法學期刊
  • 社群分享
論著名稱: 論智慧財產權與不正競爭防止法上補充成果保護間之關係-由德國法、歐體法與日本法看我國商標法與公平交易法之修正 (The Relationship between Intellectual Property Rights and the Quasi-Proprietary Rights Protected by Unfair Competition Law-Perspectives from German, European, and Japanese Law)
編著譯者: 許忠信
出版日期: 2009.04
刊登出處: 台灣/公平交易季刊第 17 卷 第 2 期 /1-44 頁
頁  數: 34 點閱次數: 861
下載點數: 136 點 銷售明細: 權利金查詢 變更售價
授 權 者: 許忠信
關 鍵 詞: 競爭自由原則模仿自由原則補充成果保護競爭特質周知表徵著名表徵仿冒智慧財產權新式樣不正競爭
中文摘要: 市場經濟體制下,企業有競爭之自由,因此,模仿自由原則乃美國、德國、日本等國皆崇尚之原則。然而,競爭自由除須確保競爭之量,亦須維持競爭之質,因此,主要國家之模仿自由皆有所限制。根據所謂之模仿自由原則,除非被模仿者乃已被提昇為智慧財產權之客體者外,事業得以基於憲法上之營業自由權而彼此自由競爭,包括模仿他方之產品形狀及特徵等,然而該競爭僅限於公正之競爭。因此,若被告模仿原告之產品或其特徵之行為已例外地顯示出行為之不正性,則其已不為不正競爭防止法所允許。德國聯邦最高法院稱此一保護為補充成果保護並且認為,雖然此一保護在結果方面與智慧財產權之保護方面同樣賦予成果之創作人一消極禁止權與積極使用權,但補充成果保護並非保護該創作成果本身,而是在禁止該不正行為。換言之,如同德國判決所一貫指出地,智慧財產權之侵害乃結果不法,而補充成果之侵害乃行為不法。這也是為何補充成果保護須在該單純模仿行為之外,尚有特別情況而會造成競爭違反性方可,而此一要求為智慧財產權等特別保護權之侵害構成要件所無。其故在於智慧財產權乃一權利,而補充成果保護所保護者尚未達完全權利之位階所使然。德國此一途徑被稱為「智慧財產權優位論」。相對地,日本法對此一模仿自由原則乃以列舉不正競爭行為類型之方式保障之,其對事業之競爭自由相對地較為開放。日本因多數學說認為智慧財產權侵害與不正競爭同屬侵權行為,而認為其間具有特別法與普通法之關係。本文根據歐體法之發展趨勢以及英美法之現狀而主張,至少在商標權侵害與其所涉之不正競爭行為上應可採累積請求權競合說。
英文關鍵詞: the principle of free competitionthe principle of free copyingthe doctrine of misappropriationcompetitive characteristicsacquired-distinctiveness signsfamous signspassing offintellectual property rightsindustrial designunfair competition
英文摘要: The confusing relationship between the law of intellectual property rights and the law of unfair competition has been a contentious one. The resulting controversy gives rise to a disagreement between intellectual property rights and the quasi-proprietary rights protected by the law of unfair competition in civil law countries. Under Anglo-American law, the claims framed upon these two kinds of rights can be filed concurrently or alternatively because the infringement of intellectual property rights is also a type of commercial wrong. In civil countries, intellectual property rights are personal properties or intangible movables, and thus can be traded in commerce or assigned in law. The reputation, interests or value in exchange protected by the law of unfair competition, however, is only an interest protected by law. It cannot be assigned or otherwise transferred. Consequently, some civil law courts have held that if there is no claim that can be framed upon intellectual property right infringement, then there is also no unfair competition claim that can be filed in the same case. Some commentators, nevertheless, have argued differently. This article relies on German and Japanese law to explore this tricky relationship.
目  次: 一、前言
二、智慧財產權與不正競爭法上成果保護之本質
三、競爭自由與模仿自由原則
四、德國法上之競爭法上(補充)成果保護
五、日本法
六、我國法
七、結論
相關法條:
相關判解:
相關函釋:
    相關論著:
    返回功能列