防止原住民族文化元素被註冊為商標：各國模式比較與防禦性保護之困境

Preventing Indigenous Cultural Elements from Being Registered as Trademarks: A Comparison of Approaches across Countries and Dilemma of Defensive Protection

對原住民族文化元素之商標防禦性保護，三個代表性國家（加拿大、美國、紐西蘭）採用了不同的模式。在商標防禦性保護下，可以使用「冒犯條款」或「誤導公眾條款」防止他人將原住民族文化元素申請商標。紐西蘭主要依靠冒犯條款以避免商標冒犯毛利人。美國最高法院在判決冒犯條款（貶損條款）違憲後，美國目前可以使用「誤導公眾條款」。臺灣智財局的二份審查原則，則同時使用這兩個條款。從臺灣的經驗來看，誤導公眾條款比冒犯條款能提供更廣泛的保護，成為避免將原住民族文化元素註冊為商標的重要工具。本文也將說明商標防禦性保護有其困境。特別是，使註冊多年的商標撤銷或廢止，可能會引起爭議。與冒犯條款相比，使用誤導公眾條款可能允許更多的當事人主張撤銷，並且較不會出現懈怠行使權利問題。甚至，「誤導公眾條款」也可以作為廢止事由。但商標防禦性保護只能阻止他人註冊商標，要禁止他人繼續使用商標，仍需要利用其他積極性保護制度。

Three representative countries (Canada, the United States, New Zealand) have adopted different models to provide defensive trademark protection for indigenous cultural elements. Under the trademark defensive protection system, the‘offence clause’or‘misleading-the-public clause’can be used to prevent others from using indigenous elements in their trademarks. New Zealand relies primarily on the offence clause to avoid trademarks offending the Māori. The US can currently use the‘misleading-the-public clause’after the offence clause (disparagement clause) was declared unconstitutional. Taiwan uses both of these clauses. From Taiwan’s experience, the misleading-the-public clause can provide more extensive protection than the offence clause, and it has become an important tool to avoid the registration of indigenous cultural elements as trademarks. This article also showed that defensive protection has its dilemma. In particular, invalidating a trademark that has been registered for many years can be controversial. The invocation of the‘misleading-the-public clause’may allow a broader range of parties to initiate cancellation proceedings than the‘offence clause’and will be less susceptible to the issue of laches (delay in exercising rights). Even a‘misleading-the-public clause’can be used as a ground for revocation, subject to fewer restrictions. However, defensive protection of trademarks can only prevent others from registering trademarks. Other positive protection systems still need to be used to prohibit others from using trademarks.