(3.238.173.209) 您好!臺灣時間:2021/05/16 21:38
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:羅偉恆
研究生(外文):LO WEI HENG
論文名稱:網路關鍵字使用之商標侵權疑義─以美國法為主
指導教授:陳文吟 博士
指導教授(外文):CHEN, WEN-YIN
口試委員:陳龍昇 博士林孟玲 博士陳文吟 博士
口試委員(外文):Chen LUNG-SHENGLIN, MENG-LINGCHEN, WEN-YIN
口試日期:2017-06-11
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:國立中正大學
系所名稱:財經法律系研究所
學門:法律學門
學類:專業法律學類
論文種類:學術論文
論文出版年:2017
畢業學年度:105
語文別:中文
論文頁數:159
中文關鍵詞:商標商標侵權網路關鍵字使用網路關鍵字搜尋網路關鍵字廣告初始興趣混淆原則電子商務網路行銷網路行銷策略
外文關鍵詞:trademarktrademark infringementonline keyword useonline keyword searchonline keyword adinitial interest confusion doctrinee-commerceonline marketingonline marketing techniques
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:1
  • 點閱點閱:329
  • 評分評分:
  • 下載下載:64
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:0
由於近年來科技發展迅速,電子商務之使用漸趨頻繁,各種網路行銷手法層出不窮,網路賣家或網路平台業者利用他人之商標行銷其商品、服務等,或藉由關鍵字廣告方式替其平台營利。使網路消費者搜尋特定關鍵字時,個別之行銷廣告便以不同方式顯示於其螢幕,該廣告常為商標權人競爭對手之網站連結,廣告,或銷售頁面。此行為是否侵害該商標權人之商標權,則有所爭議。
對於網路關鍵字使用,美國聯邦巡迴上訴法院曾適用初始興趣混淆原則並認定該行為構成商標侵權,但近期則傾向同意有限制之使用。但在聯邦最高法院尚未對此種類型之案件明確表示看法前,僅能依據各聯邦巡迴上訴法院之判決,觀察法院意見之動向。
以我國法院判決觀之,鑽石理財中心以及幸福空間一案,法院均認為廣告主購買原告之商標,或搜尋引擎平台業者陳列、促銷、販賣、鼓勵他人購買原告所有之商標,其行為乃單純之電腦內部使用,並非商標使用,而不構成商標侵權。因國內相關案件之判決仍屬少數,有論者認為適用現行商標法,即可將不同使用類型予以區別,亦有認為可藉由其他法律制度與以解決。
本文則以為此爭議之解決,似可由行政機關訂立相關處理準則。將不同之使用類型分類規範。未來判斷相關個案,該相關準則即得為當事人,行政機關及法院判斷之依據。本文亦以為,商標制度僅賦予商標權人有限制之權利。電子商務領域內,除商標權人,網路平台業者,廣告主外,消費者亦扮演重要之角色。如何兼顧網路市場參與者權利義務關係,屬商標制度在網路新興領域中所必須衡量之課題,商標法所建立之標準,亦必須隨著科技之日新月異而與之俱進,方可使商標制度因應社會之變遷。

As the rapid development of science and technology in recent years, using e-commerce has become increasingly frequent. A variety of online marketing techniques emerge in an endless stream. Many online businesses use other people's trademark to marketing their goods, services, etc., or to profit by keyword advertising scheme. When users search for a specific keyword, ads are displayed on their screen in different ways, while many of them are not sponsored by trademark owner. Whether this act infringing the trademark right is under discussion.
For using keywords, some of the US Federal Court of Appeals Circuits applied the initial interest confusion doctrine and found someone liable for trademark infringement. But the Federal Circuits is likely to agree to a limited use now. But before the Federal Supreme Court expresses its views on this type of cases, we’d better observe the US Federal Circuits’ decisions to forecast judicial opinions.
Our courts regard this type of use as “Computer internal use” rather than trademark use. So that the act does not constitute trademark infringement. Some authors indicate that it could distinguish different types of use by the application of the trademark law, others try to resolve it by using other legal systems.
In my opinion, the executive authorities should have rules to regulate such cases. Besides, trademark owner just have limited right by trademark law. In the field of e-commerce, consumers play an important role. Balancing the rights and obligations of the participants in Internet market is an important object. Modifying Trademark law in response to the ever-changing technology and social changes is necessary.

