新法條文規定

依據2006 年 10 月最新通過的商標淡化修正法（以下簡稱 TDRA）之規定，此將原 本聯邦商標法第45 條有關淡化定義的規定與第 43 條(c)項有關商標淡化行為的規定（即 FTDA）全部予以刪除，並在原第 43 條(c)項位置增訂以下七款規定。以下即就各款規定 分別予以說明之。

第一款 禁止令（Injunctive Relief）

「依據衡平原則，具備先天或後天識別性之著名商標權利人，對於他人在該商標成為著 名後，將該著名商標於商業上作為商標或商業名稱使用，並有致淡化該著名商標識別性 或信譽之虞的行為，得請求禁制令，無論是否有實際混淆或混淆誤認之虞、競爭關係、

或實際的經濟上損害存在。」

“Subject to the principles of equity, the owner of a famous mark that is distinctive, inherently or through acquired distinctiveness, shall be entitled to an injunction against another person who, at any time after the owner's mark has become famous, commences use of a mark or trade name in commerce that is likely to cause dilution by blurring or dilution by tarnishment of the famous mark, regardless of the presence or absence of actual or likely confusion, of competition, or of actual economic injury.”

根據第一款的規定可以發現三項修正重點。首先，TDRA已將聯邦反淡化法的結果 要件修正為有「淡化之虞」時，著名商標權利人即得向法院申請禁止令。再者，該條文 亦明確表示TDRA所保護的對象同時包括具備先天或後天識別性的著名商標。此外，針 對TDRA所規範的行為類型，條文文字亦明確揭示包含模糊淡化（dilution by blurring）

與汙損淡化（dilution by tarnishment）的行為。

第二款 定義（Definition）

「A、以第一款為目的，著名商標係指該標章已廣泛被美國一般消費大眾認知作為表彰 該商標權利人之商品或服務的來源。判斷某標章是否符合上述規定的認知要件時，法院 應考量所有相關因素，包括：

(i)該標章從事宣傳廣告或名氣之期間、範圍及所涵蓋之地域，不問其宣傳廣告或名氣係 由所有人或第三人所為；

(ii)該商標所提供商品或服務之銷售金額、數量、及地域範圍；

(iii)該標章被實際認識之範圍；

(iv)該標章是否已在美國專利商標局註冊。」

“(A) For purposes of paragraph (1), a mark is famous if it is widely recognized by the general consuming public of the United States as a designation of source of the goods or services of the mark's owner. In determining whether a mark possesses the requisite degree of recognition, the court may consider all relevant factors, including the following:

(i) The duration, extent, and geographic reach of advertising and publicity of the mark, whether advertised or publicized by the owner or third parties.

(ii) The amount, volume, and geographic extent of sales of goods or services offered under the mark.

(iii) The extent of actual recognition of the mark.

(iv) Whether the mark was registered under the Act of March 3, 1881, or the Act of February 20, 1905, or on the principal register.”

此條款的修正重點在於將著名商標清楚定義為須「廣為美國一般消費大眾所認知」

的標章始為TDRA 所保護的對象，因此標章僅在特定市場著名（即僅具有 niche fame）

者，即無法請求 TDRA 的保護。至於如何認定標章是否著名，TDRA 將原本 FTDA 規 範的八項斟酌因素簡化為上述四項。

「B、以第一款為目的，模糊淡化係指某標章或商業名稱與著名商標間構成近似而產生 聯想，且該聯想會損傷著名商標的識別性。於判斷某標章是否有模糊淡化之虞時，法院 應考量所有的相關因素，包括：

(i) 標章或商業名稱與著名商標間相似之程度；

(ii)著名商標先天或後天識別性之程度；

(iii)著名商標權利人大體上專屬使用該標章之範圍；

(iv)著名商標被認知的程度；

(v)標章或商業名稱的使用人是否有意造成與著名商標形成聯想；(6)標章或商業名稱與 著名商標間的任何實際聯想。」

“(B) For purposes of paragraph (1), ‘dilution by blurring’ is association arising from the similarity between a mark or trade name and a famous mark that impairs the distinctiveness of the famous mark. In determining whether a mark or trade name is likely to cause dilution by blurring, the court may consider all relevant factors, including the following:

(i) The degree of similarity between the mark or trade name and the famous mark.

