Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.author范智達zh_TW
dc.contributor.authorJr-Da Fanen_US
dc.date.accessioned2017-07-21T02:18:48Z-
dc.date.available2017-07-21T02:18:48Z-
dc.date.issued2015-12en_US
dc.identifier.issn1811-3095en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://dx.doi.org/10.3966/181130952015121202004en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://lawreview.nctu.edu.tw/issues/en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11536/136984-
dc.description.abstract2006年美國聯邦最高法院在eBay v. MercExchange案中認為法院在審酌是否准許或拒絕禁制令時,應在每一個案件以衡平四要素測試法(four-factor test)加以判斷,進而審酌禁制令之核發。即所謂「衡平原則」要求法院在核發禁制令時,適用傳統四要素測試法作為衡量標準,原告必須證明1.本案勝訴之可能性;2.法律所提供之救濟方法,包括金錢賠償,不能足以彌補其所受之損害;3.衡量原告與被告所遭遇困境,以及4.核發禁制令不會危害公共利益。然而,傳統上在評價個別商標侵權案件是否導致不可回復之損害——禁制令必要條件——美國聯邦法院通常認定當發現商標有混淆之虞即會推定具有不可回復之損害,其實商標侵權案件發現被告需負侵權責任時,商譽流失之本質上不可回復損害推定之適用,eBay案其實應該不能有所影響。假如商標侵權案件成立侵權與否之檢驗標準——混淆之虞——在界定上幾乎為不可回復,則顯示不可回復損害之分析不僅多餘的,且要求原告花費額外資源證明實質不可回復損害係無效率的。在我國商標侵權定暫時狀態處分之案件,原告常僅就本案法律關係及商標侵權行為事實提出證據資料為積極之釋明,並未積極就不可回復損害、兩造利益之衡量、是否影響公共利益等事實提出事實證據資料,而法院則以本案勝訴可能性為最重要考量之關鍵因素,顯然我國實務上智慧財產權案件,又尤其在商標侵權案件就定暫時狀態處分之聲請,並不需要原告負擔所有審酌因素之舉證責任並不相符。既然商標侵權案件成立侵權與否之主要檢驗標準——「混淆之虞」——對商品製造人及消費者之損害,本質上並不僅為金錢之認定,而且為商譽上之損害難以數字表示,便可不須要求原告花費額外資源去釋明本案勝訴可能性以外之其他因素事實。zh_TW
dc.description.abstractIn eBay v. MercExchange (2006), the U.S. Supreme Court held that courts must apply the traditional four-factor test for injunctive relief in every case. These “principles of equity” required courts to employ the traditional four-factor test under which the plaintiff must demonstrate (1) a likelihood of success of the merits; (2) the existence of irreparable harm; (3) that the bal-ance of hardships tilts in favor of injunctive relief; and (4) that granting an injunction would not harm the public interest. But when assessing whether a particular instance of trademark infringement resulted in “irreparable harm” U.S. federal courts almost uniformly presumed such irreparable harm upon a finding of likelihood of confusion. In fact, the eBay rules should not be used to eviscerate the normal presumption of irreparable harm that attaches upon a showing of liability in trademark cases. In our country when granting or deny-ing preliminary injunction of trademark infringement cases, the plaintiff often provides a preliminary showing with regard to the existence of legal relation and trademark infringement documentary evidence, not actively providing the existence of irreparable harm, that the balance of hardships tilts in favor of injunctive relief and that an injunction is in the public interest. The court re-viewing an application for preliminary injunction deliberates on the likelihood of success on the merits as the most important consideration. Compared with patent and copyright cases of the discretion of the preliminary injunction, the court mainly deliberates on the likelihood of success and the existence of ir-reparable harm as the most important factor. It is clear intellectual property cases, especially trademark cases on the set of preliminary injunction claim, do not require the plaintiff to take the burden of all factors of trial discretion in Taiwan. Because these harms to producers and consumers stemming from a likelihood of consumer confusion are not merely monetary in nature, they are reputational and difficult to quantify. The plaintiff does not need to spend ad-ditional resources to prove that other factors other than “a likelihood of suc-cess on the merits”.en_US
dc.language.isozh_TWen_US
dc.publisher交通大學科技法律研究所zh_TW
dc.publisherInstitute of Technology Lawen_US
dc.subject商標zh_TW
dc.subject侵權zh_TW
dc.subject定暫時狀態處分zh_TW
dc.subject不可回復損害zh_TW
dc.subject商譽zh_TW
dc.subjectInjunctionen_US
dc.subjectTrademarken_US
dc.subjectInfringementen_US
dc.subjectIrreparable Harmen_US
dc.subjectGoodwillen_US
dc.title商標侵權案件定暫時狀態處分審酌因素之釋明──以eBay案後美國法發展與我國判決實務為中心zh_TW
dc.titleThe Preliminary Showing on the Factors of Preliminary Injunction in Trademark Infringement Cases ─Focusing on American Law after the eBay Case and Taiwan Court Decisionsen_US
dc.typeCampus Publicationsen_US
dc.identifier.doi10.3966/181130952015121202004en_US
dc.identifier.journal科技法學評論zh_TW
dc.identifier.journalTechnology Law Reviewen_US
dc.citation.volume12en_US
dc.citation.issue2en_US
dc.citation.spage165en_US
dc.citation.epage236en_US
Appears in Collections:Technology Law Review


Files in This Item:

  1. 1811-3095-150705.pdf

If it is a zip file, please download the file and unzip it, then open index.html in a browser to view the full text content.