第一章 緒論 1
第一節 研究動機與目的 1
第二節 研究方法與研究範圍 4
第一項 研究方法 4
第二項 引註方式說明 4
第三項 研究範圍 8
第四項 文獻回顧 9
第三節 論文架構 14

第二章 網路關鍵字使用類型與美國商標制度概述 16
第一節 網路關鍵字使用類型 16
第一項 網路關鍵字搜尋 19
第二項 網路關鍵字廣告 20
第一款 網路關鍵字付費排序廣告 21
第二款 網路關鍵字彈跳式廣告 24
第二節 美國商標制度概述 25
第一項 商標目的及沿革 26
第一款 商標目的 26
第二款 商標法立法沿革 28
第二項 商標之種類及要件 29
第三項 商標之使用 32
第一款 取得權利之使用 32
第二款 維持權利之使用 34
第四項 商標侵權及例外 36
第一款 ㄧ般商標侵權 38
第一目 詐欺 42
第二目 商標拋棄 43
第三目 不潔之手 43
第四目 商標合理使用 44
第五目 商標之同時使用 45
第六目 商標具有功能性 46
第七目 商標侵權之默認 46
第八目 遲誤 47
第二款 商標淡化 48
第三節 小結 51

第三章 網路關鍵字使用於美國法上之適用 54
第一節 網路關鍵字使用與商標侵權實務見解 54
第一項 法院適用初始興趣混淆原則認為該使用該當商標侵權之判決 57
第一款 Brookfield Communications, Inc. v. West Coast Entertainment
Corporation 57
第二款 Playboy Enterprises, Inc. v. Netscape Communications Corporation
60
第三款 Australian Gold, Inc. v. Hatfield 66
第四款 Multi Time Machine, Inc. v. Amazon.Com, Inc. 74
第二項 法院拒絕適用初始興趣混淆原則之判決 87
第一款 1-800 Contacts, Inc. v. WhenU.com, Inc. 87
第二款 Network Automation, Inc. v. Advanced Systems Concepts, Inc.
88
第三款 1-800 Contacts, Inc. v. Lens.Com, Inc. 97
第四款 Multi Time Machine, Inc. v. Amazon.Com, Inc. 105
第二節 網路關鍵字使用侵權疑義之學術見解 107
第一項 關鍵字使用之解釋 107
第二項 關鍵字使用與初始興趣混淆原則 109
第三項 關鍵字使用之相關討論 112
第四項 關鍵字爭議之間接侵權 114
第五項 關鍵字爭議之另一種解決方式—不當得利 115
第三節 小結 118

第四章 網路關鍵字使用於我國法上之適用 123
第一節 從網路關鍵字使用觀察商標侵權實務見解 123
第一項 幸福空間案 123
第二項 幸福空間一案上訴判決 125
第三項 鑽石理財中心公司案 127
第四項 案例評析 129
第二節 網路關鍵字使用之商標侵權學術見解 130
第一項 商標之使用 130
第二項 商標關鍵字爭議於我國法之討論 132
第三節 我國法與美國法之比較 135
第一項 商標之使用是否為關鍵字侵權之前提要件 135
第二項 初始興趣混淆原則於商標關鍵字侵權案件中之適用與否 137
第三項 美國與我國對於網路商標關鍵字爭議之比較與建議 138
第四節 小結 141

第五章 結論 144

參考文獻 148


ㄧ、中文文獻

(ㄧ) 書籍
1.汪渡村,商標法論,五南圖書出版股份有限公司,民國101年10月三版。
2.陳文吟,商標法論,三民書局股份有限公司,民國101年9月四版。
3.曾陳明汝、蔡明誠,商標法原理,新學林出版股份有限公司,民國96年4月三版。
4.經濟部智慧財產局,商標法逐條釋義,經濟部智慧財產局,民國106年1月版。

