跳到主要內容

臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

(44.192.67.10) 您好!臺灣時間:2024/11/14 22:51
字體大小: 字級放大   字級縮小   預設字形  
回查詢結果 :::

詳目顯示

: 
twitterline
研究生:許菁樺
研究生(外文):Jing-hua Shu
論文名稱:美國法上商標權侵害之研究—以網際網路上關鍵字之使用為主
論文名稱(外文):Trademark infringement under Lanham Act-To research primarily that the keyword uses in internet
指導教授:陳文吟陳文吟引用關係
指導教授(外文):Wen-yin Chen
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:國立中正大學
系所名稱:財法所
學門:商業及管理學門
學類:財務金融學類
論文種類:學術論文
論文出版年:2009
畢業學年度:97
語文別:中文
論文頁數:158
中文關鍵詞:商標商標權侵害商標淡化關鍵字Meta Tags最初關注混淆關鍵字廣告彈出式廣告
外文關鍵詞:trademark infringementinitial interest confuseMeta Tagspop-up advertisement.keyword advertisementtrademark dilutiontrademarkkeyword
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:18
  • 點閱點閱:1554
  • 評分評分:
  • 下載下載:300
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:3
網際網路高度發展,為生活增添釵h便利,但亦增加釵h新興侵害行為,商標權的侵害即為其一。網際網路提供釵h資訊,欠缺指引將無法獲取所需資料,搜尋引擎油然而生。網路使用者於搜尋引擎鍵入關鍵字,搜尋引擎透過關鍵字幫助網路使用者鎖定資訊,刪除不相關的網頁,因此關鍵字的使用,乃為瀏覽網路不可或缺的工具。但網路資訊過於龐雜,為吸引網路使用者注意,獲取商機,產生利用他人商標為關鍵字的行為。第一,於網頁中的Meta Tags使用他人商標。網路使用者以商標作為關鍵字搜尋時,即便與搜尋商標無關的網頁,由於Meta Tags中含有商標,該網頁亦會出現在搜尋結果頁面。第二,網路廣告。網路廣告分為兩種,包括關鍵字廣告,以及彈出式廣告。關鍵字廣告乃為第三人向搜尋引擎購買他人商標,網路使用者搜尋商標時,第三人的廣告就會出現,吸引網路使用者點選。彈出式廣告乃為廣告業者利用免費軟體,使間諜軟體在網路使用者電腦中執行,並記錄網路使用者所瀏覽的網域名稱、關鍵字、網頁中的詞彙,傳遞相關廣告給網路使用者。商標權人認為,第三人無權使用商標,奪取消費者第一次瀏覽其網頁的機會,侵害其商標權。

美國法院對於網際網路中,利用他人商標為關鍵字的行為,於Brookfield一案明確的以最初關注混淆,認定於Meta Tags使用他人商標的行為,構成商標權侵害。於Playboy的案件中,法院亦認為搜尋引擎販賣他人商標,觸發第三人廣告出現的行為,構成最初關注混淆,亦成立商標權侵害。但於WhenU的相關案件法院卻以相關行為不構成商標的使用,不構成商標權侵害。反觀我國法,三種利用行為,嚴格而論,網路使用者並無法觀看到商標的使用行為,故是否符合我國商標的使用確有疑慮。且於我國現行商標法,僅承認購買時的混淆,並不承認最初關注混淆,因此相關行為,並不構成商標權侵害。

然而,網際網路濫用商標的行為並不得予以放縱,必須訂立相關規範。相關行為是否構成商標法中的使用,商標法第六條的立法目的指出,為因應科技發展,因此擴張商標的使用,故三種行為應可符合商標法中的使用要件。至於最初關注混淆理論是否有引進的必要,雖有論者認為該論點僅為保護商標權人,不應擴張商標權保護範圍。然而若不引進,將導致網際網路上對商標的濫用,商標權人不欲維持商標存在,消費者無法利用商標辨識商品來源以及品質,無法利用商標鎖定資訊,必須花費大量時間搜尋商品,增加時間成本。因此必須透過最初關注混淆理論,遏止相關行為的發生。最初關注混淆理論不僅保護商標權人,亦保護消費者的權益,因此必須透過修法,方能達到商標法立法的目的。
The development of Word Wide Web brings us more convenience, but it also causes some disadvantages like the new trademark infringement. The Internet provides people more information and knowledge, but we can’t find out what we need without the right direct. That’s why the search engine is made for helping people to find what they need by search the keyword. The keyword is necessary to find out right information from huge resource of Internet, but it also results in the illegal use of keyword (or trademark) to attract user. First, put others’ trademark in MetaTags. Second, internet advertisement. The internet advertisement includes keyword advertisement and pop-up advertisement. Keyword advertisement is that the third party purchases others’ trademarks from search engine providers, when consumer searches trademark that the third party’s advertisement will appear. Pop-up advertisement is advertising agency uses spy software to record consumer’s habit, web page’s keyword to deliver advertisement.
As to U.S. judicial decisions, the court in the Brookfield case found that to use others trademark in the Meta Tags was trademark infringement on the basis of initial interest confusion. In the Playboy case where the search engine provider sold others’ trademark to promote advertisement, the court also found it as trademark infringement. But in the WhenU case, the court found that WhenU’s behavior didn’t conform with the meaning of use in the Lanham Act. It wasn’t trademark infringement.
Under our trademark law, the issues as to whether the keyword use in the internet conform with the meaning of trademark use, and, whether consumer’s likelihood of confusion established at the point of sale, should be solved. The internet trademark infringement shall be prohibited. The application of Article sixth should be extended to the above activities. In the case of initial interest confusion, there are different view points about it, but it is absolutely that the users will spend a lot of time to search the product they need.
第一章 � 緒論 1

第一節 �研究動機與研究目的 1

第二節 � 研究方法與研究範圍 3
第一項 �研究方法 3
第二項 �引註方式說明 3
第三項 �研究範圍 7

第三節 �論文架構 8

第二章 �美國法上商標權之概述 9

第一節 �商標之概述 10
第一項 �商標之意義 10
第二項 �商標之弁鄐峊萿k理由 11
第一款 �商標之弁?12
第一目 �表彰來源弁?12
第二目 �表彰品質弁?13
第三目 �區別弁?13
第四目 �表彰信譽弁?14
第五目 �廣告弁?15
第二款 �商標立法保護理由 15
第一目 �保護消費者 15
第二目 �公平競爭 16
第三目 �保護財產權 16
第四目 �增進經濟效益 17

第二節 �商標註冊要件 18
第一項 �積極要件 18
第一款 �得為商標之內容 18
第二款 �識別性 19
第三款 �使用要件 23
第二項 �消極要件 25
第一款 �錯誤聯想的暗示 25
第二款 �個人權利保護 25
第三款 �公共利益的保護 26
第四款 �弁鄔妦z論 27
第五款 �著名商標保護 28

第三節 � 商標權限 28
第一項 � 商標權利 28
第一款 � 存續期間 28
第二款 �地域範圍 29
第三款 �物的範圍 30
第二項 �商標權性質 30

