第三章 反向混淆理論之應用與趨勢分析比較
第一節 美國於反向混淆案件認定混淆誤認之虞之標準
國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
第三章 反向混淆理論之應用與趨勢分析比較
第一節 美國於反向混淆案件認定混淆誤認之虞之標準
在Big O tire Dealers Inc. v. The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company 案後，雖然 各法院接續肯認反向混淆理論，使反向混淆理論成為可得主張於法律爭端之有利 原則，又在解決反向混淆爭議時，法院得透過實體法責任規定（substantive law of liability）決定權利紛爭下之贏家、以衡平原則（equity）避免錯誤的判決結果發 生並適切衡量損害補償方式87，但於判決實務，一直未有法院針對商標反向混淆 侵權之相關認定方式、判斷方法進一步闡釋與定義88，造成已受肯認的法律原則 因為猶如空殼般的判斷標準，事實上無法應用，使商標權人之權利救濟處於不確 定狀態。
直至1983 年，Plus Products v. Plus Discount Foods, Inc.89一案，聯邦第二巡 迴上訴法院才明確表示確有其必要發展判斷反向混淆商標侵權之方法，並表示反 向混淆侵權之判斷應採取與判斷正向混淆侵權相同之方法90。而正向混淆商標侵 權之判斷分為兩階段，第一階段須先證明原告（商標先使用者）之商標是否為商 標法所保護之商標，亦即是否具備識別性；第二階段需再證明被告（商標後使用 者）使用之商標對原告之商標而言是否有混淆誤認之虞91，另有部分法院將第一 階段之識別性檢驗融入第二階段中，將其與屬於混淆誤認之虞檢驗要素之一的
87 Thad G. Long, Alfred M. Marks, supra note 5, at 6.
88 在Big O tire Dealers Inc. v. The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company 案後，最早採取相同見解者 為美國聯邦第五巡迴上訴法院之Capital Films Corp. v. Charles Fries Prods., Inc.一案，也僅要求下 級的地區法院適用反向混淆理論，但對於具體該如何適用，如何判斷當事人主張等方面均未有 所表示。Capital Films Corp., 628 F.2d at 393-395.
89 Plus Products v. Plus Discount Foods, Inc., 722 F.2d 999 (2d Cir. 1983).
90 Plus Products, 722 F.2d at 1004.
91 Banff, Ltd., 841 F.2d at 489.
‧
92 McGregor-Doniger, Inc. v. Drizzle, Inc. 599 F.2d 1126, 1131 (2d Cir. 1979).
93 Restatement (First) of Torts (1938).
94 Id. § 729.
In determining whether the actor's designation is confusingly similar to the other's trade-mark or trade name, the following factors are important:
(a) the degree of similarity between the designation and the trade-mark or trade name in (i) appearance;
(ii) pronunciation of the words used;
(iii) verbal translation of the pictures or designs involved;
(iv) suggestion;
(b) the intent of the actor in adopting the designation;
(c) the relation in use and manner of marketing between the goods or services marketed by the actor and those marketed by the other;
(d) the degree of care likely to be exercised by purchasers.
95 Id. §731.
In determining whether one's interest in a trade-mark or trade name is protected, under the rules stated in §§ 717 and 730, with reference to the goods, services or business in connection with which the actor uses his designation, the following factors are important:
(a) the likelihood that the actor's goods, services or business will be mistaken for those of the other;
(b) the likelihood that the other may expand his business so as to compete with the actor;
(c) the extent to which the goods or services of the actor and those of the other have common purchasers or users;
(d) the extent to which the goods or services of the actor and those of the other are marketed through the same channels;
(e) the relation between the functions of the goods or services of the actor and those of the other;
(f) the degree of distinctiveness of the trademark or trade name;
(g) the degree of attention usually given to trade symbols in the purchase of goods or services of the actor and those of the other;
(h) the length of time during which the actor has used the designation;
(i) the intent of the actor in adopting and using the designation.
