Loading...
|
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/153901
|
| Title: | 元宇宙時代虛擬商品之商標侵權爭議問題─以NFT商品交易為中心
Trademark Infringement Issues of Virtual Goods in the Metaverse Era: Focusing on NFT Transactions |
| Authors: | 王薇婷
Wang, Wei-Ting |
| Contributors: | 宋皇志
沈宗倫
王薇婷
Wang, Wei-Ting |
| Keywords: | 商標權
虛擬商品
NFT
商標侵權
言論自由抗辯
商標權耗盡 |
| Date: | 2024 |
| Issue Date: | 2024-10-04 10:40:43 (UTC+8) |
| Abstract: | 近年來，由於區塊鏈技術和非同質化代幣（NFT）的發展，虛擬商品和服務的交易經歷了前所未有的熱潮與革新，隨之也引發了許多商標侵權爭議。本文旨在探討元宇宙時代虛擬商品的商標侵權問題，並提出相關建議。具體而言，本文釐清NFT在虛擬商品或服務交易中的驗證功能，並對近期美國實務上涉及虛擬商品交易的幾件知名訴訟案件，包括「Hermès Int’l v. Rothschild案」、「Yuga Labs v. Ryder Ripps案」和「NIKE v. StockX案」等進行判決分析。
透過借鏡國際案例，本文分析了NFT商品是否應受商標權保護之問題，並探討我國未來面對虛擬商品或服務之商標侵權案件時，應如何適用混淆誤認之虞判斷因素。此外，本文探討了NFT相關案件中的言論自由抗辯適用爭議，以及虛擬商品與實體商品之間的商標權利耗盡問題。希望在促進NFT市場健全發展的同時，確保商標權人和消費者權利皆受到應有的保護。
In recent years, the development of blockchain technology and non-fungible tokens （NFTs） has led to an unprecedented surge and innovation in the trading of virtual goods and services, which has also triggered numerous trademark infringement disputes. This paper aims to explore trademark infringement issues concerning virtual goods in the metaverse era and provide relevant suggestions. Specifically, this paper clarifies the verification function of NFTs in the trading of virtual goods or services and analyzes recent prominent U.S. court cases involving virtual goods transactions, including the "Hermès Int’l v. Rothschild" case, the "Yuga Labs v. Ryder Ripps" case, and the "NIKE v. StockX" case.
By examining cases under American law, this paper analyzes whether NFT products should be protected under trademark law and discusses how likelihood of confusion factors should be applied in future trademark infringement cases involving virtual goods or services in Taiwan. Additionally, this paper explores the applicability of the free speech defenses in NFT-related cases and the issue of trademark exhaustion between virtual and physical goods. The goal is to ensure that while promoting the healthy development of the NFT market, the rights of trademark owners and consumers are adequately protected. |
| Reference: | 壹、中文文獻
一、中文書籍
1.謝銘洋，《智慧財產權法》，2023年2月，十二版。
