Script 閱讀文本
Parody in the intellectual property system is a complex and contentious issue, particularly in the context of trademark law. The fundamental theories of intellectual property include utilitarian theory, labor theory, and personality theory. In recent years, the social planning theory has also become a focal point of discussion, emphasizing how laws should promote social and cultural goals such as a happy society, rich thought, and artistic traditions.
In the United States, parody is often considered fair use due to its contribution to public interest. In the 2003 case of Mattel, Inc. v. Walking Mountain Prods., the court recognized the First Amendment value of free speech in parody, noting its application to clear, humorous, or successful parodies. Parody can convey specific messages and provide entertainment through criticism, humor, or satirical interpretations of the original work, thereby promoting public interest.
The core of the trademark system is the protection of “distinctiveness,” which indicates the source of goods or services and distinguishes them from others. The U.S. Supreme Court has pointed out that the dual goals of trademark law are to promote consumer choice and protect businesses’ investment in goodwill. Trademarks in advertising allow consumers to quickly identify product sources, reducing transaction costs. Without trademark protection, businesses’ advertising investments would be futile, and consumers would face increased market transaction costs, adversely affecting overall economic activity. Trademark rights incentivize businesses to maintain product quality, as establishing a brand image is crucial for long-term business interests.
In the context of parody, U.S. courts typically consider whether the parody constitutes trademark use. If the parodist uses the parody mark as an indicator of product source, it must be judged according to the legislative purpose of trademark law, based on “distinctiveness.”
In Taiwan, judicial practice in dealing with parody is similar to that in the United States but has its unique aspects. The Intellectual Property Court has stated that parody should balance the public interest of “avoiding confusion” and the public interest of “free expression.” In the 2019 civil judgment No. 5, the court held that U.S. cases are not fully applicable in Taiwan due to cultural differences that affect consumer understanding of parody. In the 2020 civil case No. 27, the court pointed out that if a parody goes beyond mere parody and serves as an indicator of product source, it is difficult to recognize it as an exempted parody.
In summary, both U.S. and Taiwanese judicial practices emphasize seeking a balance between protecting intellectual property rights and safeguarding freedom of expression. Parody can be considered fair use under certain conditions, but it is necessary to consider whether it causes consumer confusion and whether it exceeds the scope of mere parody. This balance plays a crucial role in the protection and limitation within the intellectual property and trademark systems.
Translation 中文翻譯
智慧財產權制度中的戲謔仿作是一個複雜且具爭議性的議題，尤其在涉及商標法時更是如此。智慧財產權的基本理論包括效益理論、勞動理論及人格理論，近年來，社會規劃理論也成為討論的焦點，強調法律應如何促進社會文化目標如幸福社會、思想豐富、藝術傳統等。
在美國，戲謔仿作經常被視為合理使用 (fair use)，因其對社會公共利益有促進作用。2003 年Mattel, Inc. v. Walking Mountain Prods. 一案中，法院認為戲謔仿作具有憲法第一修正案的言論自由價值，指出其適用於表達清楚、有趣搞笑或成功的仿作。戲謔仿作可以通過批評、幽默或諷刺性解讀原作，傳達特定訊息並提供娛樂，從而促進社會公共利益。
商標制度的核心在於保護「識別性」，即指示商品或服務來源並與其他產品區別。美國聯邦最高法院指出，商標法的雙重目標是促進消費者選擇並保護企業對商譽的投資。廣告中的商標使消費者能快速辨識產品來源，節省交易成本。如果商標不受保護，企業的廣告投入將付之流水，消費者也會因無法判斷商品來源而增加市場交易成本，對整體經濟活動不利。商標權激勵企業維持產品品質，因為商標與品牌形象的建立對企業長遠利益至關重要。
在戲謔仿作的情況下，美國法院通常考量該仿作是否構成商標使用。如果仿作者將其仿作標識作為指示商品來源的標識，則需依據商標法的立法目的進行判斷，並以「識別性」為基礎。
在台灣，司法實務中對戲謔仿作的處理與美國類似，但也有其獨特之處。智慧財產法院在判決中指出，戲謔仿作應在「避免混淆之公共利益」與「自由表達之公共利益」間進行衡平考量。在 108 年度民商上字第 5 號民事判決中，法院認為美國案例不完全適用於台灣，因為文化差異導致消費者對仿作的理解不同。109 年度民商訴字第 27 號案例中，法院指出，仿作作品若超出單純仿作的範疇，進而作為商品來源的指示，則難以認定為免責的戲謔仿作。
總結來說，美國和台灣的司法實務均強調在保護智慧財產權和保障表達自由之間尋求平衡。戲謔仿作在一定條件下可被視為合理使用，但需考慮其是否造成消費者混淆以及是否超出單純仿作的範疇。這種平衡在智慧財產權與商標制度的保護與限制中扮演著重要角色。
CHECK THIS OUT 學習知識點
‘the dual goals of trademark law are to promote consumer choice and protect businesses’ investment in goodwill’
Here we are using ‘to V’ to describe purpose: ‘the goals’. Remember to use ‘to V’ when you want to describe the purpose of something.
「商標法的雙重目標是促進消費者的選擇和保護企業的商譽投資」
在這裡，我們使用「to V」來描述目的：「目標」。當你想描述某事的目的時，請記住使用「to V」。
關聯學習：愈忙愈要學社交英文【與時俱進版】
推薦課程：高點登峰商英系列課程
關鍵字：