第四節 �小結 31

第三章 ��美國法上商標權之侵害 32

第一節 �商標權侵害 33
第一項 �商標權侵害態樣 33
第一款 �直接侵害 33
第二款 �商標淡化 40
第二項 �商標權侵害的救濟 48
第一款 �禁止處分 49
第二款 �銷毀處分 49
第三款 �損害賠償 49

第二節 �商標權侵害的抗辯 49
第一項 �混淆誤認侵害的抗辯 50
第一款 �耗盡原則 50
第二款 �指示性使用 52
第三款 �善意合理使用 53
第四款 �衡平原則 54
第二項 �商標淡化的抗辯 55
第一款 �競爭對手合理使用 55
第二款 �非商業上使用 56
第三款 �新聞報導 56

第三節 �網際網路與商標權侵害 56
第一項 �網際網路與商標權 57
第二項 �網域名稱與商標權 58
第一款 �網域名稱的意義 58
第二款 �網域名稱的爭議 59
第三款 �網域名稱爭議的解決 60

第四節 �小結 62

第四章 �關鍵字之使用與商標權侵害 63

第一節 �概述 64
第一項 �關鍵字之使用 64
第二項 �關鍵字之使用與商標權 64

第二節 � Meta Tags侵害商標權 66
第一項 � Meta Tags之概念 66
第二項 � Meta Tags行為之規範 68
第一款 �傳統見解 69
第一目 �操控Meta Tags之合法性 69
第二目 �操控Meta Tags之違法性 71
第二款 � 最初關注混淆的應用 72
第一目 � 實務見解 73
第二目 �學者觀點 88

第三節 �網路廣告侵害商標權 98
第一項 �關鍵字廣告侵害商標權 98
第一款 �網路廣告看板的概念 99
第二款 �關鍵字廣告與商標權侵害 100
第三款 �關鍵字廣告的發展 102
第二項 �彈出式廣告侵害商標權 106
第一款 �彈出式廣告的概念 106
第二款 �彈出式廣告與商標權侵害 108
第一目 �爭議之發生 108
第二目 �美國法院之態度 109

第四節 �小結 115

第五章 �我國商標法對關鍵字使用爭議之探討 118

第一節 �我國商標法之概述 118
第一項 �商標權取得 118
第一款 �積極要件 119
第一目 �商標內容 119
第二目 �識別性 119
第三目 �使用要件 121
第二款 �消極要件 122
第二項 �商標權侵害 124
第一款 �一般商標權侵害 124
第二款 �擬制商標權侵害 128
第三款 �商標權侵害的抗辯 129

第二節 �關鍵字使用於我國商標法 130
第一項 �我國商標權侵害與美國之比較 130
第二項 �關鍵字侵害商標權 131
第一款 � Meta Tags問題於我國商標法的應用 131
第二款 �網路廣告問題於我國商標法的應用 134
第三項 �我國商標法之缺失及修法建議 136

第三節 �小結 138

第六章 �結論 141

參考文獻 145
一、中文文獻
(一)書籍

1.� 何孝元,工業所有權之研究,三民書局,民國八十年三版。
2.� 李茂堂,商標新論,元照出版公司,民國九十五年。
3.� 陳昭華,商標法,經濟部智慧財產局,民國九十六年。
4.� 陳昭華,商標侵害與救濟之實務及策略,經濟部智慧財產局,民國九十六年。
5.� 陳文吟,商標法論,三民書局,民國九十四年三版。
6.� 張澤平、張桂芳,商標法,書泉出版社,民國九十三年。
7. 陳瑞鑫,從商標刑事侵害談商標之使用,商標法制與實務論文集。
8.� 曾陳明汝,商標法原理,學林文化事業有限公司,民國九十三年。
9.� 馮震宇,了解新商標法,永然文化出版股份有限公司,民國八十九年。
10.�康炎村,工業所有權法論,五南圖書公司,民國七十六年。
11.�羅昌發,貿易與競爭之法律互動 國際經貿法研究(三),元照出版公司,民國八十七年。
12.�謝銘洋,「論網域名稱之法律保護」,國際貿易法暨智慧財產權法論文集,� 輔仁大學財經法律學系,民國八十八年十二月。

(二)期刊

1.� 王育慧,論網域名稱之保護-以註冊商標為中心,科技法律透析第十二期,民國九十三年十二月。
2.� 呂瑋卿,你的商標,他的Domain Name-從Yahoo案看網域名稱的糾紛,智
慧財產權管理季刊第十三期,民國八十九年四月。
3.� 林發立,網域名稱爭議解決機制在我國實務運作之觀察,萬國法律第一百三十四期,民國九十三年四月。
4.� 徐火明,從美德與我國法律論商標之註冊,中興法學,第三十二期,民國八十年十一月。
5.� 何燦成,論商標識別性與著名商標之關係,智慧財產權第四十一期,民國九十一年。
6.� 陳昭華,商標權之耗盡原理—以歐洲聯盟及德國之實務為例,植根雜誌第十二卷第五期,民國九十五年。
7.� 陳宏杰,關鍵字與商標─從搜尋引擊到消費者 ,智慧財產權月刊一百一十一期,民國九十七年三月。
8.� 陳瑩真,2008年關鍵字廣告機會點仍佳,廣告雜誌,民國九十六年十二月。
9.� 麥卡錫講述,趙晉枚譯,營業包裝與產品外觀之第二重意義,華岡法粹第二十四期,民國八十五年。
10. 賴文智律師.顏雅倫律師,網路關鍵字廣告的法律問題,網路資訊雜誌,第一百一十期,民國九十年一月。
11. 黃運湘,楊靜宜,網路廣告服務提供業者對關鍵字廣告之法律責任,萬國法律,一百五十三期,九十六年六月。
12. 劉尚志&陳家麟,網域名稱與商標爭議之解決機制:台灣、美國與中國大陸之相關規範比較,萬國法律第一百一十七期,民國九十年六月。
13. 劉博文,網域名稱與商標權保護,智慧財產權第二十四期,民國八十九年十二月。

(三)學位論文

1.� 林則言,論著名商標之保護-以美國聯邦商標淡化法為主,國立中正大學財經法律研究所碩士論文,民國九十四年。
2.� 倪玲娜,網域名稱應否實質管理之探討,國立政治大學國際貿易研究所碩士論文,民國九十年。
3.� 黃堅真,氣味商標之研究-以實務申請探討為中心,國立清華大學科技法律研究所碩士論文,民國九十五年。
4.� 謝枚霏 ,美國商標權之保護─以網域名稱為主,國立中正大學財經法律學研究所碩士論文,民國九十二年。
5.� 謝青蓉,「商標法上混淆誤認之虞之理論與實踐」,台灣大學法律學院法律學研究所碩士論文,民國九十五年。
6.� 鐘一晟,我國非傳統性商標保護之研究-以立體、顏色與聲音商標為中心,輔仁大學財經法律研究所,民國九十四年。
(四)網路資料