2.陳昭華、王敏銓，《商標法之理論與實務》，2020年3月，五版。
3.陳秉訓、謝國廉、王怡蘋、黃銘傑、黃惠敏、李素華、蔡惠如、沈宗倫、陳龍昇、鄭莞鈴、王偉霖、許曉芬，《「商標使用」規範之現在與未來》，2015年4月，初版。
二、中文期刊文章
1.王敏銓，〈美國商標法之混淆之虞及其特殊態樣之研究〉，《智慧財產權月刊》 第94期，頁85-111，2006年10月。
2.王敏銓，扈心沂，〈商標侵害與商標使用⎯⎯評台灣高等法院九十六年度上易字第二○九一號判決與智慧財產法院九十七年度民商上易字第四號判決〉，《月旦法學雜誌》，第185期，頁151-169，2010年9月。
3.沈宗倫，〈商標侵害法理在數位時代的質變？——以「商標使用」與「初始興趣混淆」為基點的反省與檢討〉，《政大法學評論》，第123期，頁1-63，2011年10月。
4.沈宗倫，〈第一次銷售之擬制同意與商標權權利耗盡：評智慧財產法院105年度民商上字第14號判決〉，《月旦法學雜誌》，第284期，頁166-185，2018年12月。
5.許炳華，〈初始興趣混淆理論之爭議——以美國 Multi Time Machine, Inc. v. Amazonxon案為探討核心〉，《萬國法律》，第212期，頁61-74，2017年4月。
6.程法彰，〈論美國關鍵字商標初始興趣混淆的民事責任與我國的議題現況評析──以網路搜尋引擎業者與資訊儲存服務提供者為中心〉，《科技法學評論》，第13卷第1期，頁115-154，2016年6月。
7.楊岳平，〈解密非同質化代幣－NFT 熱潮的機遇與風險〉，《當代法律》，第4期，頁8-13，2022年4月。
8.楊岳平，〈論非同質化代幣的基本法律關係與消費者保護〉，《台灣法律人》，第3期，頁48-62，2021年9月。
9.陳信至，〈網路交易是否適用消保法－以所謂「數位化商品」為例（下）〉，《科技法律透析》，第14卷第7期，頁33-47，2002年6月。
10.陳昭華，〈著名商標之戲謔仿作〉，《月旦法學教室》，第167期，頁30-32，2016年9月。
11.陳匡正，〈商標戲謔仿作之合理使用判斷──評智慧財產法院一○○年度行商訴字第一○四號行政判決及智慧財產法院一○三年度刑智上易字第六三號刑事判決〉，《月旦法學雜誌》，第243期，頁212-242，2015年8月。
12.陳家駿，賴以安，〈從全球最大運動鞋商Nike控告StockX案談元宇宙中NFT商標侵權之判斷〉，《月旦法學雜誌》，第330期，頁216-232，2022年11月。
三、我國實務判決與函釋
1.最高行政法院92年判字第208號判決。
2.智慧財產法院 98年度行商訴字第202號判決。
3.智慧財產法院100年度行商訴字第104號判決。
4.智慧財產法院101年民商上字第7號判決。
5.智慧財產法院 102年度民商上字第8號民事判決。
6.智慧財產法院102年度民商訴字第49號判決。
7.智慧財產法院103年度刑智上易字第63號刑事判決。
8.智慧財產法院103年度行商訴字第140號行政判決。
9.智慧財產及商業法院105年度民商上字第12號判決。
10.智慧財產法院106年度民商訴字第30號判決。
11.智慧財產及商業法院107年度民商訴字第1號判決。
12.智慧財產及商業法院107年度民商訴字第3號民事判決。
13.智慧財產及商業法院107年度民商訴字第41號民事判決。
14.智慧財產及商業法院107年度刑智上訴字第44號判決。
15.智慧財產及商業法院108年度民商上字第5號判決。
16.臺灣桃園地方法院91年度易字第2285號刑事判決。
17.臺灣高雄地方法院93年度智字第21號判決。
18.臺灣新北地方法院105年度智字第6號判決。
19.臺灣臺中地方法院100年度智字第14號判決。
20.經濟部智慧財產局，民國110年版商標法逐條釋義。
21.經濟部智慧財產局，智著字第10700027550號函釋。
四、網路文獻
Miranda，韓國全球首間「元宇宙返工」公司打卡、開會、演講均於元宇宙內進行，Unwire.hk，https://unwire.hk/2021/12/29/first-glance-at-metaverse-from-game-developer-com2us/life-tech/ (最後瀏覽日：2024/8/5)。
貳、英文文獻
一、英文書籍
MCCARTHY, J. THOMAS, MCCARTHY ON TRADEMARKS AND UNFAIR COMPETITION (2024).
二、英文期刊文章
1.Bussey, Alexander, The Incompatibility of Droit de Suite with Common Law Theories of Copyright, 23 FORDHAM INTELL. PROP. MEDIA & ENT. L.J. 1063 (2012).
2.Mccollum, Andrea, Treating Non-Fungible Tokens as Digital Goods under the Lanham Act, 63 IDEA 415 (2023).
