壹、前 言
在美國的商標異議制度中(註1),異議人主張其乃「相同或近似」商標之「先使用」者,必須證明其「先使用」之事實,而此所謂的「先使用」,究竟係以「use in U.S.」(在美國的使用)為已足,或須達到「use in commerce」(商務上的使用)之標準?非無爭議。本文除將介紹相關規定外,在最後,亦擬藉由美國聯邦巡迴上訴法院於FIRST NIAGARA INSURANCE BROKERS, INC. v. FIRST NIAGARA FINANCIAL GROUP, INC. 一案所作出的判決(註2),讓讀者對此能有更深刻的了解。另,相較於台灣之商標異議制度,美國商標異議制度於程序上係準用其民事訴訟之相關規定(註3),此與台灣之異議程序有很大的差異,因此,本文擬在介紹美國異議程序中所指之「先使用」,與美國商標法上相關商標「使用」之概念,究有何等不同前,先簡要地介紹美國商標異議程序,俾讀者友有梗概之認識。
貳、簡述美國商標異議流程程序
一、異議程序的開始
因他人商標註冊於主註冊簿(principal register)(註4)而認為權益有受損之虞者,得於被異議之申請案刊登公告後30日內或准予展延提出之期間內向商標審議及訴願委員會(Trademark Trial and Appeal Board,以下簡稱TTAB)提出異議。
二、異議通知
對於已依規定提出且繳足規費之異議案件,TTAB會備妥通知函,載明案由、案號及被異議之申請案,送達商標申請人(即被異議人),並指定其於通知函投郵之日起40日(註5)內提出答辯。
三、提出答辯狀(Answer)
(一)、商標申請人應就異議人之各項主張(claim)提出答辯(defense),且答辯內容以簡明扼要為原則。
(二)、商標申請人答辯內容係就異議人據以異議商標註冊之有效性提出質疑者,應於答辯狀中以反訴(counterclaim)之形式提出。
四、提出證據調查聲請狀(pleading)
書狀提出後,TTAB將會核發命令(order)以指定發現(亦有稱搜證)(註6)程序(discovery)的終止日(cut-off date)並及審理日期。
五、發現(或搜證)程序(註7)
(一)、此制度係指當事人在審判庭前,透過美國聯邦民事訴訟法所規定 許可之方式,自行向其他當事人或第三人取得訴訟所需資料之程序總稱。
(二)、需於發現程序終止日前將相關書面詢問、文書等遞交TTAB。
六、書面摘要(brief)
反駁程序(註8)終結後,異議人需於60日內提出書面摘要;商標申請人則需於異議人提出書面摘要後30日內提出其書面摘要。
七、言詞辯論(oral argument)
在書面摘要程序終結後10日內,雙方當事人均得聲請於最後聽證會(final hearing)中進行言詞辯論。辯論終結後TTAB即定期作出異議成立或不成立之決定(類似法院之宣判)。
八、異議決定後之程序
TTAB宣示其決定後30日內,如有正當理由,當事人得聲請再聽證(rehearing)、再審查(reconsideration)或修正決定(modification of the decision)。
九、上 訴
對於TTAB之決定不服者,得向聯邦地方法院或聯邦巡迴上訴法院提起上訴救濟(註9)。
參、何謂Use in Commerce
一、法源依據
「Commerce Clause」(商事條款)(註10):
美國憲法賦與國會規範州際間、美國與外國間、及和印第安部族間商務貿易之專屬權限利。
二、美國商標之保護(註11)
美國商標之保護係採聯邦法及州法雙管齊下之雙軌制,所適用之現行聯邦商標法為1947年施行之Lanham Act,而州法部分,則適用各州制訂之法律(Statutory law)及普通法(Commonlaw)。
三、聯邦註冊
現行之聯邦商標法係根據美國憲法之商事條款(Commerce Clause)所制定,用以規範與外國、州際間、及和印第安部族間之商務。由於美國商標法係以「使用」為基礎,因此欲取得聯邦註冊者,必須提供實際上有於州際間商務使用之證明(actual use in interstates commerce),若申請人為外國人,則需提供外國與美國間之商務使用證明(註12)。
四、美國聯邦商標法上「Use in Commerce」(註13)之定義
以一般的方式善意使用商標於州際間或美國與外國間之商務貿易。
五、在那些情況下需證明商標之使用係「Use in Commerce」
除欲取得聯邦商標註冊,申請人必須提供「Use in Commerce」之證明外,欲依據Lanham Act之Section
32(註14)(15 U.S.C. §1114-使用他人之註冊商標)、Section 43(a)(15 U.S.C. §1125(a)(註15)-使人發生錯誤或虛偽陳述)或Section 43(c)(15 U.S.C. §1125(c)-dilution action淡化)(註16)規定主張侵害者,亦必須證明被告的侵害行為係發生於州際間(the defendant’s infringing conduct must take place “in commerce”)(註17),單純州內的行為(intrastate activities)原則上不構成「in commerce」,惟若其產生實質州際商務效果時,方例外屬之(intrastate activities will be considered “in commerce” if they have a substantial effect on commerce)(註18)。
肆、FIRST NIAGARA INSURANCE BROKERS, INC. v. FIRST NIAGARA FINANCIAL GROUP, INC. 案
