Loading...
|
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/128980
|
| Title: | HASHTAG 從元標籤到商標使用之發展與爭議探討
# FROM METATAG TO TRADEMARK?: LEGAL ENTITLEMENTS IN RELATION TO HASHTAG USAGE |
| Authors: | 黃薇瑄
Huang, Wei Hsuan |
| Contributors: | 鄭菀瓊
Cheng, Wan-Chiung
黃薇瑄
Huang, Wei Hsuan |
| Keywords: | 元標籤
社群網路
商標使用
混淆誤認
初始興趣混淆
Hashtag
Meta tag
Social network
Trademark use
Confusion
Initial interest confusion |
| Date: | 2020 |
| Issue Date: | 2020-03-02 11:35:40 (UTC+8) |
| Abstract: | 隨著網路時代的發展，Hashtag（主題標籤; 下稱Hashtag）在各社群網路平台上的使用日益增加，於各種商品或服務之推廣與行銷上，成為品牌業者廣泛使用之指示商品或服務來源之工具。Hashtag作為一種「可見元標籤」，不僅具有「超連結」之功能，亦具有類似「網域名稱」及「關鍵字廣告」之功能，然而其與前述三者之性質仍有所差異，因此於涉及網路商標使用之討論時，需單獨針對Hashtag所涉之商標法上爭議進行討論。
又儘管於各界仍存有不少爭議，然以現今商標法規範以及實務之發展，可得知申請人已可將Hashtag註冊為商標，惟觀察歷來之法院判決中僅有Eksouzian v. Albanese案曾針對Hashtag之商標適格性做出見解，其餘則多聚焦於「商標使用」之層面進行探討，可知其「商標使用」，係於現階段更具重要性之問題。
本文即以Hashtag之商標使用所衍生之爭議案例進行分析，並輔以近年國際上對於「可見元標籤」之商標侵權議題之研討，試圖歸納出其作為商標使用後將對社群網站中之業者與消費者帶來之影響，進而給予雙方使用上之建議。
With the development of the Internet era, hashtag is increasingly used in various social network platforms. It has become a widely used tool for brands to indicate the source of goods or service in promotion and marketing. Hashtag, viewed as a kind of “visible” meta tag, not only provides the function as “hyperlink”, but also has similar functions to “domain names” and “keywords”. However, there are still differences between hashtag and the others. Therefore, when discussing the use of trademark on the Internet and the possible trademark law disputes arising from it, we need to separate the discussion of Hashtag from others.
Despite various controversies, with the development of current trademark law and practice, applicants can apply for trademark registration of Hashtag. However, only one case, Eksouzian v. Albanese, has decided on the trademark eligibility of hashtags ,. Instead, the rest of the courts have focused on “the use of hashtag as trademark”, which seems to be a more important issue to deal with at this stage.