3.Michaels, Andrew C., Confusion in Trademarked NFTs, 7 STAN. J. BLOCKCHAIN L. & POL'y 1 (2024).
4.Macedo, Charles R., MIRO, Douglas A. & HART, Thomas, The Metaverse: From Science Fiction to Commercial Reality—Protecting Intellectual Property in the Virtual Landscape, 31 NYSBA Bright Ideas 13 (2022).
5.Aaker, David A. & KELLER, Kevin Lane, Consumer Evaluations of Brand Extensions, 54 Journal of Marketing 27 (1990).
6.Dinwoodie, Graeme B. & JANIS, Mark D., Confusion over Use: Contextualism in Trademark Law, 92 IOWA L. REV. 1597 (2007).
7.Chang, Hung P., Return to Confusion: Call for Abandonment of the Initial Interest Confusion Doctrine, 12 INTELL. PROP. L. BULL. 131 (2008).
8.Lanier, Jackson (forthcoming), The Ninth Circuit’s Split Personality How NFTs Highlight A Concerning Split in the Court’s Application of Trademark Law to Web 3.0, 21 Dartmouth L.J.
9.Rothman, Jennifer E., Initial Interest Confusion: Standing at the Crossroads of Trademark Law, 27 CARDOZO L. REV. 105 (2005).
10.Lee, Jyhan, WANG, Runhua & LIU, Jingwen, Unwinding NFTs in the Shadow of IP Law, 61 Am. Bus. L.J. 31 (2024).
11.Trautman, Lawrence J., Virtual Art and Non-Fungible Tokens, 50 HOFSTRA L. REV. 361 (2022).
12.Osborn, Lucas S., Trademark Boundaries and 3D Printing, 50 AKRON L. REV. 865 (2016).
13.Mckenna, Mark P. & OSBORN, Lucas S., Trademarks and Digital Goods, 92 NOTRE DAME L. REV. 1425 (2017).
14.Janevicius, Michelle, Droit de Suite and Conflicting Priorities: The Unlikely Case for Visual Artists' Resale Royalty Rights in the United States, 25 DEPAUL J. ART TECH. & INTELL. PROP. L 383 (2015).
15.Norris, Michelle R., Furry Non-Fungible Tokens: Hermes International and the Fuzzy Standards Governing Trademark and NFTs, 59 CAL. W. L. REV. 285 (2023).
16.Cramer, Peter & O’ROURKE, Brendan, As NFTs Blur the Line between “Receipt” and “Product”, Trademarks Owners Fight over New Virtual Markets, 42 The Licensing Journal 1 (2022).
17.Dogan, Stacey L. & LEMLEY, Mark A., Grounding Trademark Law through Trademark Use, 92 IOWA L. REV. 1669 (2007).
18.Tang, Xiyin, Against Fair Use: The Case for a Genericness Defense in Expressive Trademark Uses, 101 Iowa L. Rev. 1949 (2016).
三、英文司法裁判
1.AMF, Inc. v. Sleekcraft Boats, 599 F.2d 341, 204 U.S.P.Q. 808 (9th Cir. 1979).
2.Australian Gold, Inc. v. Hatfield, 436 F.3d 1228 (10th Cir. 2006).
3.Beltronics USA, Inc. v. Midwest Inventory Distribution, LLC, 562 F.3d 1067 (10th Cir. 2009).
4.Board of Trustees of State University of New York v. Fox, 492 U.S. 469 (1989).
5.Bob Creeden & Assocs. v. Infosoft, Inc., 326 F. Supp. 2d 876, 877–78 (N.D. Ill. 2004)
6.Brookfield Communications, Inc. v. West Coast Entertainment Corp., 174 F.3d 1036 (9th Cir. 1999).
7.Cairns v. Franklin Mint Co., 292 F.3d 1139, 1151, 63 U.S.P.Q.2d 1279 (9th Cir. 2002).
8.Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission of New York, 447 U.S. 557 (1980)
9.Chance v. Pac-Tel Teletrac Inc., 242 F.3d 1151 (9th Cir. 2001).
