查詢結果分析
相關文獻
- 公司名稱、商號名稱、商標與網址名稱--論網路時代的名稱權與公平交易法問題
- 商號之登記、使用與著名標章之保護--商號法制、商標法及公平交易法的三不管地帶?
- 公司名稱之人格權保護與商標法、公平交易法間之糾葛--評臺灣高等法院九十六年上更(一)字第一二六號「東森不動產仲介經紀有限公司」vs.「東森建業不動產仲介經紀股份有限公司」判決
- 論公平交易法表徵、公司法公司名稱與商標法之交錯適用
- 論公平交易法表徵、公司法公司名稱與商標法之交錯適用
- 論公平交易法表徵、公司法公司名稱與商標法之交錯適用
- 網域名稱在臺灣的法律保護問題
- 公司名稱、行號名稱與商標之關係
- 三論「著名商標之保護於我國現行實務所面臨之問題」
- 從Carrefour(家樂福)網址事件論商標專用權與公平交易法獨占的適用
頁籤選單縮合
題名 | 公司名稱、商號名稱、商標與網址名稱--論網路時代的名稱權與公平交易法問題=Corporate Name, Trade Name, Trademark & Domain Name--Can Fair Trade Law Be Effective in Resolving Domain Name Disputes﹖ |
---|---|
作者 | 馮震宇; Fong, Jerry G.; |
期刊 | 公平交易季刊 |
出版日期 | 19970400 |
卷期 | 5:2 1997.04[民86.04] |
頁次 | 頁33-81 |
分類號 | 490.25 |
語文 | chi |
關鍵詞 | 公司名稱; 商號名稱; 商標; 網址名稱; 網路時代; 名稱權; 公平交易法; |
英文摘要 | Under the present legal system of Taiwan, different laws regulate the acquisition and the usage of business names, which including Corporate Law (for corporate name), Businese Registration Law (for parinership, venders), Trade Law (for trading companies) and Trademark Law (for trademarks and service marks). Pursuant to the first-file doctrine, business entities must file applications with relevant authorities, respecivcly, in order to got hold of the desired names. The prevailing of electronic commerce and internet environment, however, have created an additional business name. Even though numerous domain name disputes have make headines in other countries, Taiwan has experienced only one incident, which involves a company use the famous YAHOO! as its domain name in Taiwan. This new challenge, also created various issues, such as who has right to a certain domain name, which business name holder shall prevail in a domain name dispute. Since the Ecommerce is the trend of the future, and Taiwanese enterprises are following this trend closely, the author, therefore, believes more domam name disputes will emerge in Taiwan it the near future. Although many countries give trademark holder the right of priority for the disputed domain name, the author argues that trademark or service mark holder shall not automaticlly prevail over the domain name holder unless certain conditions are met. The author further argues that while waiting for the IAHC final dispute resolution guidelines, authorities can apply the Fair Trade Law, especially the Articles 19, in resolving the disputes. The reason is based on the argument that Article 19 has provided effective dispute resolution mechanism and the Fair Trade Commission has also promulgated regulations which are applicable in domain name disputes. It is reasonable, therefore, to resolve the name disputes through Fair Trade Law mechanism, instead of expanding the jurisdiction of trademark law in Taiwan. |
本系統之摘要資訊系依該期刊論文摘要之資訊為主。