This paper tries to analyze the dispute arising from the use of Hashtag as trademark, supplemented by the recent international seminar discussion on the “visible meta tag” trademark infringement issue. Furthermore, this paper also tries to explore the impact of “hashtag being used as trademark” on brands and consumers in social networking sites, and provide suggestions on the use of it. |
| Reference: | 一、中文文獻 （按筆畫遞增排序）
（一）專書
1. 陳昭華 (2017)。《商標法》。臺北：經濟部智慧財產局。
2. 黃建隆 (1997)。《HomePage 製作完全手冊》。臺北：第三波。
3. 劉孔中 (2014)。《比較商標法》。臺北：新學林。
4. 劉孔中 (2015)，《解構智財法及其與競爭法的衝突與調和》。臺北：新學林。
5. 謝銘洋 (2016)。《智慧財產權法》。臺北：元照
6. 羅明通 (2005)。《著作權法論I》。臺北：三民。
（二）專書論文
1. 沈宗倫（2018），〈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〉，收於：謝銘洋等著，《商標權與關鍵字廣告》，頁73-130。臺北：元照。
2. 陳昭華 (2018)。〈以他人商標作為關鍵字廣告時廣告主之責任〉，收於：謝銘洋等著，《商標權與關鍵字廣告》，頁67-71。臺北：元照。
3. 劉孔中 (2018)，〈關鍵字廣告之商標法與競爭法爭議〉，收於：謝銘洋等著，《商標權與關鍵字廣告》，頁35-51。臺北：元照。
（三）期刊論文
1. 王敏銓 (2000)。〈美國商標法上識別性之研究〉，《智慧財產權月刊》，67期，頁87-106。
2. 石生瑩 (2019)。〈HashtagHashtag之商標保護〉，《長江智慧財產專刊》，第55期，2019年5月，頁1-43。
3. 吳筱玫、周芷伊 (2009)。〈Tagging的分類與知識意涵：以flickr首頁圖片為例〉，《新聞學研究》，第99期，頁265-305。
4. 林發立、孫安婷 (2012)。〈最高行政法院近期關於商標法上「反向混淆誤認」（Reverse Confusion）之看法及其可能影響〉，《萬國法律》，第183期，頁44-57。
5. 張哲倫 (2010)。〈商標權之性質及其對商標侵權判斷之影響 —以「混淆誤認之虞」為中心〉，《智慧財產權月刊》，第135期，頁33-67。
6. 許炳華 (2017)。〈初始興趣混淆理論之爭議－以美國 Multi Time Machine, Inc. v. Amazon.com. 案為探討核心〉，《萬國法律》，212期，頁61-74。
7. 許炳華 (2019)。〈商標法與言論自由之交錯：美國Matal v. Tam案之合憲性探討——再探我國商標法之「公序良俗條款」〉，《政大法學評論》，156期，頁1-78。
8. 劉邦揚 (2015)。〈我國網域名稱爭議處理機制的實證觀察〉，《科技法律透析》，，第 27 卷 第 7 期，頁56-70。
9. 蔡志宏 (2012)。〈關於UDRP-裁決司法效力之研究-以海峽兩岸法院裁判為中心〉，《科技法學評論》，9 卷 1 期，頁205-242。
10. 鄧振球 (2008)。〈商標名稱通用化之理論與實務〉，《科技法學評論》，5卷1期，頁183-223。
11. 謝銘洋 (2001)。〈論網域名稱之法律保護〉，《智慧財產權月刊》，頁17-60。
（四）會議報告
1. 經濟部智慧財產局 (2016)。〈出席 2016 年「國際商標協會數位世界研討會( INTA Digital World Conference)」報告〉，公務出國報告資訊網，頁1-41。載於：https://report.nat.gov.tw/ReportFront/ReportDetail/detail?sysId=C10600019。
2. 經濟部智慧財產局 (2018)，〈出席「國際商標協會(INTA)亞太商標研習會議」報告〉，公務出國報告資訊網，頁1-68。
（五）司法裁判
1. 最高行政法院104年判字第31號判決。
2. 最高法院 105年度台上字第81號判決。
3. 智慧財產法院 102年度民商上字第8號。
4. 智慧財產法院 105年度民商訴字第27號。
5. 智慧財產法院 106年度民商訴字第3號。
6. 智慧財產法院 107年度民商上易字第3號。
7. 智慧財產法院108年度民商訴字第12號民事判決
8. 臺北高等行政法院 96年度訴字第1374號判決。
9. 臺北高等行政法院 96年度訴字第1561號判決。
10. 臺灣臺北地方法院 106年度智易字第23號。
11. 臺灣臺北地方法院刑事裁定107年度聲判字第287號。
（六）政府官方文件
1. 經濟部智慧財產局 (2012)。〈商標識別性虞審查基準〉，《商標審查基準彙編》，頁1-51。
2. 經濟部智慧財產局 (2012)。〈混淆誤認之虞審查基準〉，《商標審查基準彙編》，頁1-19。
3. 經濟部智慧財產局 (2012)。〈聲明不專用審查基準〉，《商標審查基準彙編》，頁1-51。
4. 經濟部智慧財產局註冊商標第01698662號
（七）網路資源
1. Heero Luo (2015)。《hashchange事件及其妙用》。載於：https://mrluo.life/article/detail/128/the-hashchange-event。
2. Wibibi網頁設計教學百科 (2012)。《HTML a href連結屬性》。載於：http://www.wibibi.com/info.php?tid=240。
3. 經濟部智慧財產局(2012)。《商標FAQ》。載於：https://www.tipo.gov.tw/ct.asp?xItem=214959&ctNode=7436&mp=1。
4. 劉承愚、梅文欣 (2017)。《＃跟上Hashtag網路行銷的風潮，益思科技法律事務所》。載於：http://www.is-law.com/post/18/1323。
5. 蘇月星 (2012)。《淺談美國對商標侵權行為之法律規範─以美國理論為中心》。載於： https://www.taie.com.tw/tc/p4-publications detail.asp?article_code=03&article_classify_sn=65&sn=704。
二、英文文獻
（一）專書
1. Giger, P, Participation literacy: Part I: Constructing the web 2.0 concept, Blekinge Institute of Technology Licentiate Dissertation Series.1, 1 (2006).