10.City of Cincinnati v. Discovery Network, 507 U.S. 410 (1993).
11.Cliffs Notes, Inc. v. Bantam Doubleday Dell Pub. Group, Inc., 886 F.2d 490, 494 (2d Cir. 1989).
12.Coty Inc. v. Cosmopolitan Cosms. Inc., 432 F.Supp.3d 345, 349 (S.D.N.Y. 2020).
13.Dastar Corp. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., 539 U.S. 23, 123 S. Ct. 2041, 2044, 156 L. Ed. 2d 18, (2003).
14.E.S.S. Entertainment 2000, Inc. v. Rock Star Videos, Inc., 547 F.3d 1095, 88 U.S.P.Q.2d 1691 (9th Cir. 2008).
15.Frisch's Restaurants v. Elby's Big Boy, 670 F.2d 642, 214 U.S.P.Q. 15 (6th Cir. 1982).
16.GoTo.com, Inc. v. Walt Disney Co., 202 F.3d 1199, 1208 (9th Cir. 2000).
17.Gordon v. Drape Creative, 909 F.3d 257 (9th Cir. 2018).
18.Grotrian, Helfferich, Schulz, Th. Steinweg Nachf. v. Steinway & Sons,523 F.2d 1331(2d Cir. 1975).
19.Gruner + Jahr USA Pub. V. Meredith Corp., 991 F.2d 1072, 1075 (2d Cir. 1993).
20.Hard Candy, LLC v. Anastasia Beverly Hills, Inc., 921 F.3d 1343 (11th Cir. 2019).
21.Helene Curtis Industries, Inc. v. Church & Dwight Co., 560 F.2d 1325, 1330, 195 U.S.P.Q. 218, 220-221 (7th Cir. 1977).
22.Hermès International v. Rothschild, 590 F. Supp. 3d 647 (S.D.N.Y. 2022).
23.Hermès International v. Rothschild, 603 F.Supp.3d 98 (S.D.N.Y. 2022).
24.Hermès International v. Rothschild, 654 F.Supp.3d 268 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 2, 2023).
25.Hermès International v. Rothschild, 678 F.Supp.3d 475 (S.D.N.Y. Jun. 23, 2023).
26.Internet Specialities West v. Milon-DiGorgio Enterprises, 559 F.3d 985, 989 (9th Cir. 2009).
27.Interpace Corp. v. Lapp, Inc., 721 F.2d 460 (3d Cir. 1983).
28.Jack Daniel's Properties, Inc. v. VIP Products LLC, 599 U.S. 140, 10 (2023).
29.King of the Mountain Sports, Inc. v. Chrysler Corp., 185 F.3d 1084, 51 U.S.P.Q.2d 1349 (10th Cir. 1999).
30.KP Permanent Make-up, inc. v. Lasting Impression, inc., 543 U.S. 111 (2004).
31.Louis Vuitton Malletier S.A. v. Haute Diggity Dog, LLC, 507 F.3d 252 (4th Cir. 2007).
32.Mastercard International v. Nader 2000 Primary Committee, 00 Civ. 6068 (GBD) (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 8, 2004).
33.Mattel v. MCA Records, 296 F.3d 894 (9th Cir. 2002).
34.Mattel Inc. v. Walking Mountain Productions, 353 F.3d 792 (9th Cir. 2003).
35.Morningside Group Ltd. v. Morningside Capital Group, L.L.C., 182 F.3d 133, 51 U.S.P.Q.2d 1183 (2d Cir. 1999).
36.New Kids on the Block v. News America Pub., Inc, 971 F.2d 302 (1992).
37.New West Corp. v. NYM Co. of Cal., 595 F.2d 1194, 1200 (9th Cir. 1979).
38.Original Appalachian Artworks, Inc. v. Granada Electronics, Inc., 816 F.2d 68, 73 (2d Cir. 1987).
39.People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals v. Doughney, 263 F.3d 359 (4th Cir. 2001).
