English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Items with full text/Total items : 888/888 (100%)
Visitors : 11930312      Online Users : 427
RC Version 7.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library IR team.
Scope Tips:
  • please add "double quotation mark" for query phrases to get precise results
  • please goto advance search for comprehansive author search
  • Adv. Search
    HomeLoginUploadHelpAboutAdminister Goto mobile version
    Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://ccur.lib.ccu.edu.tw/handle/A095B0000Q/920


    Title: 網路關鍵字使用之商標侵權疑義─以美國法為主
    Authors: 羅偉恆;HENG, LO WEI
    Contributors: 財經法律系研究所
    Keywords: 商標;商標侵權;網路關鍵字使用;網路關鍵字搜尋;網路關鍵字廣告;初始興趣混淆原則;電子商務;網路行銷;網路行銷策略;trademark;trademark infringement;online keyword use;online keyword search;online keyword ad;initial interest confusion doctrine;e-commerce;online marketing;online marketing techniques
    Date: 2017
    Issue Date: 2019-07-17 10:57:40 (UTC+8)
    Publisher: 財經法律系研究所
    Abstract: 由於近年來科技發展迅速,電子商務之使用漸趨頻繁,各種網路行銷手法層出不窮,網路賣家或網路平台業者利用他人之商標行銷其商品、服務等,或藉由關鍵字廣告方式替其平台營利。使網路消費者搜尋特定關鍵字時,個別之行銷廣告便以不同方式顯示於其螢幕,該廣告常為商標權人競爭對手之網站連結,廣告,或銷售頁面。此行為是否侵害該商標權人之商標權,則有所爭議。 對於網路關鍵字使用,美國聯邦巡迴上訴法院曾適用初始興趣混淆原則並認定該行為構成商標侵權,但近期則傾向同意有限制之使用。但在聯邦最高法院尚未對此種類型之案件明確表示看法前,僅能依據各聯邦巡迴上訴法院之判決,觀察法院意見之動向。 以我國法院判決觀之,鑽石理財中心以及幸福空間一案,法院均認為廣告主購買原告之商標,或搜尋引擎平台業者陳列、促銷、販賣、鼓勵他人購買原告所有之商標,其行為乃單純之電腦內部使用,並非商標使用,而不構成商標侵權。因國內相關案件之判決仍屬少數,有論者認為適用現行商標法,即可將不同使用類型予以區別,亦有認為可藉由其他法律制度與以解決。 本文則以為此爭議之解決,似可由行政機關訂立相關處理準則。將不同之使用類型分類規範。未來判斷相關個案,該相關準則即得為當事人,行政機關及法院判斷之依據。本文亦以為,商標制度僅賦予商標權人有限制之權利。電子商務領域內,除商標權人,網路平台業者,廣告主外,消費者亦扮演重要之角色。如何兼顧網路市場參與者權利義務關係,屬商標制度在網路新興領域中所必須衡量之課題,商標法所建立之標準,亦必須隨著科技之日新月異而與之俱進,方可使商標制度因應社會之變遷。
    As the rapid development of science and technology in recent years, using e-commerce has become increasingly frequent. A variety of online marketing techniques emerge in an endless stream. Many online businesses use other people's trademark to marketing their goods, services, etc., or to profit by keyword advertising scheme. When users search for a specific keyword, ads are displayed on their screen in different ways, while many of them are not sponsored by trademark owner. Whether this act infringing the trademark right is under discussion. For using keywords, some of the US Federal Court of Appeals Circuits applied the initial interest confusion doctrine and found someone liable for trademark infringement. But the Federal Circuits is likely to agree to a limited use now. But before the Federal Supreme Court expresses its views on this type of cases, we’d better observe the US Federal Circuits’ decisions to forecast judicial opinions. Our courts regard this type of use as “Computer internal use” rather than trademark use. So that the act does not constitute trademark infringement. Some authors indicate that it could distinguish different types of use by the application of the trademark law, others try to resolve it by using other legal systems. In my opinion, the executive authorities should have rules to regulate such cases. Besides, trademark owner just have limited right by trademark law. In the field of e-commerce, consumers play an important role. Balancing the rights and obligations of the participants in Internet market is an important object. Modifying Trademark law in response to the ever-changing technology and social changes is necessary.
    Appears in Collections:[財經法律系研究所] 學位論文

    Files in This Item:

    File Description SizeFormat
    index.html0KbHTML296View/Open


    All items in CCUR are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.


    版權聲明 © 國立中正大學圖書館網頁內容著作權屬國立中正大學圖書館

    隱私權及資訊安全政策

    DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library IR team Copyright ©   - Feedback