(二) 期刊文章
1.王石杰,商標使用原則的探討-以網際網路關鍵字廣告為例,法學新論,第8期,第101-122頁,民國98年3月。
2.余啟民,網路關鍵字廣告之商標爭議,法學叢刊,第53:4期,第1-31頁,民國97年10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,第343-405頁,民國100年10月。
4.郭雨嵐與林俐瑩,由Rosetta Stone v. Google Inc. 案--淺論關鍵字廣告之商標法上爭議,萬國法律,第185期,第35-44頁,民國101年10月。
5.陳宏杰,關鍵字與商標-從搜尋引擎到消費者,智慧財產權,第111期,第5-24頁,民國97年3月。
6.陳昭華,陳育廷,搜索引擎服務商之侵權責任--以將他人商標作為關鍵字廣告為中心,月旦民商法,第28期,第150-161頁,民國99年6月。
7.陳龍昇,網路服務提供者商標間接侵權責任,中原財經法學,第33期,第239至244頁,民國103年12月。
8.馮震宇,關鍵字廣告是否侵害商標權──智慧財產法院一○一年度民商訴字第二二號判決評析,月旦裁判時報,第25期,第68-79頁,民國103年2月。
9.黃銘傑,贈品行為與商標之使用,月旦法學雜誌,216期,第189頁,民國102年5月。
10.劉孔中,關鍵字廣告之商標法與競爭法爭議─以GOOGLE為例,月旦法學雜誌,第235期,第69-92頁,民國103年12月。
11.劉蓁蓁,關鍵字搜尋啟動商標保護與合理使用之探討,智慧財產權,第111期,第25-50頁,民國97年3月。
12.蔡惠如,商標使用於商標法體系之重要性,檢察新論,第10期,第45頁,民國100年7月
13.謝國廉,網路關鍵字廣告之商標權侵害爭議─評析美國與歐盟實務對於商標使用之界定,科技法學評論,第9卷第2期,第1-43頁,民國101年7月。
14.簡維克,網路世界中關鍵字所涉及之商標侵權爭議--以美國法的初始興趣混淆原則與使用為中心,科技法學評論,6卷2期,第132至133頁,民國98年10月。

(三)碩博士論文
1.彭淑美,網路商標侵權之研究-以關鍵字廣告為主,台北科技大學智慧財產權研究所碩士論文,民國103年1月。

(四)網路資料
1.科技新報:加拿大法院判決:使用競爭對手的商標做為關鍵字廣告,不構成侵權。http://technews.tw/2015/09/05/use-of-competitors-trademarks-as-google-adwords-is-not-infringement/ (上網日期:民國104年11月18日)。
2.Yahoo奇摩公司,Yahoo奇摩廣告客戶服務條款,https://policies.yahoo.com/t
w/zh-hant/yahoo/terms/advertising/masterterms/index.htm (上網日期:民國106年3月28日)。
3. Yahoo奇摩公司,Yahoo奇摩服務條款,https://policies.yahoo.com/tw/zh- hant/yahoo/terms/utos/index.htm (上網日期:民國106年3月28日)。

(五)實務判決
1.智慧財產法院 102年度民商上字第8號判決。
2.智慧財產法院100年民商訴字第1號民事判決。
3.智慧財產法院101年度民商訴字第22號民事判決。
4.智慧財產法院101年度刑智上易字第47號判決。
5.最高行政法院98年度判字第1487號判決。

二、英文文獻

I. Books
1.HILLIARD, DAVID C., JOSEPH NYE WELCH II & ULI WIDMAIER, TRADEMARKS AND UNFAIR COMPITITION, LEXISNEXIS PUBLISH (8th ed. 2010).
2.MCJOHN, STEPHEN M., INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY : EXAMPLES AND EXPLANATIONS, ASPEN PUBLISHERS (2th ed. 2003).

