四、 歐盟對商標淡化理論的法制與應用
4.2 歐盟淡化理論的相關立法規定
承前述，歐體執行委員會與歐盟理事會分別於 1988 年與 1993 年頒布商標相關的指 令與規則，即歐盟協調各會員國商標法之第一號指令（First Council Directive 89/104/EEC
9 Opinion of Mr. Advocate General Jacobs delivered on 29 April 1997. Case C-251/95, Sabel BV v. Puma AG, Rudolf Dassler Sport, 1997 E.C.R. I-6191, para. 38-39 (citing Case A 74/1, judgment of 1 March 1975, Jurisprudence of the Benelux Court of Justice 1975).
10 Jacobs, supra note 5, at para. 38. See also Eenvormige Beneluxwet op de merken § 13A.1(c) (Uniform Benelux Law on Marks § 13A.1(c)).
11 Isabel Davies, A Decade of Dilution: Europe, Address at INTA 127th Annual Meeting (May 16, 2005), in DILUTION SPEECH DOC., at 4.
12 Id.
of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks，
以下簡稱Directive）與歐洲共同體商標規則（Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark，以下簡稱 CTMR）。其中有關商標淡化理 論的條文，分別為Directive 第 4 條第 3 項、第 4 條第 4 項(a)款與第 5 條第 2 項，及 CTMR 第8 條第 5 項與第 9 條第 1 項(c)款。Directive 第 4 條第 3 項、第 4 項(a)款與 CTMR 第 8 條第5 項係針對商標註冊的消極事由而為規定；Directive 第 5 條第 2 項與 CTMR 第 9 條第1 項(c)款則是針對商標淡化行為賦予權利人得排除侵害的權利。
4.2.1 條文規定
Directive 第 4 條第 3 項
「若某商標與先前之歐洲共同體商標相同或近似，且其所表彰之商品或服務與該先前之 歐洲共同體商標所登記者為不近似，於先前歐洲共同體商標的情形，該歐洲共同體商標 於歐洲共同體境內已有聲譽，且後商標之使用會無正當理由地不當利用或減損該先前歐 洲共同體商標之識別性或信譽時，即不得註冊；若已註冊，也必須被宣告為無效。」
“A trade mark shall furthermore not be registered or, if registered, shall be liable to be declared invalid if it is identical with, or similar to, an earlier Community trade mark within the meaning of paragraph 2 and is to be, or has been, registered for goods or services which are not similar to those for which the earlier Community trade mark is registered, where the earlier Community trade mark has a reputation in the Community and where the use of the later trade mark without due cause would take unfair advantage of, or be detrimental to, the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier trade mark.”
Directive 第 4 條第 4 項(a)款
「任何會員國得規定，若某商標與先前之國內商標相同或近似，且其所表彰之商品或服 務與該先前之國內商標所登記者為不近似，於該先前之國內商標的情形，該先前之國內 商標於相關會員國境內已有聲譽，且後商標之使用會無正當理由地不當利用或減損該先 前國內商標之識別性或信譽者，即不得註冊；若已註冊，也必須被宣告為無效。」
“Any Member State may furthermore provide that a trade mark shall not be registered or, if registered, shall be liable to be declared invalid where, and to the extent that: (a) the trade mark is identical with, or similar to, an earlier national trade mark within the meaning of paragraph 2 and is to be, or has been, registered for goods or services which are not similar to those for which the earlier trade mark is registered, where the earlier trade mark has a reputation in the Member State concerned and where the use of the later trade mark without due cause would take unfair advantage of, or be detrimental to, the distinctive character or the
repute of the earlier trade mark;”
Directive第5條第2項
「任何會員國得規定，專用權人有權阻止未經其同意之第三人於交易過程中，使用任何 標章，其與該專用權人之商標相同或近似，且其所表彰之商品或服務與該專用權人之商 標所登記者不同，而該專用權人之商標於會員國境內享有聲譽且該標章之使用會無正當 理由地不當利用或減損該專用權人之商標之識別性或信譽者。」
“Any Member State may also provide that the proprietor shall be entitled to prevent all third parties not having his consent from using in the course of trade any sign which is identical with, or similar to, the trade mark in relation to goods or services which are not similar to those for which the trade mark is registered, where the latter has a reputation in the Member State and where use of that sign without due cause takes unfair advantage of, or is detrimental to, the distinctive character or the repute of the trade mark.”
