效（Validation）程序[5]後，即在該部份或是全部的指定國生效。根據EPC第65條第1項規定，各指定國有權規範，一歐洲專利在獲證後3個月內，必須將該歐洲專利的內容，以其規定的語言之一進行翻譯並提交，方能維持在該指定國內的專利權。各指定國亦可規範比上述3個月更長的期限完成上述翻譯。
然而，由於各締約國家/區域的官方語言多有不同，在早期，當一件歐洲專利選擇進入多個指定國時，專利權人必須再負擔一筆為數不小的翻譯費用。為了使得歐洲專利能以更經濟並合理的方式維護其專利權，若干締約國家/區域在2000年10月17日於倫敦簽定了一份倫敦協議（London Agreement），此後亦陸續有其他締約國家/區域加入。
倫敦協議主要的規定如下：當一締約國家/區域的官方語言之一，為EPO的官方語言（英文、德文、法文）時，該締約國家/區域不應再要求一歐洲專利在獲證後進一步翻譯並提交，才能在該締約國家/區域生效；另外，當一締約國家/區域的官方語言並非是EPO的官方語言之一時，若一件歐洲專利是以該締約國家/區域所指定的EPO官方語言提交並獲證、或是曾經被翻譯成該指定的EPO官方語言，則該締約國家/區域亦不應再要求該歐洲專利在獲證後進一步翻譯全文並提交，但可要求以該締約國家/區域的官方語言之一，翻譯其請求項（claims）的部份[4]。
根據上述協議的精神，再配合各個締約國家/區域的相關規定，可以歸納出各締約國家/區域關於獲證後是否需要進一步翻譯的情形如下。
不再需要進一步翻譯的締約國家/區域有：英國、德國、法國、摩納哥、盧森堡、瑞士和列支敦斯登。
若一歐洲專利是以英文進行提交並獲證，則除了上述7個締約國家/區域外，尚有3個締約國家/區域不需要進一步翻譯，即阿爾巴尼亞、愛爾蘭和馬爾他；以下國家則會要求僅翻譯請求項為該國語言：克羅埃西亞、丹麥、芬蘭、匈牙利、冰島、拉脫維亞、立陶宛、馬其頓、荷蘭和瑞典；而下列國家則會進一步要求翻譯說明書全文為該國語言：奧地利（要求語言為德文）、比利時（要求語言為法文、荷蘭文或德文）、保加利亞、塞普勒斯（要求語言為希臘語）、捷克、愛沙尼亞、希臘、義大利、挪威、波蘭、葡萄牙、羅馬尼亞、聖馬力諾（要求語言為義大利文）、塞爾維亞、斯洛伐克、西班牙及土耳其。
[1]http://www.epo.org/about-us/organisation/member-states.html
[2]http://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/epc/2013/e/ar79.html
[3]http://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/epc/2013/e/ar64.html
[4]http://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/london-agreement.html
本所蔡昆洲合夥律師受聘為「律師公會全國聯合會」第10屆第1任「財經法委員會」副主任委員，將襄助律師公會辦理公司法、證券交易法、企業併購、公司治理、金融法務等法制工作。
Mr. Kunchou Tsai, Esq., the partner attorney at Zoomlaw, is appointed to chair as the Vice Chairperson of the Financial and Economic Law Committee, of Taiwanese National Bar Association, which is responsible for Corporate, Finance, M&A, Securities and Banking legal affairs.
辦
Taiwan Trademark 101 Series, What Should I Do When My Trademark Has a Likelihood of Confusion Problem?
Written by: James Y. Chang
Attorney-at-Law
1. Preamble
The competent authority found that the application for the trademark registration had a likelihood of confusion existing between the two trademarks by physical examinations and the application should be rejected. Before rendering a disposition of refusal pursuant to the preceding paragraph, a written notice stating grounds for refusal shall be given to the applicant, who may make following observations on the intended refusal within the prescribed period[1].
2. Restriction of the Designated Goods or Services
According to the Article 23 and 38 of the Trademark Act, no amendments shall be made unless such amendment is a restriction of designated goods or services. The restriction of goods may be made by deleting some of the designated goods, by changing a broader range of general goods to specific particular goods, for instance, cosmetics to lipsticks, or by defining the specification to particular goods of interest the applications of the goods, for instance, vaporizers to vaporizers for industrial use[2].
