VIII. INFRINGEMENT ANALYSIS (侵權分析)
The core of trademark infringement is the Likelihood of Confusion (LoC) (混淆誤認之虞). It occurs when consumers are likely to be confused about the source, origin, or sponsorship of goods/services.
A. Confusion as to Source (來源混淆)
The most common form of LoC. Consumers mistakenly believe the defendant's goods are from the plaintiff.
AMF Inc. v. Sleekcraft Boats (9th Cir. 1979)
- Brief Facts: Plaintiff used the mark "Slickcraft" for boats; Defendant used "Sleekcraft" for high-performance boats.
- Issue: Whether there is a likelihood of confusion between the two marks.
- Holding: The court found confusion was likely and issued a limited injunction.
- The "Sleekcraft" 8-Factor Test (美國判例法最重要的判準):
1. Strength of the Mark (商標識別性強度)
- Arbitrary/fanciful marks get more protection.
- 任意性、獨創性
2. Proximity of the Goods (商品關聯性)
- Complementary or similar goods increase confusion.
- 互補產品（Complementary goods），指涉性質不同但在使用上高度相關，通常會「搭配使用」的產品
- Similar goods → Coca Cola vs. Pepsi-Cola （可口可樂與百事可樂）
- Complementary goods → Yogurt & Cereal, Coffee Beans & Cafe (Restaurant)
3. Similarity of the Marks (商標相似度)
Sight, sound, and meaning (外觀、讀音、觀念)
4. Evidence of Actual Confusion (實際混淆證據)
The "best evidence" of LoC.
5. Marketing Channels Used (行銷管道)
- Overlapping ads or retail outlets.
6. Type of Goods & Degree of Care (商品性質與注意程度)
- High-priced items lead to more professional/careful buyers (less confusion).
7. Defendant’s Intent (被告意圖)
- Good faith vs. Bad faith (是否企圖搭便車).
8. Likelihood of Expansion (擴張可能性)
- Definition
- Whether a trademark owner is reasonably expected to enter the other party’s market in the near future.
- If such expansion is a natural business progression, the risk of consumer confusion is significantly higher, even if the two parties do not currently compete.
- Example:
- If a "famous restaurant" uses a specific brand name, and a new company starts selling "frozen meals" under a similar name, a court may find a likelihood of expansion.（精品餐廳與冷凍調理包之爭）
- Because it is common for successful restaurants to eventually launch their own "branded food products", consumers are likely to falsely assume that the frozen meals are an official extension of the restaurant’s business.
補：台灣的《混淆誤認之虞審查基準》
B. Other Types of Confusion (其他類型的混淆)
Confusion is not just about "who made this specific bottle." It extends to relationships and timing.
Confusion as to Association/Sponsorship (關聯或贊助混淆)
- Consumers think the plaintiff "authorized" or "sponsored" the defendant.
Initial Interest Confusion (初始興趣混淆)
- Using another's mark to "capture" the consumer's attention, even if they realize it's a different brand before buying.
- Example: Search Engine Keyword Advertising
智慧財產法院 107 年度民商訴字第 3 號民事判決：
未經商標權人同意，卻於同一商品或服務，使用相同於註冊商標之商標，這已經侵害商標權人對於註冊商標的核心價值，在法律上至少都會發生初始興趣混淆（initial interest confusion）的情形。換句話說，在本案中相關消費者很有可能看「誠品」字樣，而引起對於被告前瞻公司所提供「留學代辦」、「專業藝術諮詢」、「作品集指導」等服務的興趣，因而前往洽詢。
即使最後相關消費者在交易時，已因種種原因，瞭解此「誠品留學」、「誠品藝術學院」所提供的服務來源並不是來自於原告，但仍無礙於原本「誠品」商標所創造的商機已經遭到不正當的攀附使用。
因此，被告所抗辯另有使用企業辨識標識、相關消費族群有較強注意能力、原告沒有跨足經營留學代辦服務，都不影響本判決前述已經認定所構成商標法第68條第1款的商標侵權。
Post-sale Confusion (售後混淆)
- The buyer knows it's a fake but the observer on the street (路人) thinks it's real.
