Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://ah.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/81207
題名: 以比較法觀點論網路服務提供者之商標間接侵權責任
The Internet Service Provider’s Liability of Secondary Infringement under Trademark:A comparative Study of Taiwan, USA and Europe
作者: 何皓華
貢獻者: 沈宗倫
何皓華
關鍵詞: 商標法
商標間接侵權
安全港
日期: 2015
上傳時間: 3-Feb-2016
摘要: 網路發展衝擊了現在的商標保護機制。有鑑於網路科技發展日新月異,智慧財產權的侵害態樣也不再單純,隨著科技發展逐漸改變,現有的法規已不足以應付現在的科技時代。現在許多人相比於一般逛商圈、電視購物的方式,越來越多人使用網購的方式購買商品,但是當賣家透過網路服務平台販售偽商品而侵害商標權人之商標權時,除了直接侵害商標的賣家,做為中間媒介的網路服務提供者是否亦應擔負責任?\n 目前由於侵害者眾多、追查困難及訴訟經濟的考量,商標權人通常都會選擇中間的網路服務提供者作為訴追對象,雖然由於各國環境差異,導致在保護消費者與網路服務提供者的交易或是商標權人的利益上,有所不同:若是太過保護消費者及網路服務提供者,雖然能夠保護交易安全,但相對犧牲了商標權人的權利,但若是太過加重網路服務提供者的責任,又會破壞網路服務提供者的經營模式,因此,法院必須權衡兩方利益,發展對商標間接侵權一套相關的判斷機制。\n 台灣目前雖然對於商標權間接侵權的案例仍十分缺乏,但隨著目前消費者的消費型態來看,此種商標侵權態樣亦將隨之成長,而為了因應將來狀況,建立相關的法規範是急迫的事。目前台灣針對著作權及專利權雖然都有間接侵害的相關判決討論,但針對商標間接侵權卻仍未有相關法規規範,在5月商標法的修正案中,也未試圖加入相關討論。本文試圖分析國外商標間接侵權的發展,並參考台灣對於網路服務平台提供者的責任避風港限制,分析台灣環境該如何得移植國外商標間接侵權的相關標準,並建立一套我國的商標間接侵權的判斷機制。
參考文獻: 壹、 中文\n一、 書籍\n曾陳明汝,《商標法原理》,新學林,2007年4月,修訂三版。\n汪渡村,《商標法論》,五南,2011年2月,2版。\n王澤鑑,《侵權行為法》,三民, 2011年8月版。\n黃立,《民法債編總論》,元照,2006年11月,3版。\n林誠二,《民法債編總論-體系化解說-(上) 》,瑞興圖書,2012年10月。\n陳猷龍,《民法債編總論》,五南,2011年10月,第5版。\n孫森炎,《民法債編總論上冊》,三民,2012年2月修訂版。\n\n二、 期刊\n王石杰,商標使用原則的探討─以網際網路關鍵字廣告為例,法學新論,8期,2009年3月。\n王敏銓、滬心沂,商標侵害與商標使用─評台灣高等法院九十六年度上易字第二○九一號判決與智慧財產權法院九十七年度民商上易字第四號判決,月旦法學雜誌,185期,2010年9月。\n王澤鑑,特殊侵權行為(四)—僱用人侵權責任上,台灣本土法學雜誌,64期,2004年11月。\n王怡蘋,論P2P業者之責任─以ezPeer和Kuro為例,台灣科技法律與政策論叢,3卷1期,2006年3月。\n沈宗倫,商標侵害法理在數位時代的質變?─以「商標使用」與「初始興趣混淆」為基點的反省與檢討,政大法學評論,第123期,頁368,2011年10月。\n余啟民,網路關鍵字廣告之商標爭議,法學叢刊,第212期,2008年10月。\n李治安,失衡的承諾:著作權法責任避風港規範之立法政策評析,台大法學論叢,第43卷1期,2014年3月。\n邵瓊慧,商標侵權使用之判斷─兼論智慧財產法院最新見解,智慧財產權月刊,135期,2010年3月。\n邱亦賢,專利權與著作權之交會—後Grokster時代美國著作權誘引侵權責任之發展及啟發,興大法學,10期,2011年11月。\n林昱梅,論著作權人對間接妨害人之不作為請求權─從德國之妨害任責任理論出發,興大法學,2007年11月 \n姚信安,論我國著作權網路服務提供者責任規範之發展與實踐,科技法學評論,第8卷2期,2011年12月。\n張哲倫,商標權之性質及其對商標侵權判斷之影響─以「混淆誤認之虞」為中心,智慧財產權月刊,135期,2010年3月。\n郭爾圖、林俐瑩,由Rosetta Stone v. Google Inc.淺論關鍵字廣告於商標法上爭議,萬國法律,185期, 2012年10月。\n陳忠五,論契約責任與侵權責任的保護客體:「權利」與「利益」區別正當性的再反省,台大法學論叢,36卷5期,2007年9月。\n陳菀菁,網路商標侵權案件中網路服務提供者之合理注意義務—以中國淘寶網案為中心,專利師,第13卷4期, 2013年4月。\n黃心怡,論C2C網路拍賣服務提供者之商標間接侵權責任,東吳法律學報,第24卷第2期,2012年9月。\n馮震宇,網路服務提供者商標間接侵權責任之研究,智慧財產權月刊,175期,2013年7月。\n馮震宇,數位環境下著作權侵害之認定及相關案例研討,台灣法學雜誌,206期,頁129,2012年8月。\n蔡明誠,商標法上商標使用之意義,月旦財經法雜誌,4期,2006年3月。\n鄭苑瓊,淺析Tiffany v. eBay案與網路服務提供者商標侵權責任爭議,科技法律透析, 2009年7月。\n簡維克,網路世界中關鍵字所涉及之商標侵權爭議─以美國法的初始興趣混淆原則與使用為中心,科技法學評論,6卷2期,2009年。\n蘇月星,淺談美國法對商標間接侵權責任類型,智慧財產權月刊,162期,2012年6月。\n\n三、 碩士論文\n李一笑,網路交易平台之商標侵權責任,國立台灣大學法律學院法律研究所碩士論文,2014年6月。\n葉采蓉,論網路拍賣平台業者之民事責任,國立清華科技法律研究所碩士論文,2008年。