網路服務提供者商標間接侵權責任

Trademark Indirect Infringement of Secondary Liability for Internet Service Provider

網路服務提供者是否應就其使用者侵害商標權行為負責，涉及商標權人、網路服務提供者、消費大眾間利益權衡，並攸關商標制度本旨。就此，我國商標法尚無特別規定。經比較分析美國、歐盟及法國等相關法制與實務經驗，可知關於網路服務提供者就其使用者商標侵權行為之爭議，國際間已有朝向間接責任發展之趨勢。是如何確定網路服務提供者之注意義務及其範圍，常為相關案件主要爭點所在，而需仰賴立法者明確界定。美國與歐盟對此採建立免責事由以供適用，藉以調和商標權利人、網路服務業者及消費大眾間的權益衝突。本文認為，此對我國商標法處理相類似爭議，不僅有相當參考價值，亦啟發思考在我國商標法加入類似我國著作權法第六章之一免責事由規定的可能性，以期在商標權保護、維持網路產業發展、公平競爭等間，求取適切平衡。

Whether an Internet Service Provider (ISP) should be responsible for its users' infringing activities is a question of balancing the interests between the trademark owner and ISP. There is no statutory legislation regulating such issues in Taiwan's Trademark Act. The analysis of the related cases and legislation in the United States (U.S.), the European Union (EU) and France reveals that the most of the countries tend to hold ISP's secondary liability for its users' conduct. As such, the issue is how to allocate the duty of policing a trademark. The U.S. and EU adopted a safe harbor to protect ISP from indirect infringement under certain circumstance. Taiwan should take their proposal into consideration when dealing with similar issues. This article proposes that Taiwan amends the Trademark Act by passing safe harbor like provisions to immune ISP's secondary liability for its uses' conducts. A safe harbor will provide balanced protection for trademark owner and ISP, while also promotes them to work together to police trademark and reduce the risk of infringement.