- This harms the trademark owner's reputation for exclusivity.
- Example: The court ruled that selling "replica car kits" (車身仿製套件) mimicking Ferrari’s design constitutes trademark infringement, establishing that "post-sale confusion" harms a brand's reputation when the public mistakes replicas for genuine products, even if the direct buyers are not misled. (Ferrari S.P.A. v. Roberts)
中文例：盜版LV包包、華強北Apple手機
IX. DILUTION (商標稀釋)
Trademark Dilution (Lanham Act § 43(c)) protects Famous Marks regardless of whether there is competition or a likelihood of confusion.
A. Dilution by Blurring (商標識別性之減損)
- The "whittling away" (削減) of a mark's ability to identify a single source.
- Example: Kodak Bike, Apple Tissue
Nike, Inc. v. Nikepal Int’l, Inc. (p. 598)
- Brief Facts: Nikepal sold laboratory equipment using the "Nikepal" name. Nike sued for dilution.
- Holding: Dilution by blurring was found. Even though lab equipment and shoes are different, "Nike" is exceptionally famous.
- TDRA 6-Factor Test for Blurring
1. Similarity degree. (相似程度)
The degree of similarity between the mark or trade name and the famous mark.
2. Distinctiveness degree. (識別性程度)
The degree of inherent or acquired distinctiveness of the famous mark.
識別性程度 → 判斷減損程度（By Gemini）
識別性越強的商標（如：Kodak），被稀釋後的受損感越明顯；識別性越弱的商標，法律保護的力道就會打折。
3. Exclusivity of the famous mark’s use. (排他性使用)
The extent to which the owner of the famous mark is engaging in substantially exclusive (實質使用) use of the mark.
4. Degree of recognition. (知名度, Fame)
The degree of recognition of the famous mark.
5. Intent to create an association.
Whether the user of the mark or trade name intended to create an association with the famous mark.
6. Any actual association.
Any actual association between the mark or trade name and the famous mark.
Louis Vuitton Malletier S.A. v. Haute Diggity Dog, LLC (p. 753)
- Brief Facts: Defendant sold dog toys named "Chewy Vuiton," mimicking LV's handbags.
- Rule on Parody (戲仿/詼諧仿效):
- Parody must simultaneously: (1) Recall the famous mark, but (2) Communicate that it is NOT the original.
- Holding: No dilution. The parody was successful because it was a "joke" and unlikely to blur the distinctiveness or tarnish the reputation of LV.
B. Dilution by Tarnishment (商標信譽之減損)
- Creating a negative association with a famous mark
- The mark is linked to something "unsavory (不名譽)" or "unwholesome (令人不快)"
- Example:
Coca-Cola Co. v. Gemini Rising, Inc. (自己補充)
- Scenario: A company produced a poster using the famous Coca-Cola script, logo style, and colors, but replaced the words "Enjoy Coca-Cola" with "Enjoy Cocaine."
- Why it's Tarnishment: Coca-Cola is a wholesome, family-oriented brand. Associating the mark with illegal drug use portrays the brand in a negative, illicit light, which tarnishes its reputation.
Toys "R" Us, Inc. v. Akkaoui (自己補充)
- Scenario: A business opened an online store called "Adults 'R' Us" that sold sexual devices and adult novelties.
- Why it's Tarnishment: Toys "R" Us is a brand deeply rooted in children's play and family values. Placing the mark in a sexual context—which the court deemed "unwholesome"—tarnishes the brand's wholesome image.
Tiffany & Co. v. Boston Club, Inc. (自己補充)
- Scenario: A strip club (gentlemen's club) operated under the name "Tiffany's."
- Why it's Tarnishment: Tiffany & Co. is a world-renowned brand associated with luxury, elegance, and sophistication. Linking the name "Tiffany's" to a strip club is considered "unsavory" and degrades the high-end reputation of the jewelry brand.
筆記日期：2026/04/23
資料來源：Barton Beebe TRADEMARK LAW (V12, An Open-Access Casebook)
揭露聲明：此筆記，係由筆者與Gemini共同彙編完成，有誤歡迎指正交流 ～