1.� IP位置與URL的不同,http://webamp.giga.net.tw/blog.php?p=33 (上網時間民國九十六年十二月十一日)。
2.� Sony里程碑http://www.sony.com.tw/company/history/index.asp (上網日期:民國九十六年九月二十日)。
3.� 王俊明,網際網路簡介,http://wms.tyai.tyc.edu.tw/~admin/teachdata/internet/index.html (上網時間民國九十六年十二月九日)。
4.� 多角化發展,請參見http://www.lorealv2.com.tw/_zh/_tw/group/activities/activities.aspx (上網日期:民國九十六年九月十九日)。
5.� 宋逸婷,簡介美國實務最初興趣混淆理論之概況,http://www.saint-island.com.tw/report/data/IPR_200706.htm#a02 (上網日期:民國九十六年九月十九日)。
6.� 利用被誤導消費者原始興趣,行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計畫成果報告,http://nthur.lib.nthu.edu.tw/bitstream/987654321/10790/1/932414H007001.pdf (上網時間民國九十七年十一月三日)。
7.� 創市際®市場研究顧問公司,2006上網率創新高 近六成民眾連網,請參照http://www.insightxplorer.com/news/news_12_27_06.html (上網日期民國九十六年十月十六日)。
8.� 張智星,HTML的簡介與運用,http://neural.cs.nthu.edu.tw/jang/books/html/ (上網時間民國九十六年十二月十一日)。
9.� 張哲倫,關鍵字廣告可能侵害商標權,http://www.web66.com.tw/web/News?command=showDetail&postId=138588 (上網時間民國九十七年十月八日)。
10. 陳曉慧,網路連結與智慧財產權,行政院國家科學委員會專題成果報告,http://nthur.lib.nthu.edu.tw/bitstream/987654321/10790/1/932414H007001.pdf(上網時間民國九十七年十月八日)。
11. 黃暉,顏色商標的保護,請參照
http://www.cta315.com/infor_vewe.asp?infor_id=3571&class1_id=18&class2_id=75(上網日期民國九十六年十月十六日)。
12. 賴文智律師.顏雅倫律師,網路關鍵字廣告的法律問題,http://www.is-law.com/OurDocuments/NW0005LA.pdf (上網時間民國九十六年十二月十七日)。
13. 趙晉枚,商標權與混淆之虞,請參照www.tipo.gov.tw(上網日期民國九十六年十月十五日)。
14. 劉仲矩,論網際網路時代下的心靈改革,http://www.mcu.edu.tw/admin/rdoffice/mcuposter/053/post2.htm (上網時間民國九十六年十二月九日)。
15. 曠文琪,關鍵字廣告成搜尋網站金雞母,http://www.businessweekly.com.tw/webarticle.php?id=29047 (上網時間民國九十六年十二月十一日)。
二、英文文獻
(一)Book