一、案情介紹
美商FIRST NIAGARA FINANCIAL GROUP, INC.(以下簡稱FN-US)為一保險經紀人公司,西元(以下同)2000年1月,FN-US向美國專利商標局提出「First Niagara」、「 First Niagara Financial Group」、「 First Niagara Online」、「 First Niagara Bank’s Customer Connection Line」、「 First Niagara E-CD」和「 First Niagara& Device」等6件商標申請案,於公告期間遭加拿大商FIRST NIAGARA INSURANCE BROKERS, INC. (以下簡稱FN-CANADA)對之提出異議。
FN-CANADA為一家加拿大保險經紀人公司,在美國無任何辦公處所或資產、亦未雇用員工,且其並未取得加國以外保險公司的保險經紀執照,但FN-CANADA在業務上卻與美國產生聯繫,例如銷售美國保險公司的保單,銷售美國保險經紀人代理的保單予擁有加拿大財產的美國公民,同時也提供美國公民於加拿大財產之產物保險經紀服務。同時FN-CANADA亦銷售加拿大公民至美國旅遊的旅遊保險,美國法律認可的汽車保險,於美國旅遊的旅遊責任保險,於美國從事業務的商業責任保險等,以及加拿大貨運公司承攬美國境內運輸的貨物運送保險,同時也協助客戶向美國保險公司求償。
FN-CANADA的異議理由為FN-US的商標與其於美國先使用的商標構成混淆。FN-US答辯指稱FN-CANADA商標之使用並不符合15 U.S.C.§1127「商務上之使用」(use in commerce)(註19)的規定,故其混淆誤認之主張無法成立。
案經TTAB審理後,採納FN-US的答辯主張,認定FN-CANADA與美國的連結極少,且係伴隨其於加國保險經紀業務而來。TTAB認為因保單或追加條款擴張保險範圍至美國或在加拿大的美國公民,係保險業者的權利和責任,而非保險經紀人公司(即FN-CANADA)的權責。因此認定FN-CANADA所提供之保險經紀服務非屬美國州際間的商務服務(interstate commerce)亦非跨國的商務服務(foreign commerce)。從而作出異議不成立的決定(註20)。
二、美國聯邦巡迴上訴法院的判決重點
(一)、適用法律部分
1、異議規定(15 U.S.C. § 1063 (a))(註21)
任何人只要相信可能會因(他人)標章註冊於主註冊簿而受到損害,都可以在該商標註冊之前於第12條(a)項公告的30日內,繳納規費向專利商標局申請異議,陳述依據的事實。此處所指損害包含任何可能在第43條15 U.S. C. § 1125 (c)項之下因污損、稀釋或玷污而導致淡化的標章註冊。
2、異議人之法律依據(15 U.S.C. § 1052 (d))(註22)
雖然前開異議規定並未明確指出異議的法律依據,但法院認為異議人必須提出「否定申請人註冊資格的法律依據」。本案FN-CANADA異議FN-US商標註冊的法律依據是15 U.S.C. § 1052 (d):
可以區別他我的商標就可以註冊在主註冊簿上面,除非其構成部分與已在專利商標局取得註冊的標章相似,或者其包含在美國已有他人先使用且未放棄的標章或營業名稱,以致當使用在申請人的商品或從事與申請人商品相關聯的使用時,很可能會產生混淆,或者導致錯誤或欺騙。
(二)、法院見解
法院認為本案TTAB適用法律顯有錯誤,TTAB認定「異議人的先使用主張會成立,只有在證明其商標與服務有關的使用是已受國會合法規範的商務上使用」的前提是謬誤的,蓋15 U.S.C. §1052(d)僅要求「他人在美國已有先使用的商標」,並未如15 U.S.C. §1127之規定,以他人的使用係受國會合法規範的商務上使用為要件,法院同時更引述前案(註23)再次強調此觀念。並因此駁回TTAB的決定發回更審(註24)。
伍、結 語
由於美國異議程序相當繁瑣,相對地其異議費用亦十分可觀,因此建議應先徵詢專業事務所之意見與分析,再審慎評估是否要提出異議。此外,若商標已在美國有使用或近期即會有使用(註25)者,除應儘早提出申請,以取得註冊保護外,亦應留意保有相關使用證據,以備不時之需。
※註 釋
1、請參閱U. S. TRADEMARK LAW RULES OF PRACTICE (美國商標法施行細則)
2、First Niagara Insurance Brokers Inc. v. First Niagara Financial Group Inc., Fed. Cir. , No. 06-1202, January 9, 2007
3、同註1
4、美國商標註冊分為主註冊簿與輔註冊簿(supplemental register),識別力不足但已使用之商標,雖無法於主註冊簿註冊,但可轉換於輔註冊簿註冊,惟前者註冊效力優於後者,且後者無異議程序,僅能對其提出撤銷申請。
5、U. S. TRADEMARK LAW RULES OF PRACTICE (美國商標法施行細則) 37 C.F.R. § 2.105 Notification of opposition proceeding(s). 中係規定:「not less than thirty days」。參Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Manual of Procedure (TBMP) 300「It is the general practice of the Board to allow the defendant in an opposition or cancellation proceeding 40 days from the mailing date of the notification in which to file its answer.」(參第59頁)