‧
哥倫比亞特區巡迴上訴法院，及第九巡迴法院之
Sleekcraft factors，均以八大因
素認定混淆誤認96；第七、第十一巡迴法院則以七大因素判斷混淆誤認97；第四 之要件形式化的聯邦上訴法院，在Polaroid Corp. v. Polarad Elecs. Corp.101一案中，原告Polaroid 公司於 1935 年開始將「Polaroid」作為商標使用於光學相關產品，
並取得聯邦商標註冊與紐約州商標及其他 22 個相關之註冊，被告 Polarad 公司 於1944 年後才將「Polarad」作為商標使用於微波裝置與電視攝影棚設備等產品，
96 詳參 Polaroid Corp. v. Polarad Elecs. Corp., 287 F.2d 492, 495 (2d Cir. 1961); Pignons S. A. de Mecanique de Precision v. Polaroid Corp., 657 F.2d 482, 487 (1st Cir. 1981); Oreck Corp. v. U.S. Floor Systems, Inc., 803 F.2d 166, 170 (5th Cir. 1986); Frisch's Rests., Inc. v. Elby's Big Boy of Steubenville, Inc., 670 F.2d 642, 648 (6th Cir. 1982); Basile, S.p.A v. Basile, 899 F.2d 35, 37 (D.C. Cir. 1990); AMF, Inc. v. Sleekcraft Boats, 599 F.2d 341, 348-49 (9th Cir. 1979)。
97 詳參 Helene Curtis Indus., Inc. v. Church & Dwight Co., 560 F.2d 1325, 1330 (7th Cir. 1977);
Sovereign Military Hospitaller Order of Saint John of Jerusalem of Rhodes and of Malta v. Florida Priory of Knights Hospitallers of Sovereign Order of Saint John of Jerusalem, Knights of Malta, Ecumenical Order, 702 F.3d 1279, 1294 (11th Cir. 2012) 。
98 詳參 Pizzeria Uno Corp. v. Temple, 747 F.2d 1522, 1527 (4th Cir. 1984); George & Co. v.
Imagination Entm't Ltd., 575 F.3d 383, 393 (4th Cir. 2009)。
99 詳參 Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v. Balducci Publ'ns, 28 F.3d 769, 774 (8th Cir. 1994); King of the Mountain Sports, Inc. v. Chrysler Corp., 185 F.3d 1084, 1089-90 (10th Cir. 1999)。
100 詳參 Interpace Corp. v. Lapp, Inc., 721 F.2d 460, 463 (3d Cir. 1983); E. I. Du Pont de Nemours &
Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 1361 (C.C.P.A. 1973)。
101 Polaroid Corp. v. Polarad Elecs. Corp., 287 F.2d 492 (2d Cir. 1961).
‧
因而遭Polaroid 公司起訴主張 Polarad 公司之行為屬不正競爭及州法、藍哈姆法 規範下之商標侵權102，而法院於本案中用於判斷混淆誤認之虞之參酌因素便為有
名的
Polaroid factors
103，早期僅適用於判斷處於非競爭關係之商品或服務，直到1988 年後法院才肯認其適用範圍包含處於競爭關係之商品或服務104，然其中各
在Interpace Corp. v. Lapp, Inc.106案中，原告於1916 年開始以「Lapp」作為 商標使用於其製造之陶瓷絕緣子產品並加以銷售，而被告係為 Lapp, Stuttgart, Gmbh 公司及 U.I. Lapp, A.G.公司於美國設立之子公司，其於 1977 年開始以
「Lapp」、「Lapp Cable」作為商標，於美國境內銷售電線、電纜等相關電子硬體
102 Polaroid Corp., 287 F.2d at 493-494.
103 Polaroid Corp., 287 F.2d at 495 (……(1) the strength of the senior user's mark; (2) the degree of similarity between the two marks; (3) the proximity of the products; (4) the likelihood that the prior owner will bridge the gap; (5) actual confusion; (6) the junior user's good faith in adopting its own mark; (7) the quality of defendant's product; and (8) the sophistication of buyers.).
104 Banff, Ltd., 841 F.2d at 490; Physicians Formula Cosmetics, Inc. v. West Cabot Cosmetics, Inc., 857 F.2d 80, 83 (Although the Polaroid test originally was applied to noncompeting products, it has been expanded to apply where, as here, competing goods are involved.).
105J.THOMAS MCCARTHY, supra note 4, § 24:32.