\n彭建仁,拍賣網站經營者就商標侵權之法律責任─以歐盟法為中心,國立政治大學法律學研究所碩士論文,2012年。\n鄭莞鈴,論關鍵字廣告之法律責任,國立高雄第一科技大學科技法律研究所碩士論文,2008年。\n蘇月星,網路拍賣服務提供者商標侵權責任之比較研究,東吳大學法律學系在職專班比較法律組碩士論文,2011年。\n\n四、 判決\n司法院66年例變字1號\n新北地院98重易字第4號判決\n臺中地方法院97年度易字第3238號刑事判決\n台灣最高法院93年度台上字第1718號判決\n新北地院98重易字第4號\n智慧財產法院98年度民商上字第11號\n智慧財產法院100年度民商上字第7號\n智慧財產法院101年度民商訴字第22號\n\n貳、 外文\n一、 書籍\n4 J. THOMAS MCCARTHY, MCCARTHY ON TRADEMARKS AND UNFAIR COMPETITION (4th ed., Westlaw International March 2014)\nROBERT P. MERGES, ET AL., INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY IN THE NEW TECHNOLOGICAL AGE , Wolters Kluwer Law & Business, (5th ed. 2010).\nRESTATEMENT OF LAW, 2ND, TORTS\nRESTATEMENT THIRD OF UNFAIR COMPETITION\nRAYMOND YOUNGS, ENGLISH, FRENCH & GERMAN COMPARATIVE LAW, Routledge-Cavendish (2 ed. 2006).\n\n二、 期刊\nAhmed, Sofia H., Life, Liberty, and The Pursuit Of Luxury: eBay`s Liability For Contributory Trademark Infringement In The United States, German, And France, 5 BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIVERSITY INTERNATIONAL LAW & MANAGEMENT REVIEW 247(2009).\nBartholomew, Mark & Tehranian, John, The Secret Life of Legal Doctrine: The Divergent Evolution of Secondary Liability in Trademark and Copyright Law, 21 BERKELEY TECHNOLOGY LAW JOURNAL 1363(2006).\nBernstein, David H. & Potenza, Michael R., Why the resonable anticipation standard is the reasonable way to assess contributory trademark liability in the online marketplace, 2011 STANFORD TECHNOLOGY LAW REVIEW 9(2011)\nCombs, Nathan Isaac, Civil Aiding and Abetting Liability, 58 VANDERBILT LAW REVIEW 241(2005)\nConcepcion, Cattleya M., Beyond the LENS of LENZ: Looking to protect fair use during the safe harbor process under the DMCA, 18 GEORGE MASON LAW REVIEW 219(2010)\nChavez, Jillian De, Building a Trademark Safe Harbor for Contributory Counterfeiting Liability After Tiffany v. eBay, 86 SAINT JOHN`S LAW REVIEW 249(2012).\nDogan, Stacey L. & Lemley, Mark L., Grounding Trademark Law through Trademark Use, 92 IOWA L. REV. 1669(2007).\nDinwoodie, Graeme B. & Janis, Mark D., Lessons from the Trademark Law through Trademark Use, 92 IOWA L. REV 1703(2007).\nDinwoodie, Graeme B. & Janis, Mark D., Confusion over Use: Contestualism in Tradeark Law, 92 IOWA L. REV 1597(2007).\nDinwoodie, Graeme B., Secondary Liability for Online Trademark Infringement: The International Landscape, 37 COLUMBIA JOURNAL OF LAW & THE ARTS 463(2014).\nGoldwasser, Kate., Knock It Off: An Analysis of Trademark Counterfeit Goods Regulation In The United States, France, And Belgium, 18 CARDOZO JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL AND COMPARATIVE LAW 207(2010).