6、參王承守、鄧穎懋著「美國專利訴訟攻防策略運用」(2004年11月初版)第53頁至第62頁。
7、司法研究年報第二十輯第一篇「英美DISCOVERY制度在我國台灣民事訴訟程序中適用之研究」
8、參照BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY THIRD POCKET EDITION第595頁之解釋:
1. 略
2.The time given to a party to present contradictory evidence or arguments.
9、參15 U.S.C. §1071
10、參照BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY THIRD POCKET EDITION第114頁「Commerce Clause」定義。
U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 3, which gives Congress the exclusive power to regulate commerce among the states, with foreign nations, and with Indian tribes.
11、參曾陳明汝著「商標法原理」第32頁至第35頁、第366頁至第369頁、第388頁至第401頁。
12、依據Section 44(e)之規定,外國人得以本國註冊為申請基礎,而不需檢附商標之使用證明。
13、http://www.About.com.:Inventors 瀏覽日期 2007.8.10
“Use in Commerce” means the bona fide use of a mark in the ordinary course of trade that the U.S. Congress is authorized to regulate including: interstate commerce, territorial commerce, or commerce between the United States and a foreign country.
14、「(1) Any person who shall, without the consent of the registrant—
(a) use in commerce any reproduction, counterfeit, copy, or colorable imitation of a registered mark in connection with the sale, offering for sale, distribution, or advertising of any goods or services on or inconnection with which such use is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive; or(以下略)」
15、「(a) Civil action.
(1) Any person who, on or in connection with any goods or services, or any container for goods, uses in commerce any word, term, name, symbol, or device, or any combination thereof, or any false designation of origin, false or misleading description of fact, or false or misleading representation of fact, which—
(A) is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive as to the affiliation, connection, or association of such person with another person, or as to the origin, sponsorship, or approval of his or her goods, services, or commercial activities by another person, or
(B) in commercial advertising or promotion, misrepresents the nature, characteristics, qualities, or geographic origin of his or her or another person's goods, services, or commercial activities, shall be liable in a civil action by any person who believes that he or she is or is likely to be damaged by such act.
