以比較法之視角論商標誠實使用：以歐盟法與我國法為中心

A Comparative Study on Honest Use of Trade Marks:The EU and Taiwan Law Perspectives

本文主要包括兩大部分。本研究首先關注者，係2008年歐盟商標指令中，以「誠實使用」為共同要件的3項商標權限制條款，以及我國現行商標法第36條第1項第1款，亦即以「誠實使用」為共同要件的商標權限制條款。首先，本文依序分析歐盟法中以「誠實使用」為共同要件的商標權限制條款，並藉由對近10年來相關司法見解的分析，嘗試釐清其中的商標法爭議。其次，就我國商標法第36條第1項第1款而言，本文認為此條款未來仍有修正的必要。第一，修法說明並未就此等限制條款的規範目的多加著墨，頗為可惜。第二，就商標法第36條第1項第1款而言，不同種類的商標權限制條款，所規範的使用者為何人？使用行為為何？使用的對象為何？「誠實信用方法」要件所指為何？商標法第36條第1項第1款並無清楚的規定。第三，修法說明所謂「有關商標合理使用，包括描述性合理使用及指示性合理使用兩種」的分類方式，顯然有誤，其主要原因在於，商標法第36條第1項第1款對於指示性商標合理使用的規範不甚明確，倘未同時檢視修法說明，則根本無法確認此類合理使用的存在。

This Article has two main parts. The first part examines the three kinds of limitation of trade mark rights set out in the 2008 Trade Mark Directive in the European Union. A third party's unauthorised use of another's trade mark would fall within the scope of one of the limitations where the third party uses the mark 'in accordance with honest practices in industrial or commercial matters' (emphasis added). Otherwise, the unauthorised use of trade mark would fall outside the scope. This part of study analyses the major issues relating to the three limitations. It focuses particularly on the issues regarding the common condition of all the three limitations, namely 'honest practices'. It also considers the relevant preliminary rulings delivered by the European Court of Justice during the last 10 years. The second part of this Article examines the limitations of trade mark rights set out in the first subparagraph of Article 36(1) of the Trade Mark Act in Taiwan. The legislator in Taiwan amended this Act in 2011. Nonetheless, it remains necessary to revise the provisions once again in the near future. This Article argues that the first subparagraph of Article 36(1) of the Act is vague, as it does not well categorise the limitations, and it does not define the requirement of 'honest practices'. In addition, the Intellectual Property Office in Taiwan states that the first subparagraph of Article 36(1) sets out two kinds of trade mark fair use, namely descriptive use and normative use. Nevertheless, the analysis in this study indicates that the limitation relating to normative use is not set out in this provision.