3. Request to Divide Application
The proprietor of a registered trademark may request the Registrar Office to divide the registration into two or more registrations by distributing the designated goods or services included in the original registration among divisional registrations[3].In applying for division of a trademark application, the original applicant shall submit a copy of the division application, a trademark application and relevant documents for each divided application[4]. The division may result in the original trademark application being divided into several new independent applications. A new application number is then assigned to each divided trademark and the examination of each divided trademark is processed. After the division has been approved, the original trademark application is marked with "division" and is closed accordingly[5].
4. Consent from a prior right holder
According to the Subparagraph 10 of Paragraph 1 of Article 30 of the Act, a trademark shall not be registered when there exists a likelihood of confusion on relevant consumers, unless the consent of the proprietor of the registered trademark has been given and is not obviously improper. Under the current Act, a letter of consent from the prior rights holder can waive the citation of conflicting prior rights, except in cases where the trademarks and the goods or services in conflict are identical. The amendment adds a proviso to the effect that such consent shall not waive the citation if there is obvious impropriety[6]. For example, if there are two trademarks belonging to different proprietors which are designated on identical goods or services, the function of these trademarks on indicating correct sources of goods or services will be lost and rights of consumers will be affected. A proprietor of a registered trademark keeping consenting others for concurrent registration after the court suspended the right of disposition of the registered trademark is also obviously improper[7].
[1]審定核駁理由先行通知實施要點，中華民國94年10月7日經授智字第09420030700號令修正。
[2] Examination Guidelines on “Likelihood of Confusion”. Enacted and promulgated on April 28, 2004 by the order of the MOEA, enforced on May 1, 2004. Amended and promulgated on April 20, 2012 by the order of the MOEA, enforced on July 1, 2012. Page 17.