(2) As used in this subsection, the term "any person" includes any State, instrumentality of a State or employee of a State or instrumentality of a State acting in his or her official capacity. Any State, and any such instrumentality, officer, or employee, shall be subject to the provisions of this Act in the same manner and to the same extent as any nongovernmental entity.
(3)In a civil action for trade dress infringement under this Act for trade dress not registered on the principal register, the person who asserts trade dress protection has the burden of proving that the matter sought to be protected is not functional.」
16、「(c) Remedies for dilution of famous marks.
(1)The owner of a famous mark shall be entitled, subject to the principles of equity and upon such terms as the court deems reasonable, to an injunction against another person's commercial use in commerce of a mark or trade name, if such use begins after the mark has become famous and causes dilution of the distinctive quality of the mark, and to obtain such other relief as is provided in this subsection. In determining whether a mark is distinctive and famous, a court may consider factors such as, but not limited to—
(A) the degree of inherent or acquired distinctiveness of the mark;
(B) the duration and extent of use of the mark in connection with the goods or services with which the mark is used; (以下略)」
17、Mary LaFrance著「UNDERSTANDING TRADEMARK LAW」P168~P171。
18、同註16
19、即Section 45 of the Lanham Act (美國商標法第45條)
「The term "use in commerce" means the bona fide use of a mark in the ordinary course of trade, and not made merely to reserve a right in a mark. For purposes of this Act, a mark shall be deemed to be in use in commerce--
(1) on goods when--
(A) it is placed in any manner on the goods or their containers or the displays associated therewith or on the tags or labels affixed thereto, or if the nature of the goods makes such placement impracticable, then on documents associated with the goods or their sale, and
(B) the goods are sold or transported in commerce, and
(2) on services when it is used or displayed in the sale or advertising of services and the services are rendered in commerce, or the services are rendered in more than one State or in the United States and a foreign country and the person rendering the services is engaged in commerce in connection with the services. 」
20、Opposition Nos. 91122072, 91122224, 91122193, 91122450, 91122712, 91150237, slip op. at 36 (T.T.A.B. Oct 21, 2005) (“Board Decision”)
21、即Section 13(a) of the Lanham Act (美國商標法第13條(a)項)
「Any person who believes that he would be damaged by the registration of a mark upon the principal register, including as a result of dilution under section 43(c), may, upon payment of the prescribed fee, file an opposition in the Patent and Trademark Office, stating the grounds therefor, within thirty days after the publication under subsection (a) of section 12 of this Act of the mark sought to be registered. Upon written request prior to the expiration of the thirty-day period, the time for filing opposition shall be extended for an additional thirty days, and further extensions of time for filing opposition may be granted by the Director for good cause when requested prior to the expiration of an extension. The Director shall notify the applicant of each extension of the time for filing opposition. An opposition may be amended under such conditions as may be prescribed by the Director.」
22、即Section 2(d) of the Lanham Act (美國商標法第2條(d)項)
「No trademark by which the goods of the applicant may be distinguished from the goods of others shall be refused registration on the principal register on account of its nature unless it--
(d) Consists of or comprises a mark which so resembles a mark registered in the Patent and Trademark Office, or a mark or trade name previously used in the United States by another and not abandoned, as to be likely, when used on or in connection with the goods of the applicant, to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive(以下略)」
23、National Cable Television Association Inc. v. American Cinema Editors Inc., 937 F.2d 1572, 19 USPQ2d 1424 (Fed. Cir. 1991)
24、TTAB於2007.6.6.作出異議部分成立、部分駁回之決定
Decision: Opposition Nos. 91122072, 91122224 and 91122193 to, respectively, Application Nos. 75890902,75891547 and 75890903 (“the insurance and leasing services applications”) are each sustained as to the services in International Class 36, but dismissed as to the services in International Classes 35, 37 and 39. Opposition Nos. 91122072, 91122224, 91122193, 91122450, 91122712, 91150237.
Opposition Nos. 91122450, 91122712 and 91150237 to, respectively, Application Nos. 76004229, 76029614 and 76005479 (“the banking services applications”) are dismissed.
異議人(FN-CANADA)不服TTAB之決定,已於2007.7.提起上訴。
25、美國商標申請基礎除「已使用」外,尚包括「欲使用」(intent to use)。
|