商標混淆誤認判斷「申請時是否為善意」之檢討──比較美國與歐盟

A Review of the Likelihood-of-confusion Factor“Whether the Application Is in Good Faith”: A Comparison Between the United States and the European Union

臺灣智財局之「混淆誤認之虞審查基準」，乃主要參考美國法院之見解，提出八項參考因素。其中包括「7.系爭商標之申請人是否善意」。商標混淆誤認之虞，理應以消費者的認知、客觀混淆誤認情事為準，為何要考量被告或申請人之主觀意圖？本文欲提出檢討分析。美國多數聯邦巡迴法院均將意圖當成混淆誤認判斷因素。但由於證明意圖有所困難，故採用若干間接證據以推定被告具有意圖。美國也有少數學者批評「申請時或使用時之意圖」，不需作為混淆誤認判斷因素。比較歐盟，歐盟不將「申請時為惡意」作為混淆誤認判斷因素。但是，其將「申請時為惡意」作為一個獨立的商標絕對無效事由。最後比較臺灣。2021年智財局修改混淆誤認之虞審查基準，對其中的「申請人是否為善意」的內涵，做了修正。

The Taiwan Intellectual Property Office’s“Examination Guidelines on Likelihood of Confusion”mainly refer to the opinions of the U.S. courts and put forward eight factors. It includes“7. Whether the application to register a trademark is filed in good faith”. The likelihood of confusion in trademarks should be based on consumers’cognition and objective circumstances of actual confusion. Why should the subjective intention of the defendant or applicant be considered? This paper intends to review and analyze this factor. Most federal circuit courts in the United States regard intent as a factor of likelihood of confusion. However, due to the difficulty in proving intent, some circumstantial evidence was used to presume that the defendant had intent. A few scholars in the United States also criticize that using“intention at the time of application or use”is unnecessary as a likelihood-of-confusion factor. Compared with the European Union, the EU does not use“bad faith at the time of application”to determine the likelihood of confusion. However, it regards“bad faith at the time of application”as an independent ground for the absolute invalidity of a trademark. Finally, we compare Taiwan. In 2021, the Intellectual Property Office revised the Examination Guidelines on Likelihood of Confusion and revised the connotation of“whether the application is in good faith”.