1.� BEVERLY W. PATTISHALL, DAVID C. HILLIARD, JOSEPH N. WELCH, TRADEMARKS AND UNFAIR COMPETITION (2d 2005).
2.� BEVERLY W. PATTISHALL, DAVID C. HILLIARD & JOSEPH N. WELCH II, TRADEMARK AND UNFAIR COMPETITION DESKBOOK (2003).
3.� FRANK H. FOSTER & ROBERT L. SHOOK, PATENTS, COPYRIGHTS, &TRADEMARKS (2d 1993).
4.� HORWITZ AND HORWITZ, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY COUNSELING AND LITIGATION, VOL.1 (2005).
5.� JEROME GILSON, TRADEMARK PROTECTION AND PRACTICE, Vol.1 (2005).
6.� J. THOMAS MCCARTHY, MCCARTHY ON TRADEMARKS AND UNFAIR COMPETITION, (4th ed. 2004).
7.� RICHARD STIM, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY: PATENTS, TRADEMARKS, AND COPYRIGHTS (1994).
8.� ROGER E. SCHECHTER & JOHN R. THOMAS, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY THE LAW OF COPYRIGHTS, PATENTS AND TRADEMARKS (2003).
9.� SCHECHTER & THOMAS, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY: THE LAW OF COPYRIGHTS, PATENTS AND TRADEMARKS (2003).
10. THOMAS J. SMEDINGHOFF, ONLINE LAW: THE SPA''S LEGAL GUIDE TO DOING BUSINESS ON THE INTERNET (1996).
(二)Periodicals
1.� Anderson, Erik, Protection of Trademarks from Use in Internet Advertising Banner Triggers: Playboy v. Netscape, 40 JURIMETRICS J. 469 (2000).
2.� Abbati, G. Rita A., Metatags, Keywords, and Links: Recent Developments � Addressing Trademark Threats in Cyberspace, 40 SAN DIEGO L. REV. 341 (2003).
3.� Allen, Michael J., The Scope of Confusion Actionable Under Federal Trademark Law: Who Must Be Confused and When? 26 WAKE FOREST L. REV. 321 (1991).
4.� Bakken, Erlend, Unauthorized Use of Another''s Trademark on the Internet, 2003 UCLA J. L. TECH.3 (2003).
5.� Blavin, Jonathon H. & Cohen I. Glenn, Note, Gore, Gibson and Goldsmith: The Evolution of Internet Metaphors in Law and Commentary, 16 HARV. J.L. & TECH. 265 (2002).
6.� Beystehner, Kristen M., See Ya Later Gator: Assessing Whether Placing Pop-Up Advertisements on Another Company''s Website Violates Trademark Law, 11 J. INTELL. PROP. L. 87 (2003).
7.� Barrett, Margreth, Internet Trademark Suits and the Demise of "Trademark Use", 39 U.C. DAVIS L. REV. 371 (2002).
8.� Bagley, Parker H. & Ackerman Paul D., Trigger Happy: The Latest Internet Assault on Trademark Rights, 16 COMPUTER LAW. 1 (1999).
9.� Caffarelli, Daniel J., Crossing Virtual Lines: Trespass on the Internet, 5 B.U. J. S CI. & TECH L. 6 PARA. 1 (1999).
10. Cody, Jason Allen, Initial Interest Confusion: What Ever Happened to Traditional Likelihood of Confusion Analysis? 12 FED. CIR. B.J. 643 (2003).
11. Cody, Jason Allen, Just Whenu Thought It was All Over, Gator''s Kin Pops Up and Slides Out of Dangerous IP Waters (for the Most Part): A Review of 2 Online Pop-Up Advertisers and 4 Internet Law Decisions, 7 PGH J. TECH. L. & POL''Y 3 (2004).
12. Cody, Jason Allen, One Cyberswamp Predator Pops up and Slides into Dangerous IP Waters, 14 ALB. L.J. SCI. & TECH. 81 (2003).
13. Cunningham, R.M, "Brand Loyalty-What, Where, How Much? ", 34 Harv. Bus. Rev. 116 (1956).
14. Chatterjee, Neel & Merriett Connie E., Casenote: U-Haul International, Inc. v. Whenu.com, Inc., Wells Fargo Co. v. Whenu.com, Inc. and 1-800 Contacts Inc. v. Whenu.com, Inc.: Pop-up Advertising as "Use in Commerce"; under the Lanham Act: A Case Analysis, 20 SANTA CLARA COMPUTER & HIGH TECH. L.J. 1113 (2004).
15. Doellinger, Chad J., Trademarks, Metatags, and Initial Interest Confusion: A Look to the Past to Reconceptualize the Future, 41 IDEA 173 (2001).
16. Doll, Ann E., Part Seven: Trademarks and the Internet: Review Essay: Hyperlinks, Frames and Metatags, 12 J. CONTEMP. LEGAL ISSUES 536 (2001).
17. Dogan, Stacey L. & Lemley, Mark A., Symposium: Trademark in Transition: Institute for Intellectual Property & Information Law Symposium: Trademarks and Consumer Search Costs on the Interne, 41 HOUS. L. REV. 777 (2004).
18. Frye, Patrick, An Internet Advertising Service can Constitute "Use in Commerce", 22 SANTA CLARA COMPUTER & HIGH TECH. L.J. 89 (2004).
19. Dunaevsky, Yelena, Comment: Don''t Confuse Metatags with Initial Interest Confusion, 29 FORDHAM URB. L.J. 1349 (2002).
20. Edgecombe, Jason R., Off The Mark: Bring The Federal Trademark Dilution Act in Line With Established Trademark Law, 51 Emory L.J. 1247 (2002).
21. Fritch, David M., Searching for Initial Interest Confusion and Trademark Protection in Cyberspace, 9 PGH J. TECH. L. & POL''Y 4 (2005).
22. Fishman, Isaiah A., Are Competitor''s Advertising Links Displayed When I Google My Product? An Analysis of Internet Search Engine Liability for Trademark Infringement, 5 J. MARSHALL REV. INTELL. PROP. L. 430 (2006).
23. Frey, Michael G., Comment, Is it Fair to Confuse? An Examination of Trademark Protection, the Fair Use Defense, and the First Amendment, 65 U. CIN. L. REV. 1255 (1997).
24. Felsten, Nancy J., Trademarks, Domain Names, Metatags, Cybersquatting and the Internet, 601 PLI/Pat 251 (2000).
25. Gamez, Alicia, Intellectual Property: Trademark: Note: WhenU.com, Inc. & Google Inc.: Parsing Trademark''s Use Requirement, 21 BERKELEY TECH. L.J. 403 (2006).
26. Goldman, Eric, Deregulating Relevancy in Internet Trademark Law, 54 EMORY L.J. 507 (2005).
27. Garrett, Mark T., Recent Developments in Trademark Law, 8 TEX. INTELL. PROP. L.J. 101 (1999).
28. Grynberg, Michael, The Road Not Taken: Initial Interest Confusion, Consumer Search Costs, and the Challenge of the Internet, 28 SEATTLE UNIV. L. R. 97 (2004).