II. Periodicals
1.Allen, Courtenay Brian, Holiday Inns, Inc. v. 800 Reservation, Inc.: Defining Use Of A Mark And The Source Of Confusion In Trademark Infringement, 49 BAYLOR L. REV. 847 (1997).
2.Atkinson, Katie, Rescuecom Corp. v. Google Inc.: The Second Circuit Finds Trademark Use In Meta Elements, 12 TUL. J. TECH. & INTELL. PROP. 303 (2009).
3.Baker, Ryan, Bidding On Trademarked Keywords In Search Engines: A Trademark Law Update, 8 WASH. J.L. TECH. & ARTS 543 (2013).
4.Barrett, Margreth, Internet Trademark Suits And The Demise Of "Trademark Use", 39 U.C. DAVIS L. REV. 371 (2006).
5.Barrett, Margreth, Reconciling Fair Use And Trademark Use, 28 CARDOZO ARTS & ENT L.J. 1 (2010).
6.Bauten, Alyssa E., I Searched For Louis Vuitton And All I Got Was This Lousy Knockoff: Exploring The Initial Interest Confusion Doctrine In Trademark Infringement Cases Related To Search Engine Keyword Advertisements, 37 DAYTON L. REV. 95 (2012).
7.Beerline, Jennifer Files, Anti-Dilution Law, New and Improved: The Trademark Dilution Revision Act of 2006, 23 BERKELEY TECH. L.J. 511 (2008).
8.Boling, Aleasha J., Confusion Or Mere Diversion? Rosetta Stone v. Google's Impact On Expanding Initial Interest Confusion To Trademark Use In Search Engine Sponsored Ads, 47 IND. L. REV. 279 (2014).
9.Brown, Ralph S., Jr., Advertising and the Public Interest: Legal Protection of Trade Symbols, 57 YALE L.J. 1165 (1948).
10.Davis, Michael H., Death Of A Salesman's Doctrine: A Critical Look At Trademark Use, 19 GA. L. REV. 233 (1985).
11.Dinwoodie, Graeme B. & Mark D. Janis, Lessons From The Trademark Use Debate, 92 IOWA L. REV. 1703 (2007).
12.Dogan, Stacey L. & Mark A. Lemley, Grounding Trademark Law Through Trademark Use, 92 IOWA L. REV. 1669 (2007).
13.Dogan, Stacey L., The Future Of Internet Content And Services: Beyond Trademark Use, 8 J. ON TELECOMM. & HIGH TECH. L. 135 (2010).
14.Franklyn, David J. & David A. Hyman, Trademarks As Search Engine Keywords: Much Ado About Something?, 26 HARV. J. LAW & TEC 481 (2013).
15.Gamez, Alicia, Whenu.Com, Inc. & Google Inc.: Parsing Trademark's Use Requirement, 21 BERKELEY TECH. L.J. 403 (2006).
16.Gervais, Daniel, Martin L. Holmes, Paul W. Kruse, Glenn Perdue & Caprice Roberts, Is Profiting From The Online Use Of Another's Property Unjust? The Use Of Brand Names As Paid Search Keywords, 53 IDEA 131 (2013).
17.Grigoriadis, Lazaros G., Comparing The Trademark Protections In Comparative And Keyword Advertising In The United States And European Union, 44 CAL. W. INT'L L.J. 149 (2015).
18.Hyman, David A. & David J. Franklyn, Steps Toward Evidence-Based Ip: Trademarks As Search-Engine Keywords: Who, What, When?, 92 TEX. L. REV. 2117 (2014).
19.Krob, Nicholas J., Protecting Business In The Digital Age: A New Perspective On Trademark Law And Keyword Advertising, 63 DRAKE L. REV. 947 (2015).
20.Malachowski, Daniel, Search Engine Trade-Marketing: Why Trademark Owners Cannot Monopolize Use Of Their Marks In Paid Search, 22 DEPAUL J. ART TECH. & INTELL. PROP. L. 369 (2012).
21.Mckenna, Mark P., Trademark Use And The Problem Of Source, 2009 U. ILL. L. REV. 773 (2009).
22.Nelson, Caleb, Preemption, 86 VA. L. REV. 225 (2000).
23.Pimentel, Katie, Trademark Use As Keywords: A Comparative Look At Trademark Use As Keywords In Paid Search And Digital Public Performance Rights For Sound Recordings, 9 J. MARSHALL REV. INTELL. PROP. L. 552 (2009).
24.Russell, John Benton, New Tenth Circuit Standards: Competitive Keyword Advertising And Initial Interest Confusion In 1-800 Contacts v. Lens.Com, 30 BERKELEY TECH. L.J. 993 (2015).
25.Sangsuvan, Kitsuron, Trademark Infringement Rules In Google Keyword Advertising, 89 U. DET. MERCY L. REV. 137 (2012).
26.Stibbe, Paul Frederick, Pushing The Boundaries Of The Trademark Dilution By Tarnishment Claim: The Tarnishment Claim In An Ever-Expanding Keyword Search Market, 17 VA. J.L. & TECH. 244 (2012).
27.Sunday, Eugene P., The Dark Side Of The Dot Com-Protecting Trademark Use In The Post Domain Paths Of Urls: Interactive Products Corporation v. A2z Mobile Office Solutions, 326 F.3d 687 (6th Cir. 2003), 29 DAYTON L. REV. 465 (2004).
28.Yu Lim, Stephanie, Can Google Be Liable For Trademark Infringement? A Look At The "Trademark Use" Requirement As Applied To Google Adwords, 14 UCLA ENT. L. REV. 265 (2007).