106 Interpace Corp. v. Lapp, Inc., 721 F.2d 460 (3d Cir. 1983).
‧
生成Lapp factors
108作為商標混淆誤認之虞的參酌要素。與Polaroid factors 相同，
起初法院亦認為該判斷標準僅適用於非處於競爭關係之商品或服務，若屬競爭關
108 Interpace Corp., 721 F.2d at 463 (Those factors, as set forth in Scott Paper, are: (1) the degree of similarity between the owner's mark and the alleged infringing mark; (2) the strength of the owner's mark; (3) the price of the goods and other factors indicative of the care and attention expected of consumers when making a purchase; (4) the length of time the defendant has used the mark without evidence of actual confusion arising; (5) the intent of the defendant in adopting the mark; (6) the evidence of actual confusion; (7) whether the goods, though not competing, are marketed through the same channels of trade and advertised through the same media; (8) the extent to which the targets of the parties' sales efforts are the same; (9) the relationship of the goods in the minds of consumers because of the similarity of function; (10) other facts suggesting that the consuming public might expect the prior owner to manufacture a product in the defendant's market, or that he is likely to expand into that market.).
109 Interpace Corp., 721 F.2d at 462 (“Where the trademark owner and the alleged infringer deal in competing goods or services, the court need rarely look beyond the mark itself.”); A & H Sportswear, Inc. v. Victoria's Secret Stores, Inc., 237 F.3d 198, 214 (3d Cir. 2000) (Our conclusion that the Lapp factors may be used to determine the likelihood of confusion in cases of directly competing goods,……).
110 J.THOMAS MCCARTHY, supra note 4, § 24:33.
‧
三、
Sleekcraft factors
在1979 年之 AMF, Inc. v. Sleekcraft Boats111案中，原被告各以「Slickcraft」
及「Sleekcraft」作為商標使用於其製造之船隻並加以行銷112，原告AMF 公司因 而起訴並主張被告侵害其商標權，最後法院亦認定被告侵權，做出有利於原告之
114 AMF, Inc., 599 F.2d at 348-349 (In determining whether confusion between related goods is likely, the following factors are relevant: 1. strength of the mark; 2. proximity of the goods; 3. similarity of the marks; 4. evidence of actual confusion; 5. marketing channels used; 6. type of goods and the degree of care likely to be exercised by the purchaser; 7. defendant's intent in selecting the mark; and 8.
likelihood of expansion of the product lines.).
‧
1973 年之 Application of E. I. DuPont DeNemours & Co.115案，DuPont 公司欲 將「RALLY」註冊為商標並使用於車用之清洗劑及綜合拋光、上釉、去汙功能之 車蠟，然因在DuPont 公司之前已有 Horizon 公司將「RALLY」註冊為商標並使 用於多功能洗滌劑，故 DuPont 公司之註冊案便遭美國商標審理與上訴委員會
（Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, TTAB）駁回，DuPont 公司不服便提起救濟
116。聯邦巡迴上訴法院（Federal Circuit）於此案創設 Du Pont factors117判斷商標 有無混淆誤認之虞，此為聯邦上訴法院創設之標準中判斷參酌因素最多者，共有
117 E. I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d at 1361 (In testing for likelihood of confusion under Sec. 2(d), therefore, the following, when of record, must be considered: (1) The similarity or dissimilarity of the marks in their entireties as to appearance, sound, connotation and commercial impression. (2) The similarity or dissimilarity and nature of the goods or services as described in an application or registration or in connection with which a prior mark is in use. (3) The similarity or dissimilarity of established, likely-to-continue trade channels. (4) The conditions under which and buyers to whom sales are made, i. e. “impulse” vs. careful, sophisticated purchasing. (5) The fame of the prior mark (sales, advertising, length of use). (6) The number and nature of similar marks in use on similar goods. (7) The nature and extent of any actual confusion. (8) The length of time during and conditions under which there has been concurrent use without evidence of actual confusion.(9) The variety of goods on which a mark is or is not used (house mark, “family” mark, product mark).(10) The market interface between applicant and the owner of a prior mark: (a) a mere “consent” to register or use. (b) agreement provisions designed to preclude confusion, i. e. limitations on continued use of the marks by each party. (c) assignment of mark, application, registration and good will of the related business. (d) laches and estoppel attributable to owner of prior mark and indicative of lack of confusion. (11) The extent to which applicant has a right to exclude others from use of its mark on its goods. (12) The extent of potential confusion, i. e., whether de minimis or substantial. (13) Any other established fact probative of the effect of use.).