2. Schechter, R. E. (1993). Unfair trade practices and intellectual property. West Academic.
（二）專書論文
WERRY, C. C. (1996). Internet relay chat. Pp. 47-61 in COMPUTER-MEDIATED COMMUNICATION: LINGUISTIC, SOCIAL AND CROSS-CULTURAL PERSPECTIVES , edited by Susan C. Herring. 47, United States: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
（二）期刊論文
1. Andrea M. Hall(2016). Standing the Test of Time: Likelihood of Confusion in Multi Time Machine v. Amazon. Berkeley Technology Law Journal 31: 815-850.
2. Antoine, H. A. (2016). Hashtagging: What you need to know about hashtags as trademarks, hashtag litigation, the FTC, viral campaigns, and more. Computer & Internet Lawyer, 33(11): 6-10.
3. Barrett, M. (2005). Internet trademark suits and the demise of trademark use. U.C. Davis Law Review 39: 371- 454.
4. Betsy A. Butwin(2015). #Trademarklaw: Protecting and Maximizing the Value of Trademarks in an Evolving Social Media Marketplace. Cybaris: An Intellectual Property Law Review 7: 110-129.
5. Chu, D. (2016). #CautionBusinesses: Using Competitors` Hashtags Could Possibly Lead to Trademark Infringement. Catholic University Journal of Law and Technology 25: 387-413.
6. Connie David Nichols(2015). Initial Interest Confusion Internet Troika Abandoned: A Critical Look at Initial Interest Confusion As Applied Online. Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment and Technology Law 17, 883-926.
7. Curtin, Thomas. J. (2010). The name game: Cybersquatting and trademark infringement on social media websites. Journal of Law and Policy V.19: 353-394.
8. Delaram Yousefi (2017). #Protected Hashtags, Trademarks, and the First Amendment. Touro Law Review 33: 1343-74.
9. Falconer, E. A. (2016). # CanHashtagsBeTrademarked: Trademark Law and the Development of Hashtags. North Carolina Journal of Law & Technology 17: 1-42.
10. Flanagan, E. M. (2007). No free parking: Obtaining relief from trademark-infringing domain name parking. Minnesota Law Review 92: 498-528.
11. Golinveaux, J. (1998). What`s in a domain name: Is cybersquatting trademark dilution. University of San Francisco Law Review 33: 641-672.
12. Goudreau, M. (2018). Hashtags in the World of Trademarks. Intellectual Property Journal, 30(2): 309-328.
13. Hermenegildo A. Isidro (1996). Abercrombie Classifications and Determining the Inherent Distinctiveness of Product Configuration Trade Dress. Brooklyn Law Review 62: 811-851.
14. Jennifer E. Rothman(2005). Initial Interest Confusion: Standing at the Crossroads of Trademark Law2. Cardozo Law Review 27: 105-192.