(ii) The degree of inherent or acquired distinctiveness of the famous mark.

(iii) The extent to which the owner of the famous mark is engaging in substantially exclusive use of the mark.

(iv) The degree of recognition of the famous mark.

(v) Whether the user of the mark or trade name intended to create an association with the famous mark.

(vi) Any actual association between the mark or trade name and the famous mark.”

依據本條款的文字可知，關於模糊淡化之虞，TDRA 要求著名商標權利人須證明其 著名商標與後使用者之標章或商業名稱因兩者之相似程度而導致發生聯想之虞，且該聯 想會損傷著名商標的識別性。值得注意的是，條文要求必須是因著名商標與標章的近似

（或相同）所產生的聯想才符合TDRA 的要件，若只是因為兩標章之下的產品或服務類 似或競爭關係所生的聯想，則不在TDRA 的規範範圍內。⁹⁵

「C、以第一款為目的，污損淡化係指某標章或商業名稱與著名商標間構成近似而產生 聯想，且該聯想會傷害著名商標的信譽。」

“(C) For purposes of paragraph (1), ‘dilution by tarnishment’ is association arising from the similarity between a mark or trade name and a famous mark that harms the reputation of the famous mark.”

由於美國最高法院在V Secret案針對是否規範「污損淡化」的行為，其意見混沌不 明，因此美國國會在TDRA中重申此類行為應屬於聯邦反淡化法的規範範圍。

第三款 阻卻淡化事由（Exclusion）

「以下行為不得作為本節中模糊淡化或污損淡化的行為：

A、任何合理使用，包括他人對著名商標為指示性或描述性合理使用，或為便利該使用 行為而為使用，而非作為表彰自己商品或服務之來源者，其中包括：

(i)使消費者得比較商品或服務而為廣告或宣傳的使用，或

95 趙晉枚等，《商標法整體法制暨具體修法建議之研究》，行政院經濟部智慧財產局委辦案期末報告，2005 年11 月 30 日，頁 145。

(ii)對著名商標或其表彰之商品或服務而為辨認、暗諷、批評或評論之使用。

B、任何形式之新聞報導或評論。

C、任何非商業性使用。」

“The following shall not be actionable as dilution by blurring or dilution by tarnishment under this subsection:

(A) Any fair use, including a nominative or descriptive fair use, or facilitation of such fair use, of a famous mark by another person other than as a designation of source for the person's own goods or services, including use in connection with--

(i) advertising or promotion that permits consumers to compare goods or services; or

(ii) identifying and parodying, criticizing, or commenting upon the famous mark owner or the goods or services of the famous mark owner.

(B) All forms of news reporting and news commentary.

(C) Any noncommercial use of a mark.”

此條款的修正重點在於確保美國憲法第一修正案的言論自由，除針對被告「非作為 表彰自己商品或服務來源」之使用予以排除外，更明白規定前述之使用行為包括「辨認、

暗諷、批評、評論著名商標或其表彰之商品或服務」的使用行為。此即將指示性使用行 為納入合理使用的抗辯。

第四款 舉證責任（Burden of Proof）

「未註冊之表徵所有人欲依據本法請求反淡化之保護時，其須負擔的舉證責任為：

A、請求受保護之表徵，整體觀之，係屬於著名且不具功能性；且

B、若請求受保護之表徵包含任何已註冊之商標時，該未註冊之部份本身，就整體觀之，

必須為著名。」

“In a civil action for trade dress dilution under this Act for trade dress not registered on the principal register, the person who asserts trade dress protection has the burden of proving that--

(A) the claimed trade dress, taken as a whole, is not functional and is famous; and

(B) if the claimed trade dress includes any mark or marks registered on the principal register, the unregistered matter, taken as a whole, is famous separate and apart from any fame of such registered marks.”