29. Hetzel, Dannean J., Whenu.com Gets Popped: How Trademark Law can Stop those Annoying Pop-Up Ads, 5 LOY. LAW & TECH. ANN. 53 (2005).
30. Janis, Daniel T., Internet Domain Names and the Lanham Act: Broadening Trademark Definitions and Their Implications for Speech on the Web, 25 COLUM. J.L. & ARTS 21 (2001).
31. Johnson, Jennifer D., Comment: Potential Liability Arising out of the Use of Trademarks in Web Site Meta Tags and Ensuring covering of Meta Tag Trademark Infringement Claims under Commercial Insurance Policies, 50 CATH. U.L. REV. 1009 (2001).
32. Kozinski, Alex, Trademark Unplugged, 68 N.Y.U.L. REV. 960 (1993).
33. Kaiser, Brian D., Note: Contributory Trademark Infringement by Internet Service Providers: An Argument for Limitation, 7 J. TECH. L. & POL''Y 4 (2002).
34. Kuester, Jeffrey R. and Nieves Peter A., Hyperlinks, Frames and Meta-Tags: An Intellectual Property Analysis, 38 IDEA 243 (1998).
35. Kucala, Joseph T., Jr., Note, Putting The Meat Back In Meta-tags! 2001 U. ILL. J.L. TECH. & POL''Y 129 (2003).
36. Kline, Melinda M., Comment: Missing the Mark: the Trademark Battle Over Software-Based Contextually Targeted Advertising on the Internet, 54 CASE W. RES. 917 (2004).
37. Kaminer, Matthew A., The Limitations of Trademark Law in Addressing Trademark Keyword Banners, 16 SANTA CLARA COMPUTER & HIGH TECH. L.J. 35 (1999).
38. King, Shannon N., Brookfield Communications v. W. Coast Entm''t, 15 BERKELEY TECH. L.J. 313 (2000).
39. Khosla, Vikas, Internet Trademark Infringement: A Tale of Two Initial Interest Confusion Doctrines, 5 WAKE FOREST INTELL. PROP. L.J. 121 (2005).
40. Galbraith, Christine D., Electronic Billboards Along the Information Superhighway:
Liability Under the Lanham Act for Using Trademarks to Key Internet Banner Ads, 41B.C. L. REV. 847 (2000).
41. Loundy, David J., E-Law 4: Computer Information Systems Law and System Operator Liability, 21 SEATTLE U. L. REV. 1075 (1998).
42. Lerner, Julieta L., Law and Technology: I. Intellectual Property : C. Trademark: 1. Notes: Trademark Infringement and Pop-up Ads: Tailoring the Likelihood of Confusion Analysis to Internet Uses of Trademarks, 20 BERKELEY TECH. L.J. 229 (2005).
43. Lastowka, F. Gregory, Note, Search Engines, HTML, and Trademarks: What''s the Meta For? 86 VA. L. REV. 835 (2000).
44. Leon, Michael A., Note: Unauthorized Pop-up Advertising and the Copyright and Unfair Competition Implications, 32 HOFSTRA L. REV. 953 (2004).
45. Lemley, Mark A., Place and Cyberspace, 91 CAL. L. REV. 521 (2003).
46. Lemley, Mark A., The Modern Lanham Act and the Death of Common Sense, 108 YALE L.J. 1687 (1999).
47. Landes, William M. & Posner Richard A., Trademark Law: An Economic Perspective, 30 J.L. & ECON. 265 (1987).
48. Luther, Rep. Bill, A Commentary on the State of Online Privacy and the Efficacy of Self-Regulation, 27 WM. MITCHELL L. REV. 2125 (2001).
49. Mermin, Jonathan, Interpreting the Federal Trademark DilutionAct of 1995:The Logic of the Actual Dilution Requirement, 42 B. C. L. Rev. 211 (2000).
50. Meiners, Roger E. & Staaf Robert J., "Patents, Copyrights and Trademarks: Property or Monopoly? ", 13 Harv. J.L.& Pub. Pol’y 911 (1990).
51. Marroletti, William, Dilution, or delution? The need for a clear international standard to determine trademark dilution, 25 Brooklyn J. Int’l L. 664 (1999).
52. Nathenson, Ira S., Internet Infoglut and Invisible Ink: Spamdexing Search Engines with Meta Tags, 12 HARV. J. LAW & TEC 43 (1998).
53. McCoy, Barbara Anna, An Invisible Mark: A Meta-Tag Controversy, 2 J. SMALL & EMERGING BUS. L. 377 (1998).
54. Maynard, Bryce J., Note, The Initial Interest Confusion Doctrine and Trademark Infringement on the Internet, 57 WASH & LEE L. REV. 1303 (2000).
55. Manzano, Daniel E., Confusion in Cyberspace: Defending and Recalibrating the Initial Interest Confusion Doctrine, 117 HARV. L. REV. 2387 (2004).
56. McCuaig, Dan, Halve The Baby: An Obvious Solution To The Troubling Use Of Trademarks As Metatags, 18 J. MARSHALL J. COMPUTER & INfo. L. 643 (2000).
57. Manzano, Daniel E., Confusion in Cyberspace: Defending and Recalibrating the Initial Interest Confusion Doctrine, 117 HARV. L. REV. 2387 (2004).
58. Marra, Joseph V., Law and Technology: I: Intellectual Property : C. Trademark: I. Notes: Playboy Enterprises, Inc. v. Netscape Communications Corp.: Making Confusion a Requirement for Online Initial Interest Confusion, 20 BERKELEY TECH. L.J. 209 (2000).
59. McLoughlin, Michael, Trademark Identity in Cyberspace: The Impact of Brookfield Communications, Inc. v. West Coast Entertainment Corp, 20 QUINNIPIAC L. REV. 595, (2001).
60. Macaw, Misha Gregory, Google, Inc. v. American Blind & Wallpaper Factory, Inc.: A Justification for the Use of Trademarks as Keywords to Trigger Paid Advertising Placements in Internet Search Engine Results, 32 RUTGERS COMPUTER & TECH. L.J.1(2005).
61. McGann, Melissa M., Case Note: Web Word War (WWW): A New Approach to Trademark Infringement and Unfair Competition Claims under the Lanham Act in Brookfield Communication, Inc. v. West Coast Entertainment Corp. , 7 VILL. SPORTS & ENT. L.J. 363 (2000).
62. Mills, Terrell W., Metatags: Seeking to Evade User Detection and the Lanham Act, 6 RICH. J.L. & TECH. 22 (2000).
63. Monagan, Tom, Can an Invisible Word Create Confusion? The Need for Clarity in the Law of Trademark Infringement through Internet Metatags, 62 OHIO ST. L.J. 973 (2001).