15. John Grady; Stephen McKelvey (2018). Congratulations but #SeeyouinCourt: Olympic Hashtag Restrictions Raise Concerns over Trademark Rights and Free Speech. Harvard Journal of Sports and Entertainment Law 9: 101-120.
16. Kristin Kemnitzer(2010). Beyond, Rescuecom v. Google: The Future of Keyword Advertising. Berkeley Technology Law Journal 25: 401-428.
17. McKelvey, S., & Grady, J. (2017). # JoinTheConversation: The Evolving Legal Landscape of Using Hashtags in Sport. Journal of Legal Aspects of Sport 27: 90-108.
18. Naga Lakshmi Bhagavatula (2014). Social Media -- Legal Ramifications. SSRN: 1-19.
19. Potts, L., Seitzinger, J., Jones, D., & Harrison, A. (2011, October). Tweeting disaster: hashtag constructions and collisions. ACM: 235-240.
20. Roberts, A. J. (2017). Tagmarks. California Law Review 105: 599-666.
21. Salter, K. (2017). The Trouble with Tags: Seeking Mark Protection for Corporate Branded Hastags-More Trouble than It`s Worth. Journal of Corporation Law 43: 699-713.
22. Sherwin, R. T. (2015). # HaveWeReallyThoughtThisThrough: Why Granting Trademark Protection to Hashtags Is Unnecessary, Duplicative, and Downright Dangerous. Harvard Journal of Law & Technology Volume 29: 455-494.
（三）研究報告
1. Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy ( Oct. 24, 2019) http://archive.icann.org/en/udrp/udrp-policy-24oct99.htm.
2. The Coca-Cola Company v. Whois Privacy Protection Service, Inc. / Thien Le Trieu, Le Trieu Thien Case No. D2015-2078 (WIPO Feb. 10, 2016).
3. WIPO Domain Name Dispute Resolution Statistics. “Total number of cases by year”, WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ORGANIZATION https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/statistics/.
4. WIPO Internet Domain Name Process. “Final Report of the WIPO Internet Domain Name Process”, WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ORGANIZATION ( Apr. 30, 1999), https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/processes/process1/report/index.html.
（四）法院判決
1. 1-800 Contacts, Inc. v. WhenU.com, Inc., 414 F.3d 400 (2d Cir. 2005).
2. 3 Ratones Ciegos v. Mucha Lucha Libre Taco Shop 1 LLC, No. CV-16-04538-PHX-DGC, 2017 WL 4284570 (D. Ariz. Sept. 27, 2017).
3. A&H Sportswear, Inc. v. Victoria`s Secret Stores, Inc., 237 F.3d 198 (3rd Cir. 2000).
4. Abercrombie & Fitch Co. v. Hunting World, Inc., 537 F.2d 4, 9 (2d Cir. 1976).
5. Align Tech., Inc. v. Strauss Diamond Instruments, Inc., No. 18-CV-06663-TSH, 2019 WL 1586776 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 12, 2019).
6. AMF Inc. v. Sleekcraft Boats, 599 F.2d 341 (9th Cir. 1979)
7. Bayer Co. v. United Drug Co., 272 F. 505 (S.D.N.Y. 1921).
8. Brookfield Commc`ns, Inc. v. W. Coast Entm`t Corp., 174 F.3d 1036 (9th Cir. 1999).
9. Burger King Corp. v. Mason, 710 F.2d 1480 (11th Cir.1983).
10. Cairns v. Franklin Mint Co., 292 F.3d 1139, 1151 (9th Cir. 2002).
11. Chanel, Inc. v. WGACA, LLC, No. 18 CIV. 2253 (LLS), 2018 WL 4440507 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 14, 2018).
