通用名稱組合之網域名稱研究──以商標權保護為中心

A Study Regarding Domain Name Combined by Generic Name─Focused on Trademark Right Protection

本文乃討論：由通用名稱組合之網域名稱，其究竟是通用名稱，抑或描述性標識？這牽涉到它們是否具備商標識別性，而是否應受到商標權之保護。尤其在數位時代下，商標使用型態多樣化，例如：「網域名稱」一樣可受到商標權之保護。於2020年6月美國聯邦最高法院（下稱「最高法院」）所作成之United States Patent and Trademark Office v. Booking.com B.V.判決（下稱「本案判決」），其重要意旨為：以通用名稱組合之網域名稱，依舊得以被註冊為商標。而在本案判決中，最高法院特別推翻過去美國專利商標局（United States Patent and Trademark Office, USPTO），所一直秉持同院所作出Goodyear’s India Rubber Glove Mfg. Co. v. Goodyear Rubber Co.判決之見解，亦即：指定公司之通用名稱（例如：「.com」），再加上一通用名稱，並不構成該標識之可商標性。雖然本案判決，乃針對業者若欲藉由註冊數位網域名稱為商標之優勢，開展其業務之商標布局，這可以算得上是一個好消息；只不過，最高法院縱使於本案判決中指出：在數位（網域名稱）情境下，相關消費者能夠從「generic.com」得知商品／服務來源之特徵，也就是與一個獨特網址之關聯性。但是，本案判決仍遺留若干問題如下：若只論數位（網域名稱）之情境下，任何通用名稱加入「.com」後，都得以註冊為商標時，則其他使用相似之通用名稱，是否有隨時被禁止使用，或致生商標侵權之風險？更何況，商標權利人是否有權利濫用之嫌？另一方面，本案判決首重通用網域名稱之組合，是否應准予商標之註冊，然此一問題，無論是在數位（網域名稱）或平面情境，當先取決於商標識別性之判斷；所以，通用名稱組合是否應以整體或是逐一名稱審視，而為識別性之判斷，本文將予以探討。最後，本文將以本案判決之論點為基礎，並具體檢視美國學說理論與司法實務之見解，對於數位時代通用名稱之組合，尤其是發生於網域名稱之情境，若以商標權進行保護，將產生的利、弊為何，並具體提出未來之修法建議與政策方向。

This article discusses that whether a domain name combined by generic terms is classified as a generic name or a descriptive mark. This is relevant that whether a domain name combined by generic names is protected by the trademark right, which are decided by trademark distinctiveness. In particular, types of trademark use are various in the digital age, such as a domain name is also protected by the trademark right. The U.S. Supreme Court (hereafter called the Supreme Court) in June, 2020 made the judgment for the case: United States Patent and Trademark Office v. Booking.com B.V. (hereafter called this case), and main contents of this case are that a domain name combined by generic names can still be registered as a trademark. In this case, the Supreme Court overruled the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s previous opinions that are followed the Supreme Court case: Goodyear’s India Rubber Glove Mfg. Co. v. Goodyear Rubber Co., and its contents are included that a generic name of a specific corporation (e.g., “.com”) added a generic name is not registered as a trademark for these marks. Although results of this case are advantageous for enterprises to develop trademark layout, the Supreme Court indicated in this case that relevant consumers could know characters of goods’ or services’ origins through “generic.com,” which mean that a relationship of a specific domain name. But, this case is still left some problems: First, when any generic name added “.com” is registered as a trademark, is a similar and registered generic name prohibited using anytime? Is it caused a trademark infringement? Moreover, whether a trademark right owner abuses its right or not? In addition, this case puts emphasis that whether a combination of generic names is registered as a trademark, and it is decided by judgment of trademark distinctiveness in digital (domain name) or traditional scenario. Therefore, this article will discuss that distinctiveness judgment for a combined generic name is for each name or all names. Finally, this article discusses the U.S. legal theories and judicial judgments based on arguments in this case about advantages or shortcomings of a generic name combination registered for a trademark protection. This article tangibly proposes suggestions and policies about future amendments and directions.