64. Nester, Lisa A., Cmmwnt: Keywords, Trademarks, and the Gray Market: Why the Use is Not Fair, 7 MARQ. INTELL. PROP. L. REV. 235 (2003).
65. O''Rourke, Maureen A, Defining the Limits of Free-Riding in Cyberspace: Trademark Liability for Metatagging, 33 GONZ. L. REV. 277 (1988).
66. Oram, Jon H., Case Note, The Costs of Confusion in Cyberspace, 107 YALE L.J. 869 (1997).
67. Oram, Jon H., Will the Real Candidate Please Stand Up? Political Parody on the Internet, 5 J. INTELL. PROP. L. 467 (1999).
68. O''Rourke, Maureen A., Fencing Cyberspace: Drawing Borders in a Virtual World, 82 Menn. L. Rev. 609 (1998).
69. Padawer, Heidi S., Note: Google this: Search Engine Results Weave a Web for Trademark Infringement Actions on the Internet, 81 WASH. U. L. Q. 1099 (2003).
70. Posne, Rachel Jane, Manipulative Metatagging, Search Engine Baiting, and Initial Interest Confusion, 33 COLUM. J.L. & SOC. PROBS. 439 (2000).
71. Paylago, Stanley U., Trademark Infringement, Metatags, and the Initial Interest Confusion Remedy, 9 MEDIA L. & POL''Y 49 (2000).
72. Presson, Thomas F. & Barney James R., Trademarks as Metatags: Infringement or Fair Use? 26 AIPLA Q. J. 147 (1998).
73. Rubin, Janet, Comment and Recent Development: Pop-Up Ads and Trademark Infringement, Whenu.com Litigation, 24 CARDOZO ARTS & ENT LJ 323 (2006).
74. Rajzer, Julie A., Comment: Misunderstanding the Internet: How Courts are Overprotecting Trademarks Used in Metatags, 2001 L. REV. M.S.U.-D.C.L. 427 (2003).
75. Rothman, Jennifer E., Initial Interest Confusion: Standing at the Crossroads of Trademark Law, 27 CARDOZO L . REV. 105 (2005).
76. Romanos, William, Internet Accuracy Wars: How Trademarks Used in Deceptive Metatagging should be Dealt with to Increase Economic Efficiency, 7 U. BALT. INTELL. PROP. L.J. 79 (1998).
77. Rubin, Janet, Comment and Recent Development : Pop-Up Ads and Trademark Infringement: Whenu.com Litigation, 24 CARDOZO ARTS & ENT LJ 323 (2006).
78. Rossi, James A., Protection for Trademark Owners: The Ultimate System of Regulating Search Engine Results, 42 SANTA CLARA L. REV. 295 (2002).
79. Sinclair, Andrew J., Legal Update: Third Party Pop-up Advertisements : U-Haul Int''l, Inc. v. Whenu.com, 10 B.U. J. SCI. & TECH L. 198 (2004).
80. Sidbury, Benjamin F., Comparative Advertising on the Internet: Defining the Boundaries of Trademark Fair Use for Internet Metatags and Trigger Ads, 3 N.C. J.L. & TECH. 35 (2001).
81. Schiefelbine, Erich D., Comment: Stopping a Trojan Horse: Challenging Pop-up Advertisements and Embedded Software Schemes on the Internet Through Unfair Competition Laws, 19 SANTA CLARA COMPUTER & HIGH TECH. L.J. 499 (2003).
82. Schechter, Frank I., The Rational Basis of Trademark Protection, 40 Harv. L. Rev. 813 (1927).
83. Shea, Gregory, Note, Trademarks and Keyword Banner Advertising, 75 S. CAL. L. REV. 529 (2002).
84. Suh, James, Note: Intellectual Property Law and Competitive Internet Advertising Technologies: Why "Legitimate" Pop-up Advertising Practices should be Protected, 79 ST. JOHN''S L. REV. 161 (2005).
85. Schwartz, Jonathan L., Making the Consumer Watchdog''s Bark as Strong as its Gripe : Complaint Sites and the Changing Dynamic of the Fair Use Defense, 16 LB. L.J. SCI. & TECH. 59 (2006).
86. Saunders, Kurt M., Confusion is the Key: A Trademark Law Analysis of Key Word Banner Advertising, 71 FORDHAM L. REV. 543 (2002).
87. Smith, Richard M., Speech: Internet Privacy: Who Makes the Rules? 4 YALE SYMP. L. & TECH. 2 (2001).
88. Sees, Michael R., Notes & Comments, Use of Another''s Trademark in a Web Page Meta Tag: Why liability Should Not Ensue Under the lanham Act for Trademark Infringement, 5 Tex. Wesleyan L. Rev. 99 (1998).
89. Shipman, Scott, Comment, Trademark and Unfair Competition in Cyberspace: Can These Laws Deter "Baiting" Practices on Web Sites? 39 SANTA CLARA L. REV. 245 (1998).
90. Schlosser, Sarah Mayhew, The High Price of Coffee: The Chilling Effect of The Federal Trademark Dilution Act on Corporate Parody, 43 Ariz. L. Rev. 931 (2001).
91. Tucker, Robert L., Information Superhighway Robbery: The Tortious Misuse of Links, Frames, Metatags, and Domain Names, 4 VA. J.L. & TECH. 8 (1999).
92. Tucci, Veronica, The Case of the Invisible Infringer: Metatags, Trademark Infringement and False Designation of Origin, 5 J. TECH. L. & POL''Y 2 (2000).
93. Upadhye, Shashank, Trademark Surveys: Identifying the Relevant Universe of Confused Consumers, 8 FORDHAM INTELL. PROP. MEDIA & ENT. L.J. 549 (1998).
94. Weaver, Craig P., Signposts to Oblivion? Meta-Tags Signal the Judiciary to Stop Commercial Internet Regulation and Yield to the Electronic Marketplace, 22 SEATTLE U.L. REV. 667 (1998).
95. Weininger, Jonathan A., Notes and Comments: Trademark Metategging: Lanham Act Liability or Pareto Optimality? 23 WHITTIER L. REV. 469 (2001).
96. Warner, John R., Trademark Infringement Online: Appropriate Federal Relief from the Illicit Use of Trademarked Material in Web Site Meta Tags, 22 T. JEFFERSON L. REV. 133 (2000).
97. Widmaier, Uli, Use, Liability, and the Structuer of Trademark Law, 33 HOFSTRA L. REV. 603 (2004).
98. Yan, David, Note: Virtual Reality: Can We Ride Trademark Law to Surf Cyberspace? 10 FORDHAM INTELL. PROP. MEDIA & ENT. L.J. 773 (2000).
99. Yannone, Jennifer, Comment: The Future of Unauthorized Pop-Up Advertisements Remains Uncertain as Courts Reach Conflicting Outcomes, 7 TUL. J. TECH. & INTELL. PROP. 281 (2005).