40.Pignons S.A. de Mecanique de Precision v. Polaroid Corp., 657 F.2d 482, 212 U.S.P.Q. 246 (1st Cir. 1981).
41.Pizzeria Uno Corp. v. Temple, 747 F.2d 1522, 224 U.S.P.Q. 185 (4th Cir. 1984).
42.Playboy Enterprises, Inc. v. Netscape Commc'ns Corp., 354 F.3d 1020 (9th Cir. 2004).
43.Polaroid v. Polarad, 287 F.2d 492. (2nd Cir. 1961).
44.Polymer Technology Corp. v. Mimran, 975 F.2d 58 (2d Cir. 1992).
45.Prestonettes, Inc. v. Coty, 264 U.S. 359 (1924).
46.Radiance Found., Inc v. N.A.A.C.P., 786 F.3d 316 (4th Cir. 2015).
47.Rearden LLC v. Rearden Commerce, Inc., 683 F.3d 1190 (9th Cir. 2012).
48.Rogers v. Grimaldi, 695 F. Supp. 112 (S.D.N.Y. 1988).
49.Rogers v. Grimaldi, 875 F.2d 994, 998 (2d Cir. 1989).
50.Roto-Rooter Corp. v. O'Neal, 513 F.2d 44, 186 U.S.P.Q. 73, (5th Cir. 1975).
51.Sebastian Int'l v. Longs Drug Stores Corp., 53 F.3d 1073 (9th Cir. 1995).
52.Slep–Tone Entm’t Corp. v. Sellis Enters., Inc., 87 F. Supp. 3d 897, 905 (N.D. Ill. 2015)
53.Societe Des Produits Nestle, S.A. v. Casa Helvetia, Inc., 982 F.2d 633 (1st Cir. 1992).
54.SquirtCo. v. Seven-Up Co., 628 F.2d 1086, 207 U.S.P.Q. 897, (8th Cir. 1980).
55.Suntrust Bank v. Houghton Mifflin Co., 268 F.3d 1257, 1273 (11th Cir. 2001).
56.TrafFix Devices, Inc. v. Marketing Displays, Inc.,532 US 23, 121 S.Ct. 1255, 149 L.Ed.2d 164 (2001).
57.Twin Peaks Prods. v. Publ’ns Int’l, Ltd., 996 F.2d 1366, 1379 (2d Cir. 1993).
58.U.S. v. United Foods, Inc., 533 U.S. 405 (2001).
59.VIP Prod. LLC v. Jack Daniel's Properties, Inc., 953 F.3d, 1172 (9th Cir. 2020).
60.Virginia State Bd. of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, 425 U.S. 748, 48 L. Ed. 2d 346, 96 S. Ct. 1817 (1976).
61.Westchester Media v. PRL USA Holdings, Inc., 214 F.3d 658 (5th Cir. 2000).
62.Wonder Labs, Inc. v. Procter & Gamble Co., 728 F. Supp. 1058, 14 U.S.P.Q.2d 1645 (S.D.N.Y. 1990).
63.Yuga Labs, Inc. v. Ripps, et. al., No. 22-4355-JFW, Dkt. No. 225 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 21, 2023).
四、網路文獻
1.Horwitz, Jeff, Rodriguez, Salvador & Bobrowsky, Meghan, Company Documents Show Meta’s Flagship Metaverse Falling Short, Wall St. J., https://www.wsj.com/articles/meta-metaverse-horizon-worlds-zuckerberg-facebook-internal-documents-11665778961 (last visited Aug. 5, 2024).
2.Kasdan, Michael, Brand Protection in The Metaverse, SSRN, https://ssrn.com/abstract=4447668 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4447668 (last visited Aug. 5, 2024).
3.Lee, Edward and Rosario, Nelson(2023), Comments of Edward Lee and Nelson Rosario to the Non-Fungible Study by the United States Copyright Office and the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), SSRN, https://ssrn.com/abstract=4353002 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4353002.
