編者的話

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "編者的話"

厄纪
7 years ago
Views:

1 理理劉律 metatags 料 pop-up advertisements keywords 路臨律 metatags 論利理理路 2007 年 129 International Trademark Association INTA 年論路律路了 Microsoft Yahoo AOL Google 了不見例不論不烈參論令見路 96 年

2 理論力路路利類路說路都樂見度 Google Google advertising space 不 sell keywords 行了 trademark complaint procedure 路利益 Google 理行不 term 不不不 / 1 1 不不不不不 26

3 理 Yahoo Yahoo 理 2 論說路了行若 Yahoo 不理理 Microsoft Microsoft 1 2 論 3 Microsoft 若行不理念不理不異不勵利行理了 2 類念 27

4 理例行說度兩不 / purchase/sale of keywords 不不不若精度降 metatag 令來不易利益行利益 initial interest confusion 3 use in commerce and in connection with the sale 若來 4 不若論 3 9 Brookfield Communications 4 Playboy Enterprises, Inc v. Netscape Communications Corp(9 th Circuit-Jan.2004). 28

5 理不行 5 例理不論 1. 路 2. Trademark use 若利行 3. 路 Pop-up Advertisement 6 行略類列不 Estee Lauder v. ibeauty/fragrance Counter District Court of Hamburg,2000 不行 Nemetschek v. Google District Court of Munich,2003 Metaspinner media GmbH v. Google Deutschland District Court of Hamburg,2004,appeal rejected 2006 兩不 direct or indirect trademark infringement Teleservices Act 更 advertiser 5 Nautilus Group, Inc. V. Icon Health & Fitness Inc(W.D. Wa. Dec.21, 2006) Contacts, Inc V.WhenU.com and vision Direct, Inc(2d Cir.,2005). 29

6 理 Google 行不 Google 不不 Longevity Health Products v. Google Supreme Ct.of Austria,2005 律律 30 Google 理不不見 7 Accor v. Overture Services,Inc. and Overture SARL Versailles Court of Appeal,2006 若不參聯年來 use in commerce 念藍行 7 TWD v. Google(1 st Instance Court, Nice,2006) 不 Louis Vuitton Malletier v. Google France(Paris Court of Appeal) 不 30

7 理易 use in the course of trade 理念不立藍 8 易不了利 1. 若行行利不不論 1. 度利例 used as a mark 不 9 2. 利藍 U.S.C U.S.C. 1125(a). 9 De Beer LV Trademrk Ltd. V. DeBeers Diamond Syndicate Inc.,440 F Supp. 2d 249(S.D.N.Y.2006). 10 Haw.-Pac. Apparel Group, Inc. v. Cleveland Brown Football Co.,418 F. Supp. 2d 50.1(S.D.N.Y.2006). 31

8 理 3. 9 利不若聯 federal Labeling laws 利聯不見 9 creates the same commercial impression 不律行令類不見 protectable trade dress 利 14 路識量路路見 11 CreAgri, Inc. v. USANA Health Sci., Inc.,474 F 3d 626 (9 th Cir. 2007). 12 Quiksilver, Inc. v. Kymsta Corp., 466 F 3d 749(9 th Cir. 2007). 13 Thermion, Inc. v. Thermion Metalizing Sys. Ltd., 423 F Supp. 2d 1146(W. D. Wash.2006). 14 Nova Wines, Inc. v. Adler Fels Winery LLC, 467 F. Supp. 2d 965(N. D. Cal.2006). 32

9 理行例例不連不不度度識力不若凌 death by a thousand cuts 2006 年 10 6 lawh.r Trademark Dilution Revision Act of 2006 立利立數聯見聯說 dilution 識力 dilution by blurring, blur their distinctiveness dilution by tarnishment, tarnish their reputation 論 presence or absence of actual or likely 33