(三)Internet

1.� 2004 State Legislation Relating to Internet Spyware or Adware, available at www.ncsl.org/programs/lis/spyware 04.htm (last visit 9/8/2008)
2.� BOB''S GARAGE, available at http://www.bobsgarage.com (last visited 11 /26 /2007).
3.� Cyvelliance, State of the Internet, available at http://www.cyveillance. com/about/stateint.html (last visited 12 /13 /2007).
4.� Dr. Ralph F. Wilson, Ins And Outs Of Displaying Banner Ads, available at
� http://www.wilsonweb.com/wmta/adrev-serving.htm. (last visited 12 /13 /2007).
5.� Danny Sullivan, How Search Engines Work, available at: http://searchenginewatch.com/webmasters/work.html (last visited 12 /11 /2007).
6.� Gord Hotchkiss, Adware and Spyware: Beware!, Search Engine Position, available at: http://www.searchengineposition.com/info/netprofit/spyware.asp (last visited 9 /8 /2008).
7. Google Investor Relations Financial Data Income Statement, available at http://investor.google.com/fin_data.html (last visited 12/13 /2007).
8. Judge Blocks WhenU Pop-Ups, WEBADVANTAGE.NET, available at: http://www.webadvantage.net/tip_archive.cfm?tip_id=347&&a=l (last visited 9 /6 /2008).
9.� Keyword, available at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keyword (last visited 12 /11 /2007).
10. Ralph F. Wilson, Using Banner Ads to Promote Your Web Site, available at:
http://www.wilsonweb.com/articles/bannerad.htm. (last visited 12 /13 /2007).
11. Masterson, Companies Sue Over Banner Advertisements, available at:
http://www.internetnews.com/bus-news/print/0,1087,3_67521,00.html. (last visited 12 /15 /2007).
12. Magnus Pagendarm & Heike Schaumburg, Why Are Users Banner-Blind? The
Impact of Navigation Style on the Perception of Web Banners, J. Digital Info., available at http://jodi.ecs.soton.ac.uk/Articles/v02/i01/Pagendarm/ (last visited 12 /20 /2007).
13. Robert Mullens, Gator Corp. Threatens to Bite Back, The Business Journal,
available at : http://sanjose.bizjournals.com/sanjose/stories/2002/06/24/daily71.html (last visited 9 /5 /2008).
14. Search Engine - PC Webopaedia Definition and Links, available at: http://webopedia.internet.com/TERM/s/search engine.html (last visited 12 /11 /2007).
15. The New Meta Tags Are Coming -- Or Are They? The Search Engine Report, available at http://searchenginewatch.com/sereport/97/12-metatags.html (last visited 12 /15 /2007).
16. Yahoo! Investor Relations, Yahoo! Earnings Q2 2004 Yahoo! Earnings, available at http://yhoo.client.shareholder.com/earnings.cfm?concall=q22004 (last visited 12/13 /2007).
(四)Case
1.� 1-800 Contacts, Inc. v. WhenU.com, 309 F. Supp. 2d 467 (S.D.N.Y. 2003).
2.� 1-800 Contacts, Inc. v. WhenU.com, 414 F.3d 400 (2d Cir. 2005).
3.� Astra Pharmaceutical Products., Inc. v. Beckman Instruments, Inc., 718 F.2d 1201 (1st Cir. 1983).
4.� Adobe Systems Inc. v. One Stop Micro Inc., 84 F.Supp.2d 1086 (N.D.Cal.2000).
5.� American Enka Corp. v. Marzall, 92 U.S.P.Q. 111 (1952).
6.� American Express Co. v. CFK, Inc., 947 F. Supp. 310 (E.D. Mich.1996).
7.� American Home Prods. Corp. v. Johnson Chem. Co., 589 F.2d 103 (2d Cir. 1978).
8.� American Photographic Pub. Co. v. Ziff Davis Pub. Co., 135 F.2d 569, 574 (7th Cir. 1943).
9.� Armstrong Paint & Varnish Work v. Nu-Enamel Corp., 305 U.S. 315 (1938).
10. American Rakiator & Standard Sanitary Corp. V. Hoyt Heater Co., 145 U.S.P.Q. 618 (T.T.A.B. 1965).
11. Avery Dennison Corp. v. Sumpton, 189 F.3d 868 (9th Cir. 1999).
12. Brookfield Communication, Inc., v. West Coast Entertainment Corp., 174 F.3d 1036 (9th Cir. 1999).
13. Bayer Corp. v. Custom School Frames, L.L.C., 259 F. Supp. 2d 503 (E.D. La. 2003).
14. Binney & Smith v. Rose Art Indus., 60 U.S.P.Q.2d 2000 (E.D. pa 2001).
15. Brand v. Fairchester Packing Co., 84 U.S.P.Q. 97 (Comm’r Pats. 1950).
16. Bally Total Fitness Holding Corp. v. Faber, 29 F. Supp. 2d 1161 (C.D. Cal. 1998).
17. Board of Trustees of University of Ala. v. Bama-Werke Curt Baumann, 231 U.S.P.Q. 408 (T.T.A.B. 1986).
18. Chatam International, Inc. v. Bodum, Inc., 157 F.Supp. 2d 549 (E.D. Penn. 2001).
19. Chanel, Inc. v. Smith (9th Cir. 1968).
20. Checkpoint Sys. V. Check Point Software Techs., Inc., 269 F.3d 270 (3d Cir. 2001).
21. Deere & Co. v. MTD Prods., Inc., 41 F.3d 39 (2d Cir. 1994).
22. Discovery Communications, Inc. v. Animal Planet, Inc., 172 F. Supp. 2d 1282 (C.D. Cal. 2001).
23. Dallas Cowboys Cheerleaders, Inc. v. Pussycat Cinema, 604 F.2d 200, 206(2d Cir. 1979).
24. Dr. Seuss Enterprises, L.P. v. Penguin Books USA, Inc. 109 F.3d 1394 (9th Cir. 1997).
25. Eli Lilly & Co. v. Natural Answers, Inc., 233 F.3d 456 (7th Cir. 2000).
26. Edgar Rice Burroughs, Inc, v. Manns Theatres, 1976 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11754.
27. Eli Lilly & Co. v. Natural Answers, Inc., 86 F. Supp. 2d 834 (S.D. Ind).
28. Estee Lauder, Inc. v. The Fragrance Counter, Inc., 52 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 1786 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 19, 1999).
29. Elvis Presley Enterprises, Inc. v. Capece. 141 F.3d 188 (5th Cir. 1998).
30. Fort Howard Paper Co. v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 390 F.2d 1015 (1968).
31. Faeger & Benson, LLP, v. William Purdy, SR., 367 F. Supp. 2d 1238 (2005).
32. Grotrian, Helfferich, Schulz, Th. Steinweg Nachf. v. Steinway & Sons, 523 F.2d 1331 (2d Cir. 1975).
33. General Mills, Inc. v. Kellogg Co., 824 F.2d 622 (8th Cir. 1987).
34. Gray v. Meijer, Inc., 295 F.3d 641 (6th Cir. 2002).
35. Green-point Fin. Corp. v. Sperry & Hutchinson Co., 116 F. Supp. 2d 405 (S.D.N.Y.2000).
36. Hancock v. American Steel & Wire Co., 203 F.2d 737 (C.C.P.A. 1953).
37. Hasbro Inc. v. Clue Computing Inc., 232 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2000).
38. Hershey Foods Corp. v. Mars, Inc., 998 F. Supp. 500 (M.D. Pa. 1998).
39. H. Marvin Ginn Corp. v. Int’l Ass’n Fire Chiefs, Inc., 782 F.2d 987 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
40. Horphag Research, Ltd. v. Pelligrini, 337 F.3d 1036 (9th Cir. 2003).
41. Intermatic, Inc., v. Toeppen, 947 F. Supp. 1227 (1996).
42. Investacorp, Inc. v. Aravian Investment Banking Corp., 931 F.2d 1519 (11th Cir. 1991).
43. In re Clarke, 17 U.S.P.Q.2d 1238 (T.T.A.B 1990).
44. In re Castleton China, Inc., 156 U.S.P.Q. 691 (T.T.A.B. 1968).
45. In re Dial-A-Mattress Operating Corp., 240 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
46. In re Marriott Corp., 459 F. 2d 525 (C.C.P.A. 1972).