12. Conagra, Inc. v. Singleton, 743 F.2d 1508 (11th Cir.1984).
13. Crystal Entm’t & Filmworks, Inc. v. Jurado, 643 F.3d 1313 (11th Cir. 2011).
14. Dallas Cowboys Cheerleaders, Inc. v. Pussycat Cinema, Ltd., 604 F.2d 200 (2d Cir. 1979).
15. Dep’t of Parks & Recreation v. Bazaar Del Mundo Inc., 448 F.3d 1118 (9th Cir. 2006)
16. Downing v. Abercrombie & Fitch, 265 F.3d 994 (9th Cir. 2001).
17. Eksouzian v. Albanese, No. CV 13-00728-PSG-MAN, 2015 WL 12765585 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 23,2015).
18. Eksouzian v. Albanese, No. CV 13-00728-PSG-MAN, 2015 WL 4720478 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 7,2015).
19. Fraternity Collection, LLC v. Fargnoli, No. 3:13-CV-664-CWR-FKB, 2015 WL 1486375 (S.D. Miss. Mar. 31, 2015).
20. General Baking Co. v. Gorman, 3 F2d. 891 (1st Cir. 1925).
21. Grotrian, Helfferich, Schulz, Th. Steinweg Nachf v. Steinway & Sons, 523 F.2d 1331 (2d Cir. 1975).
22. Hana Financial, Inc. v. Hana Bank, 135 S. Ct. 907 (2015).
23. HSK LLC, d.b.a. Zerorez vs. United States Olympic Committee, No: 16-civ-02641-WMW-KMM, (D. Minn. Aug. 4, 2017).
24. Internet Specialties West, Inc. v. Milon–DiGiorgio Enters., Inc., 559 F.3d 985 (9th Cir.2009).
25. Interstellar Starship Servs., Ltd. v. Epix, Inc., 304 F.3d 936 (9th Cir.2002).
26. Investacorp, Inc. v. Arabian Investment Banking Corp. (Investcorp) E.C., 931 F.2d 1519, (11th Cir.1991).
27. Kellog Co.v. National Biscuit Co., 305 U.S. 111 (1938).
28. Khaled v. Bordenave, No. 18 CIV. 5187 (PAE), 2019 WL 1894321 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 29, 2019).
