9 /106
9
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
ਕʘପήʘ٫f˴၍ዚᗫуഗʚࣨჶᄲ֛d
ל
ഒൗ̅dೌϽඎՉ˼݅
πൗ̅ਠᅺ
א
ਠᅺൗ̅͡ሗʘً࿒dೌ࿁лूፅඎʘც
ࠅ
d݂
މ
ഒ࿁ᇍf
ਠᅺ
ج
ୋ
29
ૢୋ
1
ධୋ
1
ಛᗫପήႭʘᇍdɗ᙮ਠᅺᗆйٙਪᕚf
ਠᅺႩ֛
މ
ස͟
הࠑ
ܸ֛ਠۜ
א
ਕʘପήʘႭ
ה
ϓ٫d༈ਠᅺ
ک
˞ॹਠᅺ
הج
ᇍᗫൗ̅ਠᅺٙᗆй
ࠅ
Ӌdࡡ
ۆ
ɪʔʚ˸ൗ̅
6
f್Ͼd
༈ਠᅺൗ̅ʘ͡ሗɛ߰ঐᗇՉਠᅺൗ̅͡ሗ
ۃ
dุ͡ሗɛԴ͜˲ίʹ
ɪʊϓ
މ
͡ሗɛਠۜ
א
ਕʘᗆйᅺᗆ٫d
ۆ
ᐽਠᅺlz࢙
މ
ࠑ
ପήᗫႭ
Ͼ˞ॹ˂ᗆйd͵˸ਠᅺԴ͜
ה
͛ʘୋɚࠠจ່d͍˂ᗆйʘʔԑd
တԑਠᅺ
ج
ʘᗆй
ࠅ
7
f್Ͼdਠᅺ
ج
ୋ
30
ૢୋ
1
ධୋ
8
ಛᗫପήႬ
ڦ
ʘ
ᇍdԨ
০ڢ
࿁ൗ̅ਠᅺʘᗆй
ࠅ
dՉπίʘͦٙίஈଣਠᅺᛆၾ̮л
ूٙላ߉ၾሜձd݂Ͼdೌୋɚࠠจ່͍ٙਪᕚd͵у͉ಛ߰Ϟ˿ʮႬႩ
א
Չਠۜ
א
ਕʘପήʘ٫d൙ᄆ
މ
Ոᅂᚤ̹ఙʮ̻ᘩ
ن
ʘΚᎈdਠᅺൗ̅͡
ሗɛʔ˸ਠᅺୋɚࠠจ່͍ٙ
މ
͟d˴ੵ༈ਠᅺ
ۍڜ
ᗫਠᅺ
ج
ୋ
30
ૢୋ
1
ධୋ
8
ಛʘʔʚൗ̅ᇍf
Ϥ̮dਠᅺ
ج
ୋ
29
ૢୋ
1
ධୋ
1
ಛᗫପήႭʘᇍdՉкᓙਠᅺ݊щ
މ
ස͟
הࠑ
ܸ֛ਠۜ
א
ਕʘପήʘႭ
ה
ϓ٫dഹࠠᗫऊ൬٫࿁
ਠᅺlz࢙
ה
ࠑ
ʘਠۜ
א
ਕٙପήԸ๕d݊щΥଣήႩ
אމ
ڦ
dਠᅺ
ה
ܸ
၈ʘਠۜ
א
ਕᆽԸІ
ࠑۃ
ʘήଣਜਹkЇᗫਠۜ
א
ਕԫྼɪ݊щၾਠ
ᅺ
౧ה
ͪٙήଣਜਹϞᗫd
א
ԸІ༈ਜਹd
ڢۆ
ୋ
29
ૢୋ
1
ධୋ
1
ಛ
ה
ᗫ
٫ء
8
f
Шਠᅺ
ج
ୋ
30
ૢୋ
1
ධୋ
8
ಛ
ה
੶ሜ٫d
ڢ
ਠᅺʘᗆйdϾ݊ᒒеɽΪਠ
ᅺlz࢙
౧ה
ͪٙପήԸ๕༟ৃdϾ࿁ᗫਠۜ
א
ਕʘପήdϞႬႩ
א
Ⴌ
ڦ
ʘf
6
ਠᅺ
ج
ୋ
29
ૢୋ
1
ධୋ
1
ಛjਠᅺϞɨΐʔՈᗆйઋҖʘɓdʔൗ̅jɓeස͟
הࠑ
ܸ֛ਠۜ
א
ਕʘۜሯe͜eࡡࣘeପή
א
ᗫतʘႭ
ה
ϓ٫f
7
ਠᅺ
ج
ୋ
29
ૢୋ
2
ධjϞ
ۃ
ධୋɓಛ
א
ୋɧಛ֛ʘઋҖdν͡ሗɛԴ͜˲ίʹɪʊϓ
މ
͡ሗɛਠۜ
א
ਕʘᗆйᅺᗆ٫dʔቇ͜ʘf
8
¶43 of Judgement of the Court of First Instance, Nordmilch eG v. OHIM, 15 October 2003 (“With
regard to the applicant's comment that the Board of Appeal was careful to avoid confirming that the
contested mark OLDENBURGER designates the geographical origin of the goods claimed, it must be
observed that the Board of Appeal has established to the requisite legal standard that the connection
between the name of the place and the goods may enable the relevant class of person to perceive the
sign in question as an indication of the origin of those goods without there being any need to know in
that connection whether the name actually designates the true geographical origin of the goods.”)