此條款係明確規範未註冊之表徵所有人欲請求TDRA 之保護時，其對於未註冊之表 徵部分亦應舉證證明其係屬著名。

第五款 附加救濟（Additional Remedies）

「依據本節提出爭訟時，著名商標權利人得請求本法第 34 條所列之禁止令。如有下列 情況時，依照法院之心證與衡平原則，著名商標權利人並得請求第35 條(a)款及第 36 條 所列之救濟：

A、在商標淡化修正法制定後，該具有模糊淡化或污損淡化之虞的標章或商業名稱為被 告第一次於商業上使用；且

B、在依據本節所提之主張中，

(i)於模糊淡化的情形，被告係意圖利用該著名商標之知名度；或 (ii)在污損淡化的情形，被告係意圖傷害該著名商標之信譽。」

“In an action brought under this subsection, the owner of the famous mark shall be entitled to injunctive relief as set forth in section 34. The owner of the famous mark shall also be entitled to the remedies set forth in sections 35(a) and 36, subject to the discretion of the court and the principles of equity if--

(A) the mark or trade name that is likely to cause dilution by blurring or dilution by tarnishment was first used in commerce by the person against whom the injunction is sought after the date of enactment of the Trademark Dilution Revision Act of 2006; and

(B) in a claim arising under this subsection--

(i) by reason of dilution by blurring, the person against whom the injunction is sought willfully intended to trade on the recognition of the famous mark; or

(ii) by reason of dilution by tarnishment, the person against whom the injunction is sought willfully intended to harm the reputation of the famous mark.”

此條款之規範重點係揭示TDRA 對於著名商標權利人所提供之救濟種類為何，其中 以禁止令為基本模式；另外當被告有故意（或意圖）時，得請求損害賠償及銷毀侵害物。

值得注意的是，若被告針對某著名商標之淡化行為於TDRA 制定前即已存在，則縱使為 故意，權利人仍無法在單純證明被告行為有淡化之虞後就請求損害賠償或銷毀侵害物，

亦即該淡化行為於FTDA 時期即已存在，而原告若欲在新法時期請求損害賠償，則仍須 證明被告行為有致原告著名商標遭受實際淡化時始得為之。

第六款 有效註冊為本節之絕對免責事由（Ownership of Valid Registration A Complete Bar）

「他人依據1881 年商標法、或 1905 年商標法、或本法取得某標章之有效註冊時，針對 系爭標章部份得作為以下爭訟的絕對免責事由：

A、(1)依據普通法或州法所提之爭訟且(2)欲請求反淡化保護之爭訟；或

B、主張系爭標章對於其他標章、品牌或廣告形式之識別性構成實際或可能之損害。」

“The ownership by a person of a valid registration under the Act of March 3, 1881, or the Act of February 20, 1905, or on the principal register under this Act shall be a complete bar to an action against that person, with respect to that mark, that--

(A)(i) is brought by another person under the common law or a statute of a State; and (ii) seeks to prevent dilution by blurring or dilution by tarnishment; or

(B) asserts any claim of actual or likely damage or harm to the distinctiveness or reputation of a mark, label, or form of advertisement.”

此條款即原FTDA 第 43 條(c)項第三款規定，新法並未予以更動，藉此保障他人之 既得權。

第七款 保留條款（Saving Clause）

「解釋本節規範時不得損害、修改或取代美國專利法的適用可能性。」

“Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to impair, modify, or supersede the applicability of the patent laws of the United States.”

另外，針對商標註冊、異議、撤銷程序中有關構成淡化之虞之標章是否准予註冊的 情形，亦分別在聯邦商標法第二條(f)項⁹⁶、第13 條(a)項⁹⁷及第14 條⁹⁸的規定中，將「致

96 “[……] A mark which would be likely to cause dilution by blurring or dilution by tarnishment under section 43(c), may be refused registration only pursuant to a proceeding brought under section 13. A registration for a

96 “[……] A mark which would be likely to cause dilution by blurring or dilution by tarnishment under section 43(c), may be refused registration only pursuant to a proceeding brought under section 13. A registration for a