47. In re Societe Generale, 824 F.2d 957 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
48. Insituform Techs., Inc. v. National Envirotech Group, L.L.C., No. 97-2064 (E.D. La., 49. final consent judgment entered Aug. 26, 1997).
50. In re Volvo Cars of North Am., Inc., 46 U.S.P.Q.2d 1455 (T.T.A.B. 1998).
51. Jordache Enters. v. Levi Strauss & Co., 841 F. Supp. 506 (S.D.N.Y. 1993).
52. Japan Telecom, Inc. v. Japan Telecom Am., Inc., 287 F.3d 866 (9th Cir. 2002).
53. Jerry Finn v. Cooper’s, Inc., 292 F.2d 555 (C.C.P.A. 1961).
54. J.K. Harris & Co. v. Kassel, 253 F. Supp. 2d 1120 (2003).
55. Kellogg Co. v. Toucan Golf, Inc., 337 F.3d 616 (6th Cir. 2003).
56. Ken Roberts Co. v. Go-To.Com. (2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6740).
57. Kenner Parker Toys, Inc. v. Rose Art Industries, Inc., 963 F. 2d 351 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
58. KiKi Undies Corp. v. Promenade Hosiery Mills, Inc., 411 F.2d 1097 (2d Cir. 1969).
59. Lindy Pen Co., Inc. v. Bic Pen Corp., 796 F.2d 254 (9th Cir. 1986).
60. Lucien Picard Watch Corp. V. Since 1868 Crescent Corp., 314 F. Supp. 329 (S.D.N.Y. 1970).
61. Matrix Essentials, Inc. v. Emporium Drug Mart, Inc., 988 F.2d 587 (5th Cir. 1993).
62. Mattel, Inc. v. Internet Dimensions, Inc., 55 U.S.P.Q.2d 1620 (S.D.N.Y.2000).
63. Metro Pub.Ltd. v. San Jose Mercury News, 987 F.2d 637 (9th Cir. 1993).
63. Michael Caruso & Co. v. Estefan Enters., Inc., 994 F. Supp. 1454 (S.D. Fla. 1998).
65. Mobil Oil Corp. v. Pegasus Petroleum Corp., 818 F.2d 254 (2d Cir. 1987).
66. Norwich Pharmacal Co. v. Sterling Drug, Inc., 271 F.2d 569 (2d Cir. 1959).
67. Niton Corp. v. Radiation Monitoring Devices, Inc., 27 F. Supp. 2d 102 (D. Mass. 1998).
68. Oppedahl & Larson v. Advanced Concepts, No. C-97-Z-1592 (D. Colo. filed July 23, 1997).
69. Playboy Enterprises, Inc. v. Calvin Designer Label, 985 F. Supp. 1220 (N.D. Cal. 1997).
70. Playboy Enters., Inc. v. AsiaFocus Int''l, Inc., No. 97-734-A (E.D. Va. Apr. 10, 1998).
71. Panavision International, L.P. v. Toeppen, 141 F.3d 1316 (9th Cir. 1998).
72. Pinehurst, Inc. v. Wick, 256 F. Supp. 2d 424 (M.D.N.C. 2003).
73. Promatek Indus, v. Equitrac Corp., 300 F.3d 808 (7th Cir. 2002).
74. Playboy Enters., Inc. v. Welles, 279 F.3d 796 (9th Cir. 2002).
75. Playboy Enterprises, Inc. v. Netscape Communications Corp., 55 F. Supp. 2d 1070 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 11. 1999).
76. Playboy Enterprises, Inc. v. Netscape Communications Corp., 354 F.3d 1020 (9th Cir. 2004).
77. Polaroid Corp. v. Polarad Electronics Corp., 287 F.2d 492 (2d Cir. 1961).
78. Polo Fashions, Inc. v. Craftex, Inc., 816 F.2d 145 (4th Cir. 1987).
79. powerlineman.com, LLC, v. Robert Jackson, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86261.
80. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Inc. v. Doughney, 113 F. Supp. 2d 915 (E.D. Va. 2000).
81. Processed Plastic Co. v. Warmer Communications, Inc., 675 F.2d 852 (7th Cir. 1982).
82. Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Prods. Co., 514 U.S. 159 (1995).
83. Ross v. Analytical Tech., Inc. and Orion Research, Inc., 51 U.S.P.Q.2d 1269 (T.T.A.B.1999).
84. Reed Elsevier, Inc. v. Innovator Corp., 105 F. Supp. 2d 816 (S.D. Ohio 2000).
85. Reed v. Bakers Engineering & Equip., 100 U.S.P.Q. 196 (Ex. Ch. 1954).
86. Rust Environment & Infrastructure, Inc. v. Teunissen, 131 F.3d 1210 (7th Cir. 1997).
87. Sally Beauty Co. v. Beautyco, Inc., 304 F.3d 964 (10th Cir. 2002).
88. Sara Lee Corp. v. Kayser-Roth Corp., 81 F.3d 455 (4th Cir. 1996).
89. Shell Oil Co. v. Commercial Petroleum, Inc., 928 F.2d 104 (4th Cir.1991).
90. Sleep Country USA, Inc. v. Northwest Pacific, Inc., 72 U.S.P.Q.2d 1261 (W.D. Wash.2003).
91. Slayton v. House of Sebastian Ltd., Inc., 151 U.S.P.Q. 33 (S.D.N.Y. 1966).
92. Stahly, Inc. v. M. H.Jacobs Co, Inc., 183 F.2d 914 (7thCir. 1950).
93. Star Markets, Ltd. v. Texaco, Inc., 950 F. Supp. 1030 (D. Haw. 1996).
94. SNA, Inc. v. Array, 51 F. Supp. 2d 554 (E.D. Pa. 1999).
95. Sunmark, Inc. v. Ocean Spray Cranberries, Inc., 64 F.3d 1055 (7th Cir. 1995).
96. TCPIP Holding Co. v. Haar Communication Inc., 244 F.3d 88 (2d Cir. 2001).
97. TeleTech Customer Care Mgmt., Inc. v. Tele-Tech Co., 977 F. Supp. 1407 (C.D. Cal. 1997).
98. Thane Int’l, Inc. v. Trek Bicycle Corp., 305 F.3d 894 (9th Cir. 2002).
99. The new Kids on the Block v. News America Publishing, Inc., 971 F.2d 302 (9th Cir. 1992).
100. The New York State Society of Certified Public Accountants v. Eric Louis Associates, Inc. 79 F. Supp. 2d 331 (S.D.N.Y. 1999).
101. Tisch Hotels, Inc. v. Americana Inn, Inc., 350 F.2d 609 (7th Cir. 1965).
102. Trans Union LLC, vs. Credit Rrsearch, INC., 142 F. Supp. 2d 1029 (2001).
103. Unit Drug Co. v. Theodore Rectanus Co., 248 U.S. 90 (1918).
104. U-Haul Int''l, Inc. v. WhenU.com, Inc. 279 F. Supp. 2d 723 (E.D. Va. 2003).
105. U.S. Navy v. United States Mfg. Co., 2 U.S.P.Q.2d 1254, 1256 (T.T.A.B. 1987).
106. Vitek systems, Inc. v. Abbott Labs, 675 F.2d 190 (8th Cir. 1982).
107. Weiss Assoc., Inc. v. HRL Assoc., Inc., 902 F.2d 1546 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
108. WhenU.com, Inc. v. The State of Utah, Case No. 040907578 (D. Utah, April 12, 2004).
109. Worden v. California fig syrup company, 187 U.S.516 (1903).
110. Worthington v. Anderson, 386 F.3d 1314 (10 th Cir. 2004).
111. Wells Fargo & Co. v. WhenU.com, Inc. 293 F. Supp. 2d 734 (E.D. Mich. 2003).
112. Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company v. Gator Corporation No 02-909-A (E.D. Va. June 25, 2002).
QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
1. 1.� 王育慧,論網域名稱之保護-以註冊商標為中心,科技法律透析第十二期,民國九十三年十二月。
2. 1.� 王育慧,論網域名稱之保護-以註冊商標為中心,科技法律透析第十二期,民國九十三年十二月。
3. 3.� 林發立,網域名稱爭議解決機制在我國實務運作之觀察,萬國法律第一百三十四期,民國九十三年四月。
4. 3.� 林發立,網域名稱爭議解決機制在我國實務運作之觀察,萬國法律第一百三十四期,民國九十三年四月。
5. 4.� 徐火明,從美德與我國法律論商標之註冊,中興法學,第三十二期,民國八十年十一月。
6. 4.� 徐火明,從美德與我國法律論商標之註冊,中興法學,第三十二期,民國八十年十一月。
7. 6.� 陳昭華,商標權之耗盡原理—以歐洲聯盟及德國之實務為例,植根雜誌第十二卷第五期,民國九十五年。
8. 6.� 陳昭華,商標權之耗盡原理—以歐洲聯盟及德國之實務為例,植根雜誌第十二卷第五期,民國九十五年。
9. 7.� 陳宏杰,關鍵字與商標─從搜尋引擊到消費者 ,智慧財產權月刊一百一十一期,民國九十七年三月。
10. 7.� 陳宏杰,關鍵字與商標─從搜尋引擊到消費者 ,智慧財產權月刊一百一十一期,民國九十七年三月。
11. 8.� 陳瑩真,2008年關鍵字廣告機會點仍佳,廣告雜誌,民國九十六年十二月。
12. 8.� 陳瑩真,2008年關鍵字廣告機會點仍佳,廣告雜誌,民國九十六年十二月。
13. 11. 黃運湘,楊靜宜,網路廣告服務提供業者對關鍵字廣告之法律責任,萬國法律,一百五十三期,九十六年六月。
14. 11. 黃運湘,楊靜宜,網路廣告服務提供業者對關鍵字廣告之法律責任,萬國法律,一百五十三期,九十六年六月。
15. 13. 劉博文,網域名稱與商標權保護,智慧財產權第二十四期,民國八十九年十二月。