\nHelman, Lital & Parchomovsky, Gideon, The best available technology standard, 111 COLUMBIA LAW REVIEW 1194(2011)\nHoeren, Thomas, German Law on Internet Liability of Intermediaries, LIDC Congress in Oxford( 2011)\nLeaffer, Marshall, A Twenty-year Petrospective on United States Trademark Law in Ten Cases, 23 FORDHAM INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, MEDIA AND ENTERTAINMENT LAW JOURNAL 655(2013).\nKaiser, Brian D., Contributory Trademark Infringement by Internet Service Providers: An Argument for Limitation, 7 JOURNAL OF TECHNOLOGY LAW & POLICY 4(2002)\nMark A. Lemley, Rationalizing Internet Safe Harbors, 6 JOURNAL ON TELECOMMUNICATIONS & HIGH TECHNOLOGY LAW 101(2007).\nLevin, Elizabeth K., A safe harbor for trademark: reevaluating secondary trademark liability after Tiffany V. eBay, 24 BERKELEY TECHNOLOGY LAW JOURNAL 491(2009).\nLerner, Todd Evan, Playing The Blame Game, Online: Who Is Liable When Counterfeit Goods Are Sold Through Online Auction Houses?, 22 PACE INTERNATIONAL LAW REVIEW 241(2010).\nMercado, Ellie, As Long As "It" is Not Counterfeit: Holding eBay Liable For Secondary Trademark Infringement In The Wake Of LVMH And Tiffany Inc., 28 CARDOZO ARTS AND ENTERTAINMENT LAW JOURNAL 115(2010).\nMcKenna,Mark P., Probabilistic Knowledge of Third-party Trademark Infringement, 2011 STANFORD TECHNOLOGY LAW REVIEW 10(2011).\nPeckham, Deborah J., The Internet Auction House and Secondary Liability—Will eBay Have to answer to Grokster?, 95 THE TRADEMARK REPORTER 977(2005)\nSunderji, Fara S., Protecting online auction sites from the contributory trademark liability storm: a legislative solution to the Tiffany INC. V. EBAY INC. problem 74 FORDHAM LAW REVIEW 909(2005).\nWeckström, Katja, Liability For Trademark Infringment For Internet Service Providers, 16 MARQUETTE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW REVIEW 1(2012).\nWu, Timothy, Copyright`s Communication Policy, 103 MICHIGAN LAW REVIEW 278(2004).\nZiegler, Allison N., Online Auction House Liability for The Sale of Trademark Infringing Products, 14 MARQUETTE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW REVIEW 215(2010)\n\n三、 資料庫\nInternet Auction II (I ZR 35/04) Bundesgerichtshof (Germany), [2007] E.T.M.R. 70\nChristian Ruetz, Germany: trade marks - auction sites` liability for counterfeits, E.I.P.R. 2005 27(3), N67-68, 2005\nRe Internet Auctions of Counterfeit Watches(Case I ZR 304/01) Before the Bundesgerichtshof (German Federal Supreme Court), [2006] E.C.C. 9, 2006 \nGerald Spindler &Matthias Leistner, Secondary copyright infringement - new perspectives in Germany and Europe, IIC 2006, 37(7)\nKarl H. Pilny, Germany: electronic commerce - domain names, C.T.L.R. 2002, 8(3)\nASY Cheung & K.H. Pun, Comparative Study on the Liability for Trade Mark Infringement of Online Auction Providers, E.I.P.R. 2009, 31(11)\nFrank Valencia , Legal ambiguity in the digital economy: the case of eBay and the liability of online auction sites, I.B.L.J. 2011, 4, 415-431(2011)\nLouis Vuitton Malletier SA v eBay Inc , Tribunal de Grande Instance (France), [2010] E.T.M.R. 10\n\n四、 判決\nAmerican Telephone and Telegraph Company v. Winback and Conserve Program, Inc.,42 F.3d 1421(3rd Cir. 1994)\nFonovisa Inc. v. Cherry Auction, Inc., 76 F.3d 259(9th, Cir. 1996)\nGershwin Publishing Corp. v. Columbia Artists Management, Inc, 443 F.2d 1159(2nd Cir. 1971) \nGovernment Employees Ins. Co. v. Google, Inc., 330 F.Supp.2d 700(E.D.Va.,2004)\nGoogle France, Google, Inc. v Louis Vuitton Malletier (C-236/08), Viaticum SA, Luteciel SARL (C-237/08), Centre national de recherche en relations humaines (CNRRH) SARL, Pierre-Alexis Thonet, Bruno Raboin, Tiger SARL (C-238/08), JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Grand Chamber) , Joined Cases C-236/08 to C-238/08, 23 March 2010\nHard Rock Cafe Licensing Corp. v. Concession Serves, Inc, 955 F.2d 1143(7th, Cir. 1992)\nHendrickson v. eBay, Inc., 165 F.Supp.2d 1082,(C.D.Cal.,2001.)\nInwood Laboratories, Inc. v. Ives Laboratories, Inc., 456 U.S 844(1982)\nLockheed Marti Corp. v. Network solution, Inc., 194 F.3d 980(9th, Cir. 1999)\nLouis Vuitton Malletier, S.A. v. Akanoc Solutions, Inc., 591 F.Supp.2d 1098(N.D.Cal.,2008.)\nL`Oreal SA & Ors v EBay International AG & Ors Case No: HC07C01978 (22 May 2009) , Royal Courts of Justice, [2009] EWHC 1094 (Ch)\nL’Oréal SA, Lancôme parfums et beauté & Cie SNC, Laboratoire Garnier & Cie, L’Oréal\n(UK) Ltd v eBay International AG, eBay Europe SARL, eBay (UK) Ltd (C‑324/09), JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Grand Chamber), 12 July 2011\nPolariod v. Polarad Electics., 287 F.2d 492(2rd Cir. 1961)\nPlayboy Enterprises, Inc. v. Frena., 839 F.Supp. 1552(M.D.Fla.,1993.)\nPolygram Intern. Pub., Inc. v. Nevada/TIG, Inc, 855 F.Supp. 1314(D.Mass.,1994)\nPeople for Ethical Treatment of Animals v. Doughney, 263 F.3d 359(4th Cir.,2001)\nPerfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 508F.3d 1146(9th. Cir.,2007)\nReligious Technology Center v. Netcom On-Line Communication Services, Inc., 907 F.Supp. 1361(N.D.Cal.,1995.)