CTMR第8條第5項
「此外，基於第2項之內容，先前商標之專用權人提起異議時，若該商標之申請與先前 商標相同或近似，且其所表彰之商品或服務與先前商標所登記者不近似，於先前歐洲共 同體商標的情形，該共同體商標於歐洲共同體境內已有聲譽，或於先前國內商標的情 形，該國內商標於相關會員國境內享有聲譽，且使用該申請註冊之商標會無正當理由地 不當利用或減損該先前商標之識別性或信譽時，即不得註冊。」
“Furthermore, upon opposition by the proprietor of an earlier trade mark within the meaning of paragraph 2, the trade mark applied for shall not be registered where it is identical with or similar to the earlier trade mark and is to be registered for goods or services which are not similar to those for which the earlier trade mark is registered, where in the case of an earlier Community trade mark the trade mark has a reputation in the Community and, in the case of an earlier national trade mark, the trade mark has a reputation in the Member State concerned and where the use without due cause of the trade mark applied for would take unfair advantage of, or be detrimental to, the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier trade mark.”
CTMR第9條第1項(c)款
「歐洲共同體商標賦予專用權人獨享之權利。專用權人有權阻止未經其同意之第三人於 交易過程中，使用下列標章：(c) 任何標章，其與該歐洲共同體商標相同或近似，且其 所表彰之商品或服務與該歐洲共同體商標所登記者不相同，於歐洲共同體商標的情形，
該共同體商標於歐洲共同體境內已享有聲譽，且該標章之使用會無正當理由地不當利用
或減損該歐洲共同體商標之識別性或信譽者。」
“A Community trade mark shall confer on the proprietor exclusive rights therein. The proprietor shall be entitled to prevent all third parties not having his consent from using in the course of trade: (c) any sign which is identical with or similar to the Community trade mark in relation to goods or services which are not similar to those for which the Community trade mark is registered, where the latter has a reputation in the Community and where use of that sign without due cause takes unfair advantage of, or is detrimental to, the distinctive character or the repute of the Community trade mark.”
4.2.2 法律架構與要件分析
4.2.2.1 法律架構
由上述的條文文字可知，歐盟針對歐洲共同體商標與各會員國國內商標的保護強度 其實有所區分。針對歐洲共同體商標部份，歐盟的Directive第4條第3項、CTMR第8條第 5項與第9條第1項(c)款都明確表示，只要第三人申請或使用之標章會不當利用或減損具 有聲譽之歐洲共同體商標之識別性或信譽時，專用權人即可禁止其使用或對其註冊之申 請提出異議。但專用權人此部分之權利，在各會員國國內商標法之規範時，其規範強度 則相對減弱；亦即歐盟Directive第4條第4項(a)款與Directive第5條第2項皆未強制各會員 國於其國內商標法中硬性規定商標淡化行為。13然而承先前之背景說明可知，歐盟各會 員國由於經濟與貿易的因素，其為達成單一交易市場之目的，因此在80與90年代紛紛對 自己國內之商標法進行修法以達到彼此立法規範ㄧ致的狀態。14因此即使歐盟Directive 未強制要求各會員國必須針對商標淡化行為進行立法，但從目前的現狀可知，歐盟各會 員國於各自國內商標法中都已將商標淡化行為納入國內商標法規範，即目前歐盟地區對 於歐洲共同體商標與國內商標的保護強度已趨於ㄧ致。
4.2.2.2 要件分析
綜觀歐盟Directive與CTMR的文字可以發現，歐盟針對商標淡化行為在消極註冊事 由與商標侵權事由的文字規定其實大致相同，仔細觀察後應可歸納出下列六項要件：
(1) 先前之歐洲共同體商標與國內商標必須已取得註冊；
(2) 先前之歐洲共同體商標與國內商標必須分別在歐盟地區或各會員國境內具有聲譽；
(3) 後使用或後申請之標章，其所表彰或申請登記之商品或服務與先前之歐洲共同體商 標或國內商標所登記者不類似；
13 “Any Member State may furthermore provide that […],” “Any Member State may also provide that […],”
Council Directive 89/104, 1981 O.J. (L 40) 1 (EEC), art. 4(4)(a), art. 5(2).
14 Da vies, supra note 11, at 4.
(4) 後使用者或後申請者必須無正當理由；
(5) 後使用或後申請之標章會不當利用先前歐洲共同體商標或國內商標之識別性或信 譽；
(6) 後使用或後申請之標章會減損先前歐洲共同體商標或國內商標之識別性或信譽。
大體來說，從上述要件的數目即可得知，歐盟針對商標淡化行為的規定其實非常嚴 謹，然而由於各國法院對於各要件的解釋有些許不同，因此仍產生一些爭議，包括兩造 商標之相似度是否須達到會使消費者混淆誤認的程度，以及所謂「不當利用或減損先前 商標之識別性或信譽」，其證明程度為何，都有待歐洲法院的實務見解加以釐清。因此 以下即就歐洲各法院針對上述要件及相關爭議所作成之實務見解一一說明之。