INDIRECT LIABILITY (間接責任)
In trademark law, liability is not limited to the party who actually sells the counterfeit goods (偽造商品). Under Indirect Liability, third parties (like landlords or online platforms) can be held responsible for the infringing acts of others.
A. Contributory Liability (幫助侵權責任)
This is the most common form of indirect liability in the digital age. It is based on the defendant's contribution to the infringement.
Tiffany (NJ) Inc. v. eBay Inc. (2d Cir. 2010) (p. 666-679)
Brief Facts
- Tiffany sued eBay, claiming that eBay was liable for the sale of counterfeit Tiffany jewelry by third-party sellers on its platform.
- Tiffany argued that eBay had generalized knowledge (概括性認知) that counterfeits existed on the site.
Issue
- Does a service provider have a duty to preemptively monitor for infringement based on generalized knowledge?
- 服務提供者是否負有基於一般性知悉，而主動監控侵權行為之義務？
Holding (NO)
- For a service provider to be contributorily liable, it must have Specific Knowledge (具體認知) of particular infringing acts and fail to act (沒有採取行動).
Rule (The Inwood Standard applied to Services)
- Intentional Inducement: Did the defendant suggest or help the infringement happen?
- Knowledge + Material Contribution: Did the defendant continue to provide service while knowing (or having reason to know) a specific party was infringing?
- Willful Blindness (故意的視而不見): If a platform suspects infringement but "deliberately shields itself from that knowledge," it can be treated as having knowledge.
B. Vicarious Liability (代位責任)
- Concept
- This is a stricter form of liability derived from agency law (代理法).
- "Proof of 'knowledge" is not required (無須證明主觀知悉？)
- Elements:
- The defendant and the infringer have an apparent or actual partnership.
- The defendant has the right and ability to control the infringer.
- The defendant derives a direct financial benefit from the infringement.
DOMAIN NAMES AND CYBERSQUATTING (網域名稱與網路蟑螂)
Cybersquatting (域名搶註) involves registering domain names that are identical or confusingly similar to trademarks, often with the intent to sell them back to the owner for a profit.
Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA) (15 U.S.C. § 1125(d))
The ACPA provides a federal cause of action against cybersquatters.
PETA v. Doughney (4th Cir. 2001)
- Brief Facts:
- Doughney registered the domain peta.org and used it for a site called "People Eating Tasty Animals" (a parody of PETA's mission).
- PETA sued for cybersquatting.
- Defendant's Argument:
- He claimed it was a Parody (戲仿) and protected as "fair use" or "free speech."
- Holding:
- The court found Doughney liable under the ACPA.
- Rule:
- Even if the content of the website is a parody, the registration of the domain itself can be in Bad Faith if it confuses consumers looking for the actual trademark owner.
- Bad Faith Intent to Profit (惡意牟利意圖):
- Factors include whether the defendant offered to sell the domain or if they have no prior legal right to that name.
The Uniform Dispute Resolution Procedure (統一域名爭議處理機制)
While the ACPA is a lawsuit in court, the UDRP is an administrative proceeding under ICANN.
- Remedy: Only Transfer or Cancellation (no money damages).
- Three-Prong Test:
- Domain is identical or confusingly similar to a mark in which the complainant has rights.
- Registrant has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name.
- Domain was registered and is being used in bad faith.
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 ～
