商標戲謔仿作之混淆誤認與合理使用──評智慧財產法院100年度行商訴字第104號行政判決及最高行政法院101年度裁字第391號裁定

The Likelihood of Confusion and Fair Use of Trademark Parody: 2011 Xing Shang Su Zi No. 104 of the Intellectual Property Court and 2012 Tai Zi No. 391 of the Supreme Administrative Court

隨著現代工商業的高度發展，商標近似與其所代表之商品或服務類似，是否讓相關消費者致生混淆誤認，這類糾紛不僅層出不窮，也是商標法之重要議題。由於本案乃涉及臺灣「嬌蕉包」與法國愛馬仕「柏金包」間的商標侵權爭議，因此，除了倍受重視外，原判決之智慧財產法院（以下稱智財法院）所認定本案涉及之混淆誤認類型，以及混淆誤認之參酌因素，實特別值得進一步加以分析。尤其是在不斷發生的紛爭中，由法院依「混淆誤認之虞」審查基準，和商標法施行細則之「商品服務分類表」的規定，在判斷商標與其所代表之商品或服務，是否為近（類）似而產生混淆誤認時，須藉由司法實務案例之累積，來尋求同一且公平之判斷標準，此實為理論和實務界必須共同努力之方向。當然，商標之「戲謔仿作」亦為本案另一爭執的焦點，事實上，在美國判例法當中，此議題已有成熟之討論。縱使本案中，智財法院以當事人且商標使用、註冊主義之不同，否定美國「戲謔仿作」判例之適用，但是本文嘗試檢視美國法院對於商標權人之權益與「戲謔仿作」創意之間，所畫出的一條界線，並提供未來我國法院針對「戲謔仿作」議題，為一致性處理之借鏡，更藉以避免近來「流淚香奈兒」案件，為不同判斷之發生。

With the development of modern industry and business, conflicts over trademarks and goods or services that are identical or similar, and therefore likely to cause confusion for consumers, occur frequently and raise important issues in trademark law. Because this case involved BANANA of Taipei and HERMES of Paris and trademark infringements of a ladies’ leather handbag, the public was interested, especially in the decision of the Intellectual Property Court (hereafter referred to as “IP Court”) concerning the likelihood of confusion and the factors involved in judging the likelihood of confusion, and these need further analysis. In particular, courts judge whether trademarks and goods or services are identical or similar, and therefore likely to cause confusion, according to the Examination Guidelines on the Likelihood of Confusion and the List of Classes of Goods and Services in the Enforcement Rules of the Trademark Act. Both legal academia and legal practices should aim for identical and fair standards in case law. Of course, trademark parody was the other focus in this case, and there have been many relevant discussions in U.S. case law. Although the IP Court decided not to adopt legal theories from U.S. case law regarding trademark parody because of the different plaintiffs/defendants and first to use/first to register, this article attempts to examine the line between the rights of trademark owners and trademark parody in U.S. case law to provide references for Taiwanese courts. In order to avoid different judgments in this case and the “Tearing CHANEL” case, a case with similar facts, the courts need to develop the same standards concerning trademark parody issues.