本文於前面章節已經針對智慧財產權法權利耗盡原則對價平衡 的法理，作一詳細的解析，並釐清傳統上在平行輸入的議題適用權 利耗盡原則之盲點。在權利耗盡原則對價平衡的法理下，筆者於本 文「解構」了權利耗盡原則的構成要件，並依法理「重建」之，同
後的商品進入市場後對於智慧財產權人利益之衝擊程度，故筆者認為修改的程 度應至「重大差異」的程度，在法律上始評價出權利未耗盡的效果。至於何謂
「重大差異」，筆者認為應援用(類推)「智慧財產權侵權」之基本原則以判斷，
亦即假定該修改後之商品乃非智慧財產權人所授權製造，以認定是否構成智慧 財產權之侵害，在專利法上除要考慮文義侵害外，尚須以專利侵害均等論 (Doctrine of Equivalents)檢驗之；在著作權法上，要確認修改後之商品與原著作 內容是否構成近似(Similarity)；另外，在商標法上則要從修改後之商品與原商品 間所可能導致之商標混淆(Confusion)或商標沖淡(Dilution)著手。一旦從上述檢 驗得出智慧財產權之侵權結果，筆者認為經修改之商品之修改程度已達「重大
差異」。在此要特別說明的，縱使商標權人對附有 A 商標的商品的進口已產生
權利耗盡的效果，但進口商為特定之理由，於進口時將A 商標置換為 B 商標，
在此已非權利耗盡原則限制之問題，乃是權利耗盡原則根本無從啟動，因為解 釋上商標權人對附有A 商標的商品的進口之權利耗盡效果無由擴張至 B 商標。
70 由此言之，歐盟商標法關於關於「重貼標籤」、「重新包裝」及「置換商標」的 相關判決，在構成權利耗盡原則適用之例外上，均有重新檢討的必要。
時也設定了權利耗盡原則適用的限制，因此，在平行輸入的議題上，
筆者已歸納出智慧財產權法權利耗盡原則的最適法律模式。筆者擬 將此一法律模式轉換成世界貿易組織下的「與貿易有關的智慧財產 權協定」(the TRIPS Agreement)第六條建議條文，以作為未來世界貿 易組織在相關議題上和諧化參考。不過，值得特別一提的是，就理 論上而言，智慧財產權人因第一次市場行為而耗盡其未來干涉商品 所有權移轉的專屬權利時，其出租權應一併耗盡，因為所有權移轉 效果是絕對且重大的，依舉重明輕的法理，很難想像在權利耗盡原 則的立法上，允許控制所有權移轉的專屬權耗盡，卻拒絕出租權的 耗盡。但近來智慧財產權法(著作權法)的發展因行業的特性傾向保護 電腦程式(Computer Programs)、電影作品(Cinematographic Works)以 及錄音物(Phonograms)之出租權。亦即該三項創作之出租權並不隨原 件(Originals)或重製物(Copies)之第一次市場行為所耗盡71。為了避免 筆者所提之草案與原「與貿易有關的智慧財產權協定」之出租權相 關規定牴觸，筆者擬採折衷的作法來因應。因為商品的第一次市場 行為的目的(未來作為銷售或出租的目的)與智慧財產權人的訂價有 密切的關係，而且從第一次市場行為的外觀一般人無法辨知其真正 目的，故依筆者之見解，基本上，電腦程式、電影作品以及錄音物 的原件或重製物的第一次市場行為推定耗盡智慧財產權人(著作權人) 的出租權，但只要智慧財產權人(著作權人)能提出反證，即該第一次 市場行為係純以「銷售」為目的而無「出租」的目的時，則出租權 便例外地不耗盡，畢竟在智慧財產權人的角度，「銷售」的訂價與「出 租」的訂價有異，第一次市場行為的同意若在於純「銷售」為目的，
其後的出租行為就無法解釋為基於「經同意的第一次市場行為」所
71 參見 the TRIPS Agreement, supra note 1, Article 11, 14(4)。
作成72。
以下為筆者綜合本文的論述所提出的「與貿易有關的智慧財產 權協定」第六條修正草案，鑒請參酌指教：
1. Members shall not prohibit the importation of the goods secured under intellectual property rights through laws and regulations, provided that the protected goods have been firstly marketed—sold, disposed by the public auction, or other the absolute transfer of the ownership—in any country, not limited to Members, by the intellectual property holder, or with its consent.
2. “Consent” mentioned in paragraph 1 can be determined by the interpretation of the agreement concluded between the domestic intellectual property holder and the foreign distributor, or by the possibility of the access of the domestic intellectual property holder to the sale revenue of the protected products for the first marketing in any country through any form of agreement. In addition, ‘consent’
mentioned in paragraph 1 would be assumed by laws if the domestic intellectual property holder and the foreign distributor are parent and subsidiary companies, or are subject to the common control of the same business entity.
3. The exhaustion effect through the consent for the first marketing in paragraph 1 would not be affected in the following situations:
(a)The first marketing is subject to the application of the provisions of the compulsory licensing under laws;
(b)The first marketing is subject to the price control regulations of the government;
72 請比較蔡明誠，評民國七十九年著作權法修正草案，政大法學評論，第四十期，
頁210，1999。
(c)The country where the first marketing was conducted lacks the protection of intellectual property rights.
4. Members may exclude the following two situations from the governance of paragraph 1:
(a)The importation of the protected goods whose condition or quality has been changed or impaired without the consent of the domestic intellectual property holder after the first marketing to the extent that the alteration constitutes the infringement of intellectual property rights according to laws.
(b)Insofar as protection of the renting right under copyright law, the importation of the originals or copies of computer programs, cinematographic or phonograms for renting where the domestic intellectual property holder has proven that the first marketing of the aforesaid originals or copies in the foreign countries was conducted for the exclusive sale purpose.
5. For the purpose of civil proceedings in respect of the exhaustion doctrine referred to in Paragraph 1, the judicial authorities of Members shall have the authority to order the importer to prove that the protected products under importation have been put on to the foreign markets. The burden of proof shall be shifted to the domestic intellectual property holder to prove that the first marketing of the protected goods is absent from the authorization, when the first marketing has been proven by the importer.