III. Internet
1.Anderson, Trace, Your Pop-Up Ads Are Annoying Your Prospects, available at: http://www.marketingprofs.com/opinions/2012/23659/your-pop-up-ads-are-annoying-your-prospects (last visited Mar. 19, 2017).
2.Bronski, Danny, The Five Categories of Trademarks: Legal and Marketing Considerations, available at: http://www.veritrademark.com/articles/five-categories-trademarks (last visited Mar. 20, 2017).
3.Copyblogger, Keyword Research: It’s Not What You Think, available at: http://www.copyblogger.com/keyword-research-introduction/ (last visited Nov. 11, 2016).
4.Dreyfus, Nathalie, The zombie trademark: the resurrection of a trademark with a particular level of notoriety, available at: http://www.dreyfus.fr/en/actualite/the-zombie-trademark-the-resurrection-of-a-trademark-with-a-particular-level-of-notoriety/ (last visited Dec. 6, 2016).
5.Electronic Frontier Foundation, 1-800 Contacts v. WhenU, available at: https://www.eff.org/cases/1-800-contacts-v-whenu (last visited at Mar. 14, 2017).
6.Facebook, Advertising Policies, available at: https://www.facebook.com/business/help/117271728356988 (last visited Mar. 29, 2017).
7.Fazlani, Talha, Trade Mark Infringement On Google Adwords, available at: http://blog.thetrademarkhub.com/intellectual-property/trade-mark-infringement-google-adwords/ (last visited Mar. 25, 2017).
8.Fenwick & West LLP, United States: Multi Time Machine, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc. And Amazon Services, LLC, available at: http://www.mondaq.com/unitedstate s/x/454250/Tardemark/Multi+Time+Machine+Inc+v+Amazoncom+Inc+and+Amazon+Services+LLC (last visited Mar. 3, 2017).
9.Focus Designer, Different types of online advertising, available at: http://focusdesigner.com/different-types-of-online-advertising/ (last visited Nov. 10, 2016).
10.Goldman, Eric, Once Again, Buying Competitive Keywords is Not Trademark Infringement, available at: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130719/09321523865/once-again-buying-competitive-keywords-is-not-trademark-infringement.sht ml (last visited Mar. 12 2017).
11.Google, Advertising Policies Help, 2017 edition, available at: https://support.google.com/adwordspolicy/answer/6118?hl=en&visit_id=0-636155577442470232-2108940862&rd=1 (last visited Mar. 19, 2017).
12.Google, AdWords policies, available at: https://support.google.com/adwordspolicