查詢結果分析
來源資料
頁籤選單縮合
| 題 名 | 你的戲謔仿作、我的商標權--借鏡美國析論商標權保護與言論自由之平衡=Your Parody, My Trademark Right: A Critical Review on Balance between Freedom of Speech and Trademark Protection by Referring to American Experiences |
|---|---|
| 作 者 | 許炳華; | 書刊名 | 中原財經法學 |
| 卷 期 | 52 2024.06[民113.06] |
| 頁 次 | 頁233-290 |
| 分類號 | 587.3 |
| 關鍵詞 | 戲謔仿作; 識別性; 言論自由; 商標權保護; 混淆誤認之虞; Parody; Distinctiveness; Free speech; Trademark protection; Likelihood of confusion; |
| 語 文 | 中文(Chinese) |
| 中文摘要 | 過往 20 年,當戲謔仿作漸次進入美國文化核心,司法實務 亦更加尊重而給予特殊保護,憲法增修條文第 1 條保障言論自 由而限制了商標法之權利範圍,法院費心確保受保護之言論得 以豁免於商標之侵權責任。該等適例首見 1989 年美國聯邦第二 巡迴上訴法院 Rogers v. Grimaldi 案,然 2023 年美國聯邦最高法 院在 Jack Daniel’s Properties, Inc. v. VIP Products LLC 商標戲謔 仿作案以一致性票數作出對商標權人有利之判決,清楚表明當 使用他人商標在表彰來源時,即必須適用傳統混淆誤認之虞檢 驗,使得商標權與藝術表達自由間之平衡經歷地殼變動,或謂 商標法就是在保護公眾免於混淆,回到此首要原則有助於審酌 商標之憲法界線。然而若探究商標法深層意旨:溝通資訊,避 免混淆真能代表一切?況混淆誤認之虞檢驗仍為不精確的標 準,與其機械式地操作,是否能企求更彈性的途徑於商標戲謔 仿作之個案平衡商標權人、戲謔仿作者、公眾間的利益。 |
| 英文摘要 | Over the last twenty years, as parody increasingly moved to center stage in American culture, courts have become much more receptive to arguments that parody deserves special protection. The First Amendment right to freedom of speech limits the scope of rights in the Lanham Act. Courts have devised various defenses and legal doctrines to ensure that protected speech is exempted from trademark infringement liability. Since the landmark holding in Rogers v. Grimaldi created a balancing test for trademark infringement cases implicating First Amendment rights, there has been significant evolution in this field. However, the Supreme Court’s 9-0 decision in Jack Daniel’s Properties, inc. v. VIP Products LLC is on the trademark holders’ side. When a trademark is used to distinguish a product from others, the traditional likelihood of confusion analysis should be applied. The legal approach to balancing trademark rights with freedom of artistic expression has undergone a seismic shift. Is this the reconstruction of the balance between free speech and trademark protection? In considering the constitutional boundaries of the trademark estate, it is helpful to return to first principles: the Lanham Act protects the public from confusion. However, when it comes to the deep purposes of the Lanham Act, informative communication is paramount and confusion isn’t everything. The likelihood of confusion test has been around for many decades, but it remains an inexact standard for determining trademark infringement. A more flexible approach should be taken in trademark parody cases, balancing the interests of trademark owners, parodists, and, most importantly, the public. |
本系統中英文摘要資訊取自各篇刊載內容。