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
（五）前商標之知名程度（銷售、廣告行銷、使用之時間長度）；
（六）將近似商標使用在類似之商品或服務上的數量與性質；
（七）構成實際混淆誤認的程度；
（八）在未有實際混淆誤認證據出現時，被告實際使用系爭商標的時間長度；
（九）使用在商品或服務上的商標種類（如：主商標、系列商標、商品商標）；
（十）兩者間之法律關係：
（a）後者得前者同意而使用、註冊商標；
（b）有排除混淆誤認發生之契約條款，即限制雙方繼續使用商標；
（c）有轉讓商標、註冊申請、商譽等相關業務之協議；
（d）商標先使用者有主張權利之遲誤懈怠或有曾標明不侵權之禁反言。
（十一） 商標後使用者得主張排他權之程度；
（十二） 存在潛在混淆誤認之程度；
（十三） 其他可證明因使用而造成影響之事實。
本文介紹之四種判斷標準與其餘聯邦法院之判斷標準，雖各採用不同參酌因 素，重視的重點因素也有所不同，但其間仍有許多共通之處，如「商標之近似性」、
「商品或服務之類似性」、「實際混淆誤認之證據」、「原告（先使用者）商標 識別性之強度」，此四重點因素為各法院所共同重視之判斷核心，均為各法院創 設之判斷標準中必備的要素，而「被告（後使用者）使用商標之意圖」也為大多 數法院必審理之因素，然僅有聯邦巡迴上訴法院之判斷標準未明文採納118；除此 之外，在審理參酌因素時，法院並非機械性地套用各因素檢視，各判斷因素之重
118 Christina P. Mott, Multifactors, Multiconfusion? Refining “Likelihood of Confusion” Factors for Reverse-Confusion Trademark Infringement Claims To Achieve More Consistent and Predictable Results, 47 SUFFOL U.L.REV.421,439(2014).
‧
120J.THOMAS MCCARTHY, supra note 4, § 24:32. (Even this extensive catalogue does not exhaust the possibilities—the court may have to take still other variables into account.).
121 JOHN W.PAYNE et al., THE ADAPTIVE DECISION MAKER, 24 (1st ed. 1993) (The weighted additive rule considers the values of each alternative on all the relevant attributes and considers all the relative importances or weights of the attributes to the decision maker. Further, the conflict among values is assumed to be confronted and resolved by explicitly considering the extent to which one is willing to trade off attribute values, as reflected by the relative importances or weights.) ; Christina P. Mott, supra note 118, at 440.
122 Brookfield Commc'ns, Inc. v. W. Coast Entm't Corp., 174 F.3d 1036, 1054 (9th Cir. 1999) (……this eight-factor test for likelihood of confusion is pliant. Some factors are much more important than others, and the relative importance of each individual factor will be case-specific. Although some factors—such as the similarity of the marks and whether the two companies are direct competitors—
will always be important, it is often possible to reach a conclusion with respect to likelihood of confusion after considering only a subset of the factors.)
123 In re Mighty Leaf Tea, 601 F.3d 1342, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (Not all of the DuPont factors are relevant to every case, and only factors of significance to the particular mark need be considered.).
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
第二項 正向混淆之判斷標準於反向混淆案件的適用困難
在反向混淆理論普遍為美國實務所接受後，法院緊接著便要將此理論落實於 現實案件的審理中，在發展實際判斷反向混淆之標準方面，1983 年之 Plus Products v. Plus Discount Foods, Inc.案首度表示在判斷個案是否存在反向混淆時 應以
Polaroid factors 認定，然法院於適用此因素認定反向混淆時，未調整 Polaroid
factors 中任何一個參酌因素，亦即法院係直接將傳統正向混淆之判斷標準利用於在反向混淆理論普遍為美國實務所接受後，法院緊接著便要將此理論落實於 現實案件的審理中，在發展實際判斷反向混淆之標準方面，1983 年之 Plus Products v. Plus Discount Foods, Inc.案首度表示在判斷個案是否存在反向混淆時 應以