我國商標法第三十條規定十幾項不得取得商標的情形，其中之一是"妨害公共秩序或善良風俗者"，那麼，甚麼是"妨害公共秩序或善良風俗"的商標？
查到我國智慧財產法院裁判字號「105,行商訴,38」判決：『系爭申請商標圖樣之中文「撿」字，具有類似臀部圖形化之設計，結合「肥皂」中文後，其整體商標圖樣，相關消費者將其與強勢者對弱勢者之霸凌間產生聯想，為妨害公共秩序或善良風俗者，系爭申請商標有商標法第30條第1項第7款不得註冊事由。』（判決連結：http://jirs.judicial.gov.tw/FJUD/index_1_S.aspx?p=%2bSvi4cYL6v%2fJO0zcdHUkKokcORDPpmdD%2bBHDy2i%2b2YcU%2bdnvIaduhQ%3d%3d）
系爭商標圖案：
（法官說，這個商標"妨害善良風俗"，如此，這裡PO這張商標，可能也是妨害善良風俗，如果有不對之處還請見諒）美國最高法院MATAL v. TAM案判決討論：
美國搖滾樂團「the Slants」的主唱Simon Tam向USPTO申請商標「THE SLANTS」（用來貶低亞裔的詞，樂團成員也為亞裔），但被駁回，理由是，「THE SLANTS」可能有詆毀（disparage）或是對人有污辱的意思。申請人Tam經訴願無效，之後上訴聯邦法院。
Tam等亞裔樂團成員認為，"Slants"雖有污辱亞裔的意思，但他們自己是亞裔而可以"重新定義"（反諷）這個詞的用途。
上訴到聯邦法院時，聯席法官表示"15 U. S. C. §1052(a)"誹謗條款是違憲的，不符言論自由的精神。
"...en banc Federal Circuit ultimately found the disparagement clause facially unconstitutional under the First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause."
(updated on Nov. 17)判決文備份：
https://app.box.com/s/1khka85of1pm3dqlikqubb7xpxu0cm5z
案件進入最高法院。
(1) 定義詆毀條款為針對種族或族裔的詆毀標記，且是針對一定比例的族群人口，而Tam主張其申請的商標是針對一般人。
" The disparagement clause applies to marks that disparage the members of a racial or ethnic group. "
(2) 最高法院似乎沒有處理Tam的意見，而只是認為不准含有貶抑之詞申請商標這件事反違反了1791年美國憲法第一修正案（"First Amendment"）中保障言論自由的基本權利，商標為私權，屬於個人言論自由的範疇，非政府言論。
"And none of this Court’s government-speech cases supports the idea that registered trade-marks are government speech."
進一步來說，言論不能因為它是冒犯的而被禁止。
"We now hold that this
provision violates the Free Speech Clause of the First
Amendment. It offends a bedrock First Amendment principle:
Speech may not be banned on the ground that it expresses ideas that offend. "況且，商標本身的意思是具有識別性的的文字、名稱、符號等，目的是讓消費者可以識別出企業的貨品與服務。與有沒有貶抑的意圖無關。
"The principle underlying trademark protection is that distinctive marks—words, names, symbols, and the like— can help distinguish a particular artisan’s goods from those of others."
如果商標涉及「歧視"discrimination"」，上述詆毀條款可用來駁回冒犯/詆毀/歧視大部分人的商標，然而，是否詆毀或冒犯是一個觀點，公眾表示意見不能因為冒犯了聽眾而被禁止（言論自由）。
而商標本身是一種商業言論（commercial speech），可能會以任何表達冒犯的形式存在，仍應受到嚴格審查。不過商業與非商業界線模糊，如果灌上政治或社會議題，可能使得言論自由被挑戰。
結論：雖然仍留下疑慮，但最高法院作出同意聯邦法院的決定。
For these reasons, we hold that the disparagement clause violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. The judgment of the Federal Circuit is affirmed.
判決書有些英文關鍵字需要翻譯一下：
discrimination：歧視
disparagement：詆毀
offensive：冒犯
[法條參考]
15 U. S. C. §1052(a) TRADEMARKS REGISTRABLE ON PRINCIPAL REGISTER; CONCURRENT REGISTRATION
(a) Consists of or comprises immoral, deceptive, or scandalous matter; or matter which may disparage or falsely suggest a connection with persons, living or dead, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols, or bring them into contempt, or disrepute; or a geographical indication which, when used on or in connection with wines or spirits, identifies a place other than the origin of the goods and is first used on or in connection with wines or spirits by the applicant on or after one year after the date on which the WTO Agreement (as defined in section 3501(9) of title 19) enters into force with respect to the United States.
...
(c) Consists of or comprises a name, portrait, or signature identifying a particular living individual except by his written consent, or the name, signature, or portrait of a deceased President of the United States during the life of his widow, if any, except by the written consent of the widow.
最高法院判決：https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/15-1293_1o13.pdf
「105,行商訴,38」判決：
http://jirs.judicial.gov.tw/FJUD/index_1_S.aspx?p=%2bSvi4cYL6v%2fJO0zcdHUkKokcORDPpmdD%2bBHDy2i%2b2YcU%2bdnvIaduhQ%3d%3d
參考資料：
Supreme Court says disparagement clause violates the First Amendment Free Speech Clause
http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2017/06/19/supreme-court-disparagement-clause-violates-first-amendment/id=84783/
Supreme Court Holds Entities May Register Disparaging Trademarks
http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=742c3e2d-d6b5-4d45-9a09-1517e2ad12e3&utm_source=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed&utm_medium=HTML+email+-+Body+-+General+section&utm_campaign=AIPLA+2013+subscriber+daily+feed&utm_content=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed+2017-06-27&utm_term=
Ron
沒有留言:
張貼留言