商標戲謔仿作之合理使用判斷──評智慧財產法院一○○年度行商訴字第一○四號行政判決及智慧財產法院一○三年度刑智上易字第六三號刑事判決

Trademark Fair Use and Parody: 2011 Su Zi No. 104 and 2014 Xing Zhi Shang Yi Zi No. 63 in the Taiwan Intellectual Property Court

商標權與工商業活動之發展，雖有密切之關聯性，但促進工商業之正常發展，僅是保障商標權的目的之一；其保障並非絕對，商標權亦有被限制之必要，例如：我國商標法第三六條第一項和第八四條第二項之規定。尤其是嬌蕉包、流淚香奈兒等商標爭議中，所謂的商標戲謔仿作(parody)，是否構成商標之合理使用，亦是值得探究之議題。本文所論述之兩則我國智慧財產法院（以下稱「智財法院」）判決，它們為智財法院一○○年度行商訴字第一○四號行政判決，和同院一○三年度刑智上易字第六三號刑事判決，乃是不同案件之裁判，分別為行政和刑事訴訟；然而，其本質實為商標混淆誤認之判斷，及戲謔仿作能否成為侵權抗辯事由等議題。事實上，在美國判例法當中，戲謔仿作之相關議題已有成熟之討論，但相對而論，我國智財法院於前案，卻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；然同院於後案，則以被告之行為非屬戲謔仿作，而否定其合理使用之抗辯。特別是在針對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，此類不斷發生的紛爭下，尤須藉由司法實務案例之累積，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。故本文之重心，乃嘗試檢視美國法院對於商標權人之權益與戲謔仿作之創意，在兩者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，以避免為不同判斷之發生。

Trademark rights are closely related to industry and business development, and accelerating development in industry and business is one of the purposes of protecting trademark rights. Because trademark protection is not absolute, it is necessary to restrict trademark rights, as defined in the regulations of Article 36, Section 1, and Article 84, Section 2, of the Taiwan Trademark Act. In the trademark dispute involving BANANA handbag and Tearing CHANEL, trademark parody constitutes fair use of a trademark that is an issue worth studying. Two cases will be examined in this article: 2011 Su Zi No. 104 (hereafter called the former case) and 2014 Xing Zhi Shang Yi Zi No. 63 (hereafter called the latter case). Even though these two cases-both brought before the Taiwan Intellectual Property Court (IP Court)-resulted in different judgments (one involving administrative procedures and one involving criminal procedures), they were not only about the likelihood of trademark confusion, but also about whether trademark parody could be used as a defense of trademark fair use. In fact, trademark parody issues are broadly discussed in U.S. case law, though the IP Court declined to use U.S. parody theories in the former case. However, the IP Court did use parody theories to refute the defendant’s arguments in the latter case, particularly because it is expected that there will likely be future trademark confusion disputes, and both legal academics and practices should aim to establish identical and fair standards in case law. This article attempts to draw a line between the rights of trademark owners and those of the creators of trademark parodies in U.S. case law in order to provide references for Taiwanese courts, to avoid conflicting judgments in trademark parody cases.