試想，在買手機時，你是著重「品牌」還是「功能」？
一開始，或許會以功能為主要考量，不過當多數手機功能到一定程度時，品牌效應會出現，甚至主導消費者消費行為，至少感覺拿某水果牌的自我滿足感較高；不過，當"人手一機"時，獨特性消失，名牌的效果就被會被稀釋。
如果買「車子」，我覺得，代表身份地位的「品牌」是重點！
那如果買「建材」呢？ 是否消費者會更著重「建材特性」，而不在乎「品牌」，這就是這篇訴訟報導的主要議題。
這篇新加坡上訴法院（Singapore Court of Appeal，SGCA）告訴我們消費者在怎樣的條件下會有商標混淆的問題而產生困惑？這個討論也頗有意思，因為爭議中的商標本身（如下）似乎不會有混淆，但是卻涉及相關類別的「消費者心理」所產生的商標認知混淆。
案件資訊：
上訴人：Ceramiche Caesar SpA
被上訴人（被異議商標申請人）：Caesarstone Sdot-Yam Ltd
判決日：26 April 2017
上訴人是義大利陶瓷磁磚製造商Ceramiche Caesar，已經擁有商標為：
被上訴人以色列設計石英和石材表面的製造商Caesarstone，系爭商標申請案是Caesarstone的：
（編按，商標圖示差異不小，但是都含有「Caesar」字樣，這就是可能產生混淆的爭點）
兩者商標註冊類別都是Class 19，有關非金屬建築材料。
"Class 19: Non-metallic tiles, panels for floors, floor coverings, wall cladding, flooring, and ceilings; non-metallic covers for use with floors and parts thereof; non-metallic profiles and floor skirting boards; slabs and tiles formed of composite stone for building panels, counter tops, vanity tops, floors, stairs, and walls."
Ceramiche Caesar在Caesarstone提出商標申請公開後提出異議，新加坡商標註冊處（Trade Marks Registry）駁回商標申請，於是Caesarstone上訴高等法院（High Court），高等法院駁回商標註冊處的決定（不認為有商標混淆的問題）。這回就由異議人Ceramiche Caesar上訴到新加坡上訴法院（SGCA）。
Ceramiche Caesar上訴理由：「Class 19」的消費者所在意的不是「商標」，而是商品價格與特性（建材的特性：耐水、耐刮、顏色、風格），也就是說，消費者對跟商品連結的商標是漠不關心的，反而導致更高的混淆（"the consumer's indifference towards the mark used in relation to the goods led to a higher likelihood of confusion."）。
與我在看這段的內容相同的疑惑，高等法院法官的意見表示，如果如異議人所言，Class 19消費者對於特定商標的商品的關注不如商品本身的特性，應該就不會有連結商品的商標混淆的問題，不過上訴法院有不同的見解（不關注商標與商品連結的消費者反而會被混淆）。
上訴法院階段：
在上訴法院中審理以下三個議題：
(a) whether, in appeals from the Trade Marks Registry, there is a threshold requirement for a "material error of fact or law” to be shown before appellate intervention is warranted ("Issue 1”);
(b) whether the Judge erred in finding that the opposition under s 8(2)(b) of the TMA was not made out ("Issue 2”); and
(c) whether the Judge erred in finding that the opposition under s 8(4)(a) read with s 8(4)(b)(i) of the TMA was not made out ("Issue 3”).
在分析過「消費者心理」後，上訴法院法官認為，在這個消費者可能比較不在乎「品牌差異」的類別中，「富有經驗的消費者」比較不會對商品來源產生混淆，但對於連結商品的商標"漠不關心（indifferent）"的消費者可能不在意這些競爭商標的差異，不過這樣就有混淆的可能性（"likelihood of confusion"）。
混淆的消費者心理，議題涉及怎樣的因素會影響消費者購物的決定？怎樣的情況會讓消費者在下決定時產生了「混淆（"confusion"）」？以及怎樣的情況消費者對商標是「漠不關心（"indifferent"）」？
不論怎樣的消費行為，「商標」總是一個影響因素，不論大小，因為商標表示一個商品品質，不論好或壞，至少有個初步印象，況且，即便是消費者僅在意商品特性（如建材特性），商標也多少確保了商品特性的一致性。
因此，即便是「漠不關心」商標的消費行為，因為這類消費者的「挑剔」行為仍足以表明混淆商標可能帶來「混淆的可能性」。
反過來，就是有消費者對「品牌」特別的敏感，比如法院就舉例「奢侈品」的消費族群因為在乎了品牌差異，反而不致有「混淆的可能性」。
於是，法院認為，Class 19的消費者若如異議人所提對品牌「漠不關心」，反而會導致「混淆的可能性（"likelihood of confusion"）」。
法院意見：
"we are satisfied that consumer indifference towards the mark used in relation to the relevant goods or services does not preclude the question of a likelihood of confusion from arising. Consumer indifference would, in the normal course of events, point towards a likelihood of confusion in so far as consumers would pay less attention to the differences between the marks. Conversely, where consumers are especially sensitive towards the mark used in relation to the relevant goods or services (for example, in the case of luxury goods), this would likely point away from a likelihood of confusion as consumers would pay more attention to the differences between the marks. Accordingly, the finding that consumers of Class 19 goods are likely to be indifferent towards the mark used in relation to the goods points towards, rather than away from, a likelihood of confusion in the present case."
上訴法院法官認為，系爭商標會產生混淆，基於以下幾個理由：
第一：對商標漠不關心的消費者與是否產生商標混淆的概念是不同的（沒有直接關係）。
"The first is that consumer indifference towards the mark used in relation to the relevant goods or services is a conceptually distinct matter from the likelihood of confusion in relation to the marks. "
第二：商標的功能就是避免「初始混淆」，當消費者不在意商標時，在初始消費行為上，商標反而是不容混淆的。
""trade mark” means any sign capable of being represented graphically and which is capable of distinguishing goods or services dealt with or provided in the course of trade by a person from goods or services so dealt with or provided by any other person."
第三：這是政策面，如果認為因為消費者對商標漠不關心，而排除商標的混淆可能性，商標制度將被破壞。
"The third (and final) reason is policy. The entire trade mark regime would be seriously undermined if a finding of a likelihood of confusion were excluded every time it was thought there was consumer indifference towards the competing marks because of the nature of the relevant goods or services."
SGCA回應上訴議題，並作出申請商標撤銷的決定。
(a) there is no threshold requirement for a "material error of fact or law” to be shown before appellate intervention is warranted in appeals from the Trade Marks Registry (see [24] above);
(b) the Judge erred in finding that the opposition under s 8(2)(b) of the TMA was not made out (see [93] above); and
(c) the Judge did not err in finding that the opposition under s 8(4)(a) read with s 8(4)(b)(i) of the TMA was not made out (see [115] above).
my two cents:
我相信，SGCA作出很有智慧的結論。這種心理因素的討論頗為有趣，如果有興趣應該去看看法院判決，本篇內容僅是摘錄可以觸及的議題，以及我自己的詮釋。
SGCA判決：
http://www.singaporelaw.sg/sglaw/laws-of-singapore/case-law/free-law/court-of-appeal-judgments/22798-ceramiche-caesar-spa-v-caesarstone-sdot-yam-ltd
資料來源：
http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=26ff4259-8e26-4a9b-85ba-5f0df4000396
Ron
沒有留言:
張貼留言