智慧財產權月刊 223 期

12 /106

12
本月專題
商標有致產地來源誤認誤信之判斷
106.07 智慧財產權月刊 VOL.223
ਠۜא؂ਕٙԸ๕ήd˲ԫྼɪ޴ᗫਠۜא؂ਕԨ ڢ˸ϤήଣਜਹމԸ๕ή 13f
˜޴ᗫऊ൬٫฽̙ঐ޴ڦਠᅺהܸͪٙήଣਜਹdމਠᅺהܸ၈ਠۜ א؂ਕٙԸ
๕ή™ʘᆽ֛ɗމ˜ਠۜପήᑌซ™€goods/place association಻༊fɓছϾԊd
ਠᅺlz࢙הܸͪٙήଣਜਹdՉପቖਠᅺ ה ܸ၈ਠۜא؂ਕd׵޴ᗫऊ൬٫ːͦ
ʕהԮϞٙٝΤܓฏ৷dϤ˜ਠۜପήᑌซ™ʘҖϓ̙ٙঐ׌ฏ৷dאίऊ൬٫
ːͦʕٙոഹฏଉ 14fԷνjਠᅺlz࢙މ˜ڛԢʆ༵ପ™dՉהܸ၈ٙਠۜމ ঩
໢ၾ঩Ⴁۜf߰˜ ڛԢʆ༵ପ™ הෂ༺ٙࠠࠅ จ଄ί׵˜ڛԢʆ™Ϥήଣਜਹd
͟׵ڛԢʆΣԸ˸঩໢ၾ঩Ⴁۜഹ၈dί޴ᗫऊ൬ʕːͦʕʊܔ ͭə঩໢ପቖٙ
৷ٝΤܓdϤࣛdߘਠۜପήᑌซ™಻༊ɪdуϞԑ੄ٙᗇኽપᓙ˜޴ᗫऊ൬
٫฽̙ঐ޴ڦਠᅺ ה ܸͪٙήଣਜਹdމਠᅺ הܸ၈ਠۜא؂ਕٙԸ๕ή™f
຅кᓙਠᅺהܸ၈ʘਠۜא؂ਕ݊щ˸ਠᅺ הܸͪʘήଣਜਹމԸ๕ήࣛd
Չʕ˜ਠۜא؂ਕ™ܼ̍ࡡପאي؂ਕၾࠃ͛ʘ޴ᗫਠۜא؂ਕ 15fϾϤהܸʘ
˜ήଣਜਹ™ৰܸତίʘ͍όΤ၈̮d͵ᓒʿঐ޴ᗫʘ˾၈fШϞਪᕚٙ݊dϤ
13 In re Cal. Innovations, Inc., 329 F.3d at 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2003)(“Thus, due to the NAFTA changes in
the Lanham Act, the PTO must deny registration under ² 1052[e][3] if n[2] the consuming public
is likely to believe the place identified by the mark indicates the origin of the goods bearing the mark,
when in fact the goods do not come from that place,n”)i௰৷Б݁৫ج 99 ϋܓ кοୋ 1324 ໮к
Ӕj˜ۆ ׌ሯeۜሯא ପήႬႩႬڦ ʘ໬ϞೌʘкᓙdᏐ੽ਠᅺ͉Ԓྡᅵ˖ο዆᜗̮ٙҖeᝈ
ׂאᛘࠪഃᝈ࿀dఱਠᅺഗʚऊ൬٫ٙΙ൥d̋ɪၾਠᅺܸ֛ʘਠۜ א؂ਕʘᑌഐdϽඎܸ֛
ਠۜא ؂ਕί̹ఙʹ׸ʘྼყઋԫd˸ܸ֛ਠۜא؂ਕऊ൬٫ʘႩᗆeชٝމ ਿ๟d੽ਠᅺІ
᜗࿴ϓٜટ܄ᝈкᓙd݊щऊ൬٫הႩᗆਠۜʘପήeனਯήd א؂ਕʘ౤ԶήdίྼყԴ͜
ɪϞମ׵ՉהႩᗆʘ׌ሯeۜሯ אପήഃdߧ ऊ൬٫ϞႬႩႬڦ ʘ໬d֐Ϟ͉ಛʘቇ͜fɦਠ
ᅺྡᅵ˖οၾՉܸ֛ਠۜא؂ਕʘᗫᑌ׌ᒱ᙮кᓙ݊щ༈຅͉ಛʘΪ९ʘɓdШᏐ˸ऊ൬٫ή
Зкᓙd˸࿴ϓਠᅺʘྡᅵ˖οഃڷٜટڌ ͪਠۜא؂ਕʘत׌dٜટкᓙՉᗫᑌ݊щߧ͛Ⴌ
ႩႬڦ ʘ໬dϾڢ຾ˢ༰Ͼ੻̈૿ଌႬႩʘ໬f™
14 MCCARTHY, supra note 11, at ² 14:33i౽ᅆৌପ৫ج 100 ϋ ܓБਠൡοୋ 92 ໮кӔj˜ၝɪ
ࠑהd׵˚͉ස࠰ ʇጤ͛ପႡி˲ୌΥत֛׌ሯၾۜሯʘœढᎲᙢ֐੻׵Չۃఊዹᅺͪœ᝔
؜ဏοdϾҢ਷׵ӻنਠᅺൗ̅ۃуၾ˚ֻ͉Ը᎖ᐿd˲Ϟᗫ׵œ᝔؜ढᎲᙢʘజኬ౳Ԉ
׵΢ɽజ௝ᕏႦd˲ቖਯœ᝔؜ढᎲᙢʘਠ࢕͵ε܁၈Չପήމ˚͉œ᝔؜ήਜdΎᅄመ
ࡡѓʘ܁ෂБቖ˓̅ɪ͵া༱œ˚͉࠰ʇ᝔؜ढᎲᙢ݂ٙඊd̙Ԉœ᝔؜ढᎲᙢڷ ܸପή
މ˚͉᝔؜ήਜʘԫྼdʔසމ ޴ᗫऊ൬٫הٝ઄d˲͵ މࡡѓה ٝ઄f™
15 In re Save Venice New York, Inc., 259, F.3d 1346, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“The related goods test
measures whether a reasonably prudent consumer would believe that non-competitive but related
goods sold under similar marks derive from the same source, or are affiliated with, connected with,
or sponsored by the same trademark owner.” and “In its application of the ‘related goods’ test, the
Board found that many of applicant's goods ‘reflect product types, decorative themes and material
compositions’ associated with the city of Venice, Italy. As a result, the Board concluded that consumers
would make a goods/place association between Venice, Italy and applicant's related goods. We agree
with the Board that certain derivative ‘related goods’ carrying a distinctive geographic mark would
likely confuse consumers as to the source of the “related goods.”)