10 理 confusion actual economic injury 都令 injunctive relief famous mark 來 recognized by the general consuming public 度 1. 利 2. 數量量理識力識力 a mark trade name 聯來來識力識列 1. 度 The degree of similarity between the mark or trade name and the famous mark 2. 識力度 The degree of inherent or acquired distinctiveness of the famous mark 3. 利 The extent to which the owner of the famous mark is engaging in substantially exclusive use of the mark 4. 度 The degree of recognition of the famous mark 5. 聯 Whether the user of the mark or trade name intended to create 34

11 理 an association with the famous mark 6. 聯 Any actual association between the mark or trade name and the famous mark a mark trade name 聯行降聯例不 1. 理來 nominative descriptive 理便理列 (a) (b) 刺論 any noncommercial use burden of proof 利列 1. taken as a whole 不 2. 若六聯利識 35

12 理立 TTAB Trademark Trail and Appeal Board 例 truly famous 立聯識識識量不識不更立例 identical or very or substantially similar essentaial the same NIKE NIKEPAL TTAB 了 PAL 不不 NIKE 1. 立度不量 Trademark Dilution Revision Act TDRA 聯 Federal Trademark Dilution Act FTDA 立列量 (1) 識度 (2) (3) (4) 易理 (5) (6) 易令度 36

13 理 (7) (8) 2. 不立立若 15 accepting use of identical or virtually identical mark as sufficient proof of actual dilution 若 16 更 17 (1) 若 (2) 若聯 (3) 若聯不識 3. 聯 FTDA 例 requiring proof of actual dilution 15 Savin Corp. v. The Savin Group,391 F.3d 439(2d Cir. 2004) identity of marks constitutes circumstantial evidence of aactual dilution. 16 Moseley, 537 U.S.at Sec4 McCarthy on Trademark and Unfair Competiton

14 理立不來 TDRA requirement of proof of a likelihood of dilution 料易數 Dilution dilution tarnishment 濫 misappropriation 9 1 c 令 5 2 識類不不利識度列不行不異行例 adidas/fitnessworld Advocate General Jacob s 見 3 EJC 18 2 CFI 19 參力論 18 ECJ, decision of 14 September 1999, Case C-375/97, General Motors (Chevy) [1999] ECR I-542; decision of 9 January 2003, Case C-292/00, Davidoff & Cie SA and Zino Davidoff SA v. Gofkid Ltd [2003] ECR I-389 (Davidoff / Durffee). 19 CFI, decision of 13 December 2004, Case T-08/03, El Corte Inglés v. OHIM (EMIDIO TUCCI / EMILIO PUCCI); CFI, decision of 25 May 2005, Case T-67/04, Spa Monopole v. OHMI (SPA-FINDERS). 38

15 理什盧 Chevy 立列 1. 領 2. 量率度理金 significant part 度不量來例 Lamborghini cars etc. 數率不精 Coca-Cola,Microsoft Lego 什不利識異不識濫識度易立度易聯不立不 Adidas AG Jacobs 不 1 不利識便車勞 Rolls Royce 利 2 識不 39

16 理立聯 Rolls Royce 館 Rolls Royce Rolls Royce 糖年不 Rolls Royce 3 異異不例 HOLLYWOOD 糖度領 SPA-FINDERS 16 類 39 類旅不落識不異說度識易立什類若不若聯濫不律類見見留 40

17 理 27 利 27 利利益不度領不度例理論利理 Fair Use 理念藍理理行利利量理列 1. Descriptive name term device 理來路 2. Nominative 理理理 41

18 理 1 Microsoft Microsoft 2 3 論 4 5 論來例不理令 use of sign for the purpose of distinquishing goods and services for other purposes 令 use as a trademark 立 the use of signs other than for the purpose of distinguishing 理 Descriptive Fair Use 藍 1125 c 3 A 1125 d 1 B 理 Sec.1115 b 4 MICRO COLORS 20 KP 1991 年 micro colors 1999 年行 micro colors 說 LII 1993 年聯 micro colors 20 KP Permanent Make-Up,Inc v.lasting Impression I Inc.,543 U.S.111(2004). 42