29. KP Permanent Make–Up, Inc. v. Lasting Impression I, Inc., 408 F.3d 596 (9th Cir. 2005).
30. Lanham Act Pub. L., 5 32, No. 79-489, 60 Stat. 427 (1946).
31. Levi Strauss & Co. v. Blue Bell, Inc., 778 F.2d 1352 (9th Cir.1985).
32. Lone Star Steakhouse & Saloon, Inc. v. Longhorn Steaks, Inc., 106 F.3d 355 (11th Cir.1997).
33. Matal v. Tam, 137 S. Ct. 1744, 1763, 198 L. Ed. 2d 366 (2017).
34. Multi Time Mach., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 792 F.3d 1070 (9th Cir.2015)
35. Multi Time Mach., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 804 F.3d 930 (9th Cir. 2015).
36. Network Automation, Inc. v. Advanced Systems Concepts, Inc., 638 F.3d 1137 (9th Cir. 2011).
37. New Kids on the Block v. News Am. Pub., Inc., 971 F.2d 302 (9th Cir. 1992).
38. Panavision Int`l, L.P. v. Toeppen, 141 F.3d 1316 (9th Cir.1998).
39. Perfumebay.com Inc. v. eBay, Inc., 506 F.3d 1165, 1169 (9th Cir.2007)
40. Playboy Enters., Inc. v. Netscape Commc`ns Corp., 354 F.3d 1020 (9th Cir. 2004).
41. Playboy Enters., Inc. v. Welles, 279 F.3d 796 (9th Cir. 2002).
42. Polaroid Corp. v. Polarad Elecs. Corp., 287 F.2d 492 (2d Cir. 1961).
43. Popular Bank of Florida v. Banco Popular de Puerto Rico, 9 F. Supp. 1347 (S.D. Fla. 1998).
44. Procter & Gamble Company v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market, ECJ C-383/99 P, paragraph 40.
45. Prof`l Hockey Ass`n v. Dall. Cap & Emblem Mfg., Inc., 510 F.2d 1004 (5th Cir.1975).
46. Promatek Indus., Ltd. v. Equitrac Corp., 300 F.3d 808 (7th Cir.2002).
47. Pub. Impact, LLC v. Bos. Consulting Grp., Inc., 169 F. Supp. 3d 278 (D. Mass 2016).
48. Publ`g Corp. v. Manhattan Magazine, Inc., 616 F. Supp. 370 (S.D.N.Y. 1985).
49. Rearden LLC v. Rearden Commerce, Inc., 683 F.3d 1190 (9th Cir. 2012).
50. S&L Vitamins, Inc. v. Australian Gold, Inc., No. 05 Civ. 1217 (JS), 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 102332, 2006 WL 8423836 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 30, 2006).
51. San Francisco Arts & Athletics, Inc. v. U.S. Olympic Comm., 483 U.S. 522,107 S. Ct. 2971, 2973, 97 L. Ed. 2d 427 (1987).
52. Savin Corp. v. Savin Group, 391 F.3d 439 (2d Cir. 2004).
53. Sebastian Int`l, Inc. v. Longs Drug Stores Corp., 53 F.3d 1073 (9th Cir. 1995).
54. Street v. New York, 394 U.S. 576, 592, 89 S.Ct. 1354, 22 L.Ed.2d 572 (1969)
55. Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397, 414, 109 S.Ct. 2533, 105 L.Ed.2d 342 (1989).
56. Two Pesos, Inc. v. Taco Cabana, Inc., 505 U.S. 763 (1992).
57. Zobmondo Entertainment, LLC v. Falls Media, LLC, 602 F.3d 1108 (9th Cir. 2010).
58. Zobmondo Entertainment, LLC v. Falls Media, LLC, 602 F.3d 1108 (9th Cir. 2010).
（五）政府官方文件
United States Patent and Trademark Office, U.S. Trademark:
1. Registration Number 4523521.
2. Registration Number 86321325.
3. Registration Number 86517834.
4. Registration Number 2805013.
5. Registration Number 5085344.
6. Registration Number 4198000.
7. Registration Number 5031701.
8. Registration Number 5032062.
9. Registration Number 5341520.
10. Registration Number 5246561.
11. Registration Number 4941492.
12. Registration Number 3191195.
13. Registration Number 3060471.
14. Registration Number 3911988.
15. Registration Number 3418121.
16. Serial Number 88266156.
United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office:
1. Trademark number UK00003069013.
（六）網路資源
1. Alexandra Jane Roberts, Using Third Party Trademarks as Hashtags Creates an Implied Association–Align v. Strauss, TECHNOLOGY & MARKETING LAW BLOG (May. 10, 2019), https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2019/05/using-third-party-trademarks-as-hashtags-creates-an-implied-association-align-v-strauss-guest-blog-post.htm.
2. ALS ASSOSIATION, http://www.alsa.org.
3. AMERICAN INSTITUTE IN TAIWAN, https://web-archive-2017.ait.org.tw/infousa/zhtw/E-JOURNAL/EJ_Olympics/xarchives/5079309.htm.
4. ASHLEY BRANDT, Considering using another’s trademark in a hashtag referencing your beverage without permission? Consider carefully., LIBATION LAW BLOG (Apr. 22, 2019), https://libationlawblog.com/2019/04/22/considering-using-anothers-trademark-in-a-hashtag-referencing-your-beverage-without-permission-consider-carefully/.
5. Clarivate Analytics, #Hashtag trademark applications rise 64% in just one year, COMPUMARK (May. 9, 2017), https://clarivate.com/compumark/blog/hashtag-trademark-applications-rise-64-just-one-year/.
6. Darren Rovell, USOC sends letter warning non-Olympic sponsor companies, ESPN (July. 21, 2016), http://www.espn.com/olympics/story/_/id/17120510/united-states- olympic-committee-battle-athletes-companies-sponsor-not-olympics.