\nRescuecom Corp. v. Google Inc., 562 F.3d 123(2nd Cir.,2009)\nRosetta Stone Ltd. v. Google, Inc., 730 F.Supp.2d 531(E.D.Va.,2010)\nRosetta Stone Ltd. v. Google, Inc., 676 F.3d 144(4th Cir.2012)\nSony Corp of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417(U.S.Cal.,1984.)\nSellify Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 2010 WL 4455830(S.D.N.Y., 2010)\nTiffany(NJ) Inc. v eBay Inc., 576 F.Supp.2d 463(S.D.N.Y.,2008)\nTiffany(NJ) Inc. v eBay Inc., 600 F.3d 93(2nd, Cir. 2010)\nTre Milano, LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc., 2012 WL 3594380 (Cal. App. Ct. 2012)\nWilliam R. Warner & Co. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 265 U.S 526(1924)\n1-800 CONTACTS, Inc. v. Lens.Com., 755 F.supp.2d 1151(2010)\n1-800 CONTACTS, Inc. v. Lens.Com., 722 F.3d 1229(10th Cir., 2013)\n \n參、 網路資料\n1.財團法人台灣網路資訊中心統計資料http://www.twnic.net.tw/index4.php\n2.財團法人資訊工業策進會科技法律中心研究報告www.cepd.gov.tw/dn.aspx?uid=2522\n3. eBay user agreement http://www.ebay.com/\n4. U.S.Patent and Trademark Office http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/com/strat21/action/p1t01.htm\n5.Google Ad program policy https://adwords.google.com.tw/select/tsandcsfinder\n6. International Association for the Protection of Intellectual Property(AIPPI) http://www.aippi.org.uk/docs/Q204%20final%20formatted%20and%20including%20trilingual%20summary.DOC. \n7. Trademarks and Unfair Competition Committee http://www.nycbar.org/pdf/report/Online%20Auction%20Sites%20Final%20Report.pdf\n8. Copyright 2010 International Trademark Association http://www.mayerbrown.com/files/News/6f3fa5bd-0c31-42ce-a5f0-ffb46ceca324/Presentation/NewsAttachment/72d339fb-cb84-4fce-ba9f-5ab682a97a78/OnlineAuctioneers.pdf\n9. LVMH官網 http://www.lvmh.com/\n10.經濟部智慧財產局http://www.tipo.gov.tw \n11.人民法院報 http://rmfyb.chinacourt.org/paper/html/2012-04/26/content_43917.htm?div=-1\n12. European Commission http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/iprenforcement/docs/memorandum_04052011_en.pdf\n13.CBS http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ebay-lvmh-reach-settlement-over-fake-goods/
描述: 碩士
國立政治大學
法律科際整合研究所
98652012
資料來源: http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0098652012
資料類型: thesis
Appears in Collections:學位論文

Files in This Item:
File SizeFormat
201201.pdf1.3 MBAdobe PDF2View/Open
Show full item record

Google ScholarTM

Check


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.