[3] Article 37 of the Trademark Act.
[4] Namely, documentation specified in Articles 8 through 11 of the Trademarks Regulations.
[6] http://www.inta.org/INTABulletin/Pages/TAIWANAmendmentstotheTrademarkAct.aspx
[7] Examination Guidelines on “Likelihood of Confusion”. Page 19.
蘇崇哲 律師
學歷
經歷
資格
主要專長與承辦案件類型
著作與演講
黃翔彥 律師
學歷：
國立台灣大學法律系法學組學士(2009)
經歷：
正律法律事務所實習律師 (2012)
高蓋茨法律事務所 K&L GATES LLP(2012~2014)
耐斯集團總管理處(2014)
專長：
民事法、民刑事訴訟、勞工法、契約撰擬與審閱、公司法及公司投資財務併購
證照與曾受訓練：
律師高考及格（2011）
語言：
台語，國語，英語
人民之福音，終結借牌亂象！ -簡評104年6月12日修正之專利師法
實習律師李秋峰
一、前言
專利業務諸如申請、舉發或行政訴訟代理等事項，依法應以專利師、
專利代理人或律師為限。現行實務上因充斥未具有執照，招攬或執行專利
業務者，即借牌或租牌行為，有鑑於專利業務具有技術性與專業性，
為保障人民之權利，立法院終於通過新修正之專利法，新增刑事處罰規定，
以終結實務上之借牌亂象。
準此，本文將簡評 104年6月12日三讀通 過之 專利師法。
二、修法重點與相關專技人員比較整理
(一)修法重點
1、專利師資格取得
|
新法 |
舊法 |
|
經專利師考試及格及職前訓練合格者 |
經專利師考試及格者 |
2、擴大得受委任辦理之事項
|
新法 |
舊法 |
|
第九條 專利師得受委任辦理之業務如下： 一、專利之申請事項。 二、專利之舉發事項。 三、專利權之讓與、信託、質權設定、授權實施及強制授權事項。 四、專利訴願、行政訴訟事項。 五、專利侵害鑑定事項。 六、專利諮詢事項。 七、其他依專利法令規定之專利業務。 |
第九條 專利師之業務範圍如下： 一、專利之申請事項。 二、專利之異議、舉發事項。 三、專利權之讓與、信託、質權設定、授權實施及特許實施事項。 四、其他依專利法令規定之專利業務。 |
3、明定受雇於法人(包括社團法人及公司等財團法人)之專利師，
應以專任為限。
4、在職進修義務
|
新法 |
舊法 |
|
專利師應持續參加在職進修，每二年向專利專責機關提出完成在職進修之證明文件。 |
無 |
5、對於實務上之借牌行為，加重罰則並新增刑事處罰
|
新法 |
舊法 |
|
1、 行政罰 (1)未取得專利師證書或專利師證書經撤銷 或廢止，而對外刊登廣告、招攬第九條 第一款至第四款業務者，經限期令其停 止行為，屆期不停止其行為，或停止後 再為違反行為者，處新臺幣十萬元以上 五十萬元以下罰鍰 (2)專利師未加入專利師公會或受停止執行 業務處分，其受委任辦理第九條第一款 至第四款業務者，由專利專責機關處新 臺幣六萬元以上三十萬元以下罰鍰 專利師名稱者，由專利專責機關處新臺 幣三萬元以上十五萬元以下罰鍰。
2、刑罰 (1)未取得專利師證書或專利師證書經撤銷 或廢止，除依法律執行業務者外，意圖 營利，而受委任辦理或僱用專利師辦 理第九條第一款至第四款業務者，處 三年以下有期徒刑、拘役或科或併科 新臺幣四十萬元以上二百萬元以下罰 金。 (2)未取得專利師證書或專利師證書經撤銷 或廢止，而對外刊登廣告、招攬第九 條第一款至第四款業務者，經限期令 其停止行為，屆期不停止其行為，或停 止後再為違反行為者……處一年以下有 期徒刑、拘役或科或併科新臺幣十萬 元以上五十萬元以下罰金。 (3)專利師將其專利師章證或事務所標識提 供與未取得專利師證書之人辦理第九 條業務者，處二年以下有期徒刑、拘 役或科或併科新臺幣二十萬元以上一 百萬元以下罰金。 |
未取得專利師證書或專利師證書經撤銷或廢止，而受委任辦理專利師業務者，除依法律執行業務者外，由主管機關處新臺幣五萬元以上二十五萬元以下罰鍰。 |
(二)相關專技人員比較整理 
三、簡評
(一)新法第7條第2項，受雇法人之專利師專任規定：
為使專利師受僱於法人期間，得以專心致力處理其所任職法人之專利業務，
新法第 7條第2項規定，受雇於法人之專利師，應以專任為限。
本文以為，上述第 7條第2項新法之立法目的，係為保障雇主法人，
避免受僱於法人之專利師因兼業而致雇主受有損害或有利益衝突之情事，
惟倘雇主認為專利師兼業代理他人執行業務，並無致雇主受損害或利益衝突
之虞，應許當事人得以契約約定排除第7條第2項規定，
故新法未設有例外排除規定，似有不足之處。
(二)無執照雇用專利師辦理業務：