7. Facebook/ Instargram，How do I use hashtags on Facebook/ Instagram?：https://www.facebook.com/help/587836257914341?helpref=faq_content ; https://www.facebook.com/help/instagram/351460621611097?helpref=hc_fnav.
8. Hetvi Trivedi, Hashtag Trade Marks—An Unpleasant Reality of IP Protection, SCC ONLINE (Mar. 19, 2018), https://blog.scconline.com/post/2018/03/19/hashtag-trade-marks-an-unpleasant-reality-of-ip-protection/.
9. InterNIC, https://www.internic.net.
10. Kashmir Hill, #McDStories: When A Hashtag Becomes A Bashtag, FORBES（Jan. 24, 2012）, https://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2012/01/24/mcdstories-when-a-hashtag-becomes-a-bashtag/#e6559f5ed257.
11. Laura MacFarlane and Richard Stobbe, #Hashmarks: Can a Hashtag be a Trademark?, FIELD LAW (Oct, 2018), https://www.martindale.com/matter/asr-2512165.Field.Hashmark.pdf.
12. Lewis, L, #nomakeupselfie: Why it worked, THE GUARDIAN (Mar. 25, 2014), https://www.theguardian.com/voluntary-sector-network/2014/mar/25/nomakeupselfie-viral-campaign-cancer-research.
13. Maghan McDowell, Protecting Fashion Hashtags With Trademarks, WWD (Apr. 6, 2016), https://wwd.com/business-news/media/fashion-hashtag-trademark-10404235/.
14. Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP, #Trademark Infringement, California Court Rules, JD SUPRA (May. 14, 2019), https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/trademark-infringement-california-court-36943/.
15. Marrins, K, Ice bucket challenge: when can a charity hijack a hashtag? , THE GUARDIAN (Aug. 20, 2014), https://www.theguardian.com/voluntary-sector-network/2014/aug/20/ice-bucket-challenge-hashtag-charity-macmillan.
16. Matthew J. Busch, Hashtag with Caution – Or You May Get #Sued, VENEBLE LLP (Jan. 26, 2017), https://www.venable.com/insights/publications/2017/01/hashtag-with-caution-or-you-may-get-sued.
17. Meryl Bernstein, Julia Matheson & Brendan Quinn, N.D. California Straightens Out Competitor`s Use of Infringing Hashtags: #newdevelopments in Using Trademarks as Hashtags, HOGAN LOVELLS PUBLICATIONS (April.17, 2019), https://www.hoganlovells.com/en/publications/nd-california-straightens-out-competitors-use-of-infringing-hashtags-newdevelopments-in-using-trademarks-as-hashtags.
18. Olivia Solon, US Olympic Committee bullying unofficial sponsors who use hashtags,THE GUARDIAN (July. 2, 2016), https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/jul/22/us-olympic-committee-bullying-unofficial-sponsors-hashtags.
19. Procter & Gamble, Our Epic Battle #LikeAGirl, PROCTER & GAMBLE https://always.com/en-us/about-us/our-epic-battle-like-a-girl.
20. Rebecca Tushnet, only "laconic" resellers allowed: court refuses to dismiss complaint against reseller of Chanel goods, REBECCA TUSHNET`S 43(B)LOG (Sep. 20, 2018), http://tushnet.blogspot.com/2018/09/only-laconic-resellers-allowed-court.html.
21. Twitter, Help Center>Tweets>How to use hashtags, https://help.twitter.com/en/using-twitter/how-to-use-hashtags. |
| Description: | 碩士
國立政治大學
科技管理與智慧財產研究所
106364211 |
| Source URI: | http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0106364211 |
| Data Type: | thesis |
| DOI: | 10.6814/NCCU202000255 |
| Appears in Collections: | [科技管理與智慧財產研究所] 學位論文
|
Files in This Item:
| File |
Size | Format | |
|---|
| 421101.pdf | 1370Kb | Adobe PDF2 | 64 | View/Open |
|
All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.
|