4.Baccarelli, Monia & Baldassarra, Marco Lonero, Italy: Juventus FC Scores Landmark Win for a TM Infringement Case in the Metaverse, Mondaq , https://www.mondaq.com/italy/trademark/1255084/juventus-fc-scores-landmark-win-for-a-tm-infringement-case-in-the-metaverse (last visited Aug. 5, 2024).
5.McKenna, Mark P., Trademarks in the Metaverse, NYU Law, https://www.law.nyu.edu/sites/default/files/Mark%20McKenna%20-%20Trademarks%20in%20the%20Metaverse.pdf (last visited on Aug. 5, 2024).
6.Elan, Neil, Pulp Fiction NFT Lawsuit (Miramax V. Tarantino, Et Al.): A Preview Of Coming Attractions, Forbes, https://www.forbes.com/sites/legalentertainment/2022/07/25/pulp-fiction-nft-lawsuit-miramax-v-tarantino-et-al-a-preview-of-coming-attractions/ (last visited Aug. 5, 2024).
7.Wang, Qin, Li, Rujia, Wang, Qi & Chen, Shiping, Non-Fungible Token (NFT): Overview, Evaluation, Opportunities and Challenges, Arxiv, https://arxiv.org/abs/2105.07447 (last visited Aug. 5, 2024).
8.Escalante-De Mattei, Shanti, Picasso Family Says Reports of Major NFT Sale Are ‘Completely Wrong’, ART News, https://www.artnews.com/art-news/news/picasso-nft-project-family-cancels-sale-1234617137/ (last visited Aug. 5, 2024).
9.Dunn, Sam, The all-star owners of the Bored Ape Yacht Club, Boardroom, https://boardroom.tv/bored-ape-nft-celebrity-owners/ (last visited Aug. 5, 2024).
10.Balasubramanian, Sai, Facebook’s Evolution Into ‘Meta’ Has Incredible Potential To Revolutionize Healthcare, Forbes, https://www.forbes.com/sites/saibala/2021/10/30/facebooks-evolution-into-meta-has-incredible-potential-to-revolutionize-healthcare/ (last visited Aug. 5, 2024).
11.The Oxford English Dictionary, https://www.oed.com/dictionary/metaverse_n?tab=meaning_and_use#130112796 (last visited Aug. 5, 2024).
12.WIPO Magazine, Trademarks Past and Present, WIPO, https://www.wipo.int/wipo_magazine/en/2005/02/article_0003.html (last visited Aug. 5, 2024).
五、其他類型文獻
1.Hermès International v. Rothschild, 22-CV-384 (JSR), 2022 WL 1564597,2 (S.D.N.Y. May 18, 2022).
2.Hermès International v. Rothschild, 22-CV-384 (JSR), Complaint, Document 1 (Filed 01/14/22).
3.Hermès International v. Rothschild, 22-cv-384 (JSR), Document 144 (Filed 02/08/23).
4.International Trademark Association, Non-Fungible Tokens (NFTs) White Paper (2023).
5.Miramax, LLC v. Tarantino, No. 2:21-cv-08979-FMO-JC, Complaint (C.D. Cal. Nov. 16, 2021)
6.Nike, Inc. v. Stockx LLC, 1:22-cv-00983, Answer, Document 1 (Filed 03/31/22).
7.Nike, Inc. v. Stockx LLC, 1:22-cv-00983, Answer, Document 21 (Filed 03/31/22).
8.Senate Judiciary Committee Report on S. 1883, S. Rep. No. 100-515 (1988).
9.Yuga Labs, Inc. v. Ripps, 2:22-cv-04355, Complaint, Document 1 (Filed 06/24/22). |
| Description: | 碩士
國立政治大學
科技管理與智慧財產研究所
109364201 |
| Source URI: | http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0109364201 |
| Data Type: | thesis |
| Appears in Collections: | [科技管理與智慧財產研究所] 學位論文
|
Files in This Item:
| File |
Description |
Size | Format | |
|---|
| 420101.pdf | | 3942Kb | Adobe PDF | 0 | View/Open |
|
All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.
|