對於「無執照雇用專利師辦理業務者」，新增刑罰規定。
而對於「受雇該無執照者之專利師」是否有刑事責任，未有明文規定。
惟依刑法規定，該受雇專利師應可成立共犯，故仍有刑事責任為是。
(三) 違反第十三條未領有專利師證書而使用專利師名稱者：
新法第 33條第2項僅設有行政罰而未設有刑罰規定，是否導致實務上無執照者，
寧可對外使用專利師而不借牌或雇用專利師？
本文認為，倘無專利師執照而對外宣稱為專利師招攬業務者，
應可該當詐欺取財或詐欺得利罪，仍可依刑法處斷，而不致有上述情形發生。
(四)新法修正後，非 專利師，受僱於公司、事務所撰寫說明書是否違法？
修正前，主管機關函釋認為，受僱人撰寫專利說明書，是基於受僱於公司、
事務所之僱傭契約關係，辦理公司、事務所本身的事務，非執行專利師業務，
並無違法問題。 [8]
惟新法修正後，專利師法第 9條第1款「 專利之申請事項」，解釋上有無變動，
待日後實務發展。
本文認為，實務認為不違法之結論，應為可採，然受僱人從事法律特許業務，
是否合法，與民事契約關係無涉，應認為 專利師法第 9條第1款所謂
「 專利之申請事項」，係指以自己之名義，向專利專責機關提出專利申請
而發生法律上效力之行為，故專利說明書撰寫、繪製專利圖示及代遞送專利
文件等行為，行為人並非以代理人名義為之，從而不違反專利師法第 32條。
四、小結
我國為科技大國及電子產業重鎮，每年約有 8萬件之新申請專利，
故專利業務向來為法律服務產業所爭食之大餅及兵家必爭之地，
於民國96年7月11日專利師法立法前，僅有專利代理人制度，然專利代理人
從業人數卻無法滿足眾多發明人申請專利之需求，故實務上多有借牌行為。
惟專利師法立法後，設有專利師制度，並許原專利代理人仍得繼續執業，
以逐步滿足發明人之需求，然而實務上另有少數份子，於重利誘惑之下，
繼續借牌為 招攬或從事專利業務者，使發明人之權益無法獲得保障。
鑑於上述情形，立法院終於通過新專利師法，明定借牌行為之刑事處罰規定，
不僅得以終結實務上之借牌亂象，更能保障循合法管道委任專利師、
專利代理人及律師等專技人員之發明人權益，故新修正通過之專利師法實為
產業界、發明人及法律服務業之福音。
[1] 104年6月12日修正專利師法第36條
[2]律師法第20條第2項
[3] 104年6月12日修正專利師法第37條之1
[4]律師法第49條第1項、第50條第1項
[5] 97 年 07 月 15 日 法檢決字第 0972001653 號
「一、按律師得辦理專利之事務，並應遵守有關法令規定，
律師法第20條第2項、第3項定有明文。準此，專利事務之辦理既係律師之
執業範圍，則律師自毋需依專利師法第6條規定：『..應經職前訓練合格，
並向專利專責機關登錄及加入專利師公會』，始得執行業務；
惟律師於辦理專利事務時，仍應遵守專利法、專利法施行細則或專利師法
等涉有委任人權益等相關法規。二、次按律師辦理專利事務，
如涉有不法或不當行為，依律師法第39條第1項規定，即構成應付懲戒事由，
是以，台端來函所稱無法可管乙節，應屬誤會。」準此，上開函釋見解
僅及於「涉有委任人權益」之法規，而不及於刑罰規定。
[6]104年6月12日修正專利師法第37條之4
[7]新法第32條之修法說明 「其中第五款專利侵害鑑定事項、第六款專利諮詢及第七款其他專利法令
規定事項，例如代為繳納年費等，其他未具專利師資格者，亦得為之。」
[8]智慧財產局專利師法問答集目錄第 4點
「問 4 ：不具專利師資格，受僱於公司、事務所撰寫說明書是否會違法？
答：受僱於公司、事務所撰寫說明書，乃基於受僱於公司、事務所之僱傭契約
關係，辦理公司、事務所本身的事務，並非執行專利師業務，並無違法問題。」
羅浚喧 Lo, Chun-Hsuan
學歷：
台灣大學醫學士
National Taiwan University College of Medicine, M.D.
台灣大學法學士
National Taiwan University College of Law, LL.B.
經歷：
新北市醫師公會法規暨醫療政策委員會委員
New Taipei City Medical Association Regulations and Health Care Policy Committee, Committee Member.
新北市醫師公會會員代表
New Taipei City Medical Association, Member Representative.
臺北市立聯合醫院總醫師
Taipei City Hospital, C.R.
新光醫院主治醫師
Shin Kong Wu Ho-Su Memorial Hospital, V.S.
西園醫院主任醫師
West Garden Hospital, Chief Doctor.
心晴診所主任醫師
Sunshine Delight Clinic, Chief Doctor.
專業證照：
中華民國醫師
Physician, R.O.C.
中華民國精神專科醫師
Psychiatrist Specialist, R.O.C.
中華民國睡眠醫學專科醫師
Somnologist Specialist, R.O.C.
淺談專利證書號(上)-冒用他人專利證號
實習律師李秋峰
一、前言
按專利法第98條「專利物上應標示專利證書號數；不能於專利物上標示者，
得於標籤、包裝或以其他足以引起他人認識之顯著方式標示之；
其未附加標示者，於請求損害賠償時，
應舉證證明侵害人明知或可得而知為專利物」規定，
專利權人應於專利物上標示專利證號。
準此，本文將分上下文淺談標示專利證號之相關問題。
二、案例
甲為一知名科技公司，經投資大量資金及耗費時日後，終取得A專利；
而乙公司為開拓市場，竟於自家商品上標示A專利之專利證書號，
惟並未實際實施該專利技術於商品上。嗣後，甲公司得知後，
提起訴訟以資救濟，試問甲公司之請求依據為何？
三、本文見解
管見以為，按專利法第58條第1項及第2項規定，未經專利權人許可，
他人不得製造、為販賣之要約、販賣用或為上述目的而進口該物之行為；
為方法專利者，更不得使用該方法。
查本案例中，乙公司未實施該專利技術於商品上，且該商品亦非專利物，
故不構成侵害甲公司之專利權。
對於甲公司而言，視個案情形得主張侵害「商標權」、「著作權」
或是以乙公司違反公平交易法第25條「除本法另有規定者外，
事業亦不得為其他足以影響交易秩序之欺罔或顯失公平之行為」
及民法第184條第2項，請求損害賠償。
附帶一提，實務見解認為，公平交易法第25條所稱「欺罔」，
指對於交易相對人，以積極欺瞞或消極隱匿重要交易資訊致引人錯誤之方式
從事交易之行為，常見行為類型如冒充或依附有信賴力之主體；
所稱「顯失公平」，指「以顯失公平之方法從事競爭或商業交易」，
常見行為態樣有：(1)攀附他人商譽，(2)高度抄襲，或(3)利用他人努力推展
自己商品或服務之行為。[1]
故乙公司之行為，應可該當公平交易法第25條之不正當競爭行為。
[1]智慧財產法院102年度民公上字第2號民事判決
淺談專利證書號(下)-專利權人之舉證責任
實習律師李秋峰
一、前言
按專利法第98條「專利物上應標示專利證書號數；不能於專利物上標示者，
得於標籤、包裝或以其他足以引起他人認識之顯著方式標示之；
其未附加標示者，於請求損害賠償時，應舉證證明侵害人明知或可得而知
為專利物」規定，專利權人應於專利物上標示專利證號。
準此，本文將分上下文淺談標示專利證號之相關問題。
二、專利證書號標示制度
因專利涉及技術之精密判斷，且已核准專利數量之龐大，專利檢索成本甚高，
為免課以社會公眾過重之注意責任，立法者衡酌專利權人行使專利權之
難易程度與社會公眾知悉專利權之可能性，妥適地分配專利權人標示義務與
社會公眾避免侵害專利權之防制成本，故設有專利證書號標示制度，
以保護因不知情而侵害專利權之人。
然100年11月29日前之舊專利法「未附加專利證書號標示者，不得請求損害賠償」，
致被誤認為專利標示為提起專利侵權損害賠償之前提要件或特別要件，
故新法遂修正為「未附加標示者，於請求損害賠償時，
應舉證證明侵害人明知或可得而知為專利物」，以匡正法律適用上之疑義。
三、本文見解
管見以為，專利制度之立法目的，固在於鼓勵、保護、利用發明與創作，
以促進產業發展，而給予發明人一定時間之獨占保護，而賦予專利權。
然國家賦予專利權人之保護，僅為促進產業發展之一種手段，
非可謂專利制度係屬民法第184條第2項之「保護他人法律」，
專利權人得免除舉證行為人有故意或過失之主觀要件，實務同此見解[1]。
又按侵權行為須加害人有故意或過失之主觀要件，始能成立；
侵害專利權，核屬私法上之侵權行為，自當有侵權行為法則之適用；
且依舉證責任分配法則，主張侵害權利之人，
自負有加害人有故意或過失之舉證責任，實務亦採此說[2]，
因此專利權人不得逕以專利物上已標示專利證書號，而完全不負舉證責任。
倘專利權人已依法標示專利證書號，專利法第98條之規定，
至多使專利權人減輕舉證責任，亦即他人既已有查證可能，
倘未查證者，即有過失。
[1]智慧財產法院102年度民專上字第36號民事判決、司法院98年度智慧財產法律座談會第13號決議
[2]司法院98年度智慧財產法律座談會第14號決議
眾律國際專利部門 (0) 眾律國際法律事務所 (10) 專利制度 (1) 軟體專利專論 (1) 生物科技專利 (1) 設計專利專論 (1) Taiwan Patent Law (1) Taiwan Trademark Law (2) 台灣專利 (2) 中國專利 (1) PCT (1) 歐洲專利 (1) 日本專利 (1) 韓國專利 (1) 新加坡專利 (1) 印度專利 (1) 越南專利 (1) 俄羅斯專利 (1) 美國專利 (1) 巴西專利 (1) 台灣專利訴訟 (1) 中國專利訴訟 (1) 美國專利訴訟 (1) 歐洲專利訴訟 (1) 專利術語 (0)
