3D列印時代商標權面臨之爭議問題解決之道:以商標侵權為核心

Abstract

3D列印技術，又稱為積層製造（Additive Manufacturing，AM），是近年的科技創新之一，主要的特色就是可以透過操作電腦設計CAD（Computer Aided Design）檔，創作特定形狀的物件，再將CAD檔精準地以堆疊材料的方式直接生產出特定立體物件。3D列印的技術特徵在於產品的設計流程與生產流程是可以分開進行的，並且近年許多CAD檔案都可以藉由創作者設計後上傳到網路，消費者可以藉由付費取得各式各樣的CAD檔案供列印成實體。隨著各式各樣的CAD檔案在網路上創作流傳，此項技術雖然帶給人們製造實體物件的便利性，但也容易產生未經授權的製造行為，此種行為就有可能構成智慧財產權如專利權、著作權以及商標權的侵害。\n本文主要探討3D列印技術與CAD檔對與商標權的影響，並且以商標侵權制度為探討的核心，因為傳統商標法的原理主要是建立在商標權人主導並掌握商品的製造及銷售，但是3D列印技術可以使產品從設計到生產的步驟完全分開 ，而隨著技術的不斷發展與創新，3D印表機也不斷地降低售價以及提高生產效能，未來很有可能每個家庭都有自己的3D印表機，而只要有3D印表機就可以讓任何消費者都搖身一變成產品的生產者。此種情形可能使商標保障品質以及表彰產品來源的功能遭到架空，而使商標權人以及消費者因此在市場上受有損害。\n欲解決上述問題必須先探討虛擬的CAD檔案包含商標時，是否已經構成所謂的商標使用，還是僅為一個虛擬的圖像檔案，此種爭議類似平面商標立體化，若為商標使用才能分析該商標使用是否為侵權使用。若不能為商標使用，商標權人是否可利用其他間接獲次要的方始保障其商標權。\n本文將探討虛擬商品以及虛擬商品的內容是否受商標法效力所及，將分析各國對於此項爭議的見解以及各國商標法侵權制度，並且探討如果虛擬檔案的內容不能構成商標直接侵權，是否有間接侵權或其他的方式可以處理，故會討論美國法的商標間接侵權制度、歐盟法的商標次要責任以及我國民法的共同侵權制度，在解釋上是否可以處理此項爭議，最後也會探討透過3D列印製作而成實體的物件，在商標法上的評價，是否因使用於商業目的而有所不同，若未將該實體商品使用於商業目的時，可否透過「售後混淆誤認」的概念，擴大解釋其構成商標侵權。

3D printing, also known as additive manufacturing, is one of the technological innovations in recent years. The main feature is that you can create objects of specific shapes by operating computer aided design (CAD) files. And the feature of 3D printing is that the product design process and production process can be carried out separately. Although this technology has brought people the convenience of manufacturing physical objects, it is also prone to unauthorized manufacturing activities, which may constitute intellectual property rights such as Infringement of patent rights, copyrights and trademark rights.\nThis article will focus on the impact of 3D printing technology and CAD files on trademark rights, and takes the trademark infringement system as the core of the discussion, because the principle of traditional trademark law is mainly based on the trademark owner leading and controlling the manufacturing and sales of goods, but 3D printing technology can completely separate the steps from product design to production. And anyone who have a 3D printer can become a product producer. Such a situation may make the trademark protection of quality and the function of commending the source of the product be evasive, and the trademark owner and consumers will be harmed in the market as a result.\nIn order to solve the above trademark problems, first, we must explore whether the virtual CAD file contains a trademark, whether it constitutes a trademark use or is only a virtual image file. If it is a trademark use, it can be analyzed whether the use is infringing use. If CAD file cannot be treated as a trademark use, whether the trademark owner can use other indirectly obtained secondary parties to protect its trademark rights.\nThis article will discuss whether the contents of virtual goods and virtual goods itself are subject to the effect of trademark law, analyze the opinions of various countries on this dispute and the trademark infringement systems of various countries, and explore whether there is trademark indirect infringement if the contents of virtual files cannot constitute trademark direct infringement. Finally we will discuss through 3D The evaluation of the printed product into a physical object under the trademark law is different due to its use for commercial purposes. If the physical product is not used for commercial purposes, can it be through the concept of "post-sales confusion "than treat it as a trademark infringement form.