19 理 micro colors 理行 it is plaintiff s burden to prove likehood of confusion 理若不立不理理不理諸理理不量理度理度 1995 年 b 若 in good faith 類數量理來利 CAPLETS 21 Sterling 1948 年 CAPLETS 1986 年 Panadol Caplets Johnson & Johnson 1989 年行 Tylenol Caokets CAPLETS 狀 21 Johnson & Johnson(Aust)Pty v. Sterling Pharmaceuticals Pty Ltd.(1991)30 FCR

20 理說易狀說識 CAPLETS Johnson & Johnson 狀量說來 honestly and with no ulterior motive Barrier cream 離 22 更說惡若 use must be purely for the purpose of description 令 6.1 不 1 2 類數量理來 / 3 零例 SPIRIT SUN and CONTEXT CUT 類切說不 Gillette 23 Gillette LA Laboratories 22 FH Faulding & Co. Ltd. V. Imperial Chemical Industries of Australia & New Zealand Ltd.,(1964) 38 ALJR Gillette(Judgment of March 17,2005,C-228/03,Rec.2005,p.I-2337). 44

21 理 all Parason Flexor and all Gillette Sensor handles are compatible with this blade 令理行律利益說易列說量 1. 聯 2. 不利識力不若不易理 Nominative Fair Use 1. 車例若 Volkswagen 車 Volkswagen Welles 24 Terri Welles Playboy1981 年女 24 Playboy Enterprises, Inc. v. Wlles, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit,279 F.3d 796(9 th Cir. 2002). 45

22 理理量 1 若識 2 理識 3 不連 Terri Welles Playboy1981 年女 Playboy Terri Welles 說 PEI 連益理 2. 理不落令令 2 理參 Christian Dior 蘭 Dior 路 BMW BMW 車車令連力 46

23 理 1. 1 Type Ads B A 類類易不 25 2 Compare to 聯例聯 BODY SOLUTIONS Compare to Body Solutions 若不不 3 Like/Love Comparisons 例若 A 26 類不不類易 4 Mere Puffery 例 B 類 A 類令濫不 25 Norton Co. v. Newage Indus.,Inc., 204 U.S.P.Q.382 TYGON-type 不 26 Charles of the Ritz Group v. Quality King, 636 F. Supp.433(S.D.N.Y.1986) If you like OPIUN, you ll love OMNT 說不易識令 Calvin Klein Cosmetics v. Parfums de Couer, Ltd., 824 F.2d 665(8 th Cir 1987) If you like BSESSION, you ll love CONFESS 令 47

24 理 Gillette s Energizer s Energizer s Gillette s Gillette s 不 3. 列 (1) (2) (3) (4) 識來識狀 (5) 不利識來識論 1. 領來論 Mattel, Inc. v. MCA Records 丹樂 Aqua 流行 Barbie Girl 女 BARBIE 若切流行例不力刺 48

25 理 Louis Vuitton Malletier S.A. v. Haute Diggity Dog, LLC 例令來律理例來行行論見 2. 不不不不都不例論論利 1 不利益 2 不 3 論論論歷年來都論不 27 Louis Vuitton Malletier S.A. v. Haute Diggity Dog, LLC,81 U.S.P.Q.2d 1064(E.D. Va.2006) TH ANNUAL MEETING, CHICAGO. Daily News Tyesday,May 1,

26 理陸易不律力理易不利識利益識見律例參利力力律不不便車易例律更路度立益念行不年 9 28 參 =1&postnum=14739&from=board 50

1

論諸零易量零路車行不年行行年行金行年率流率行論識不易年行年行兩不兩兩行便了識易度行流識年金量更不良不便良不不行度參度度參臨數益數來行行流識率若例量度立行參行識不易料料類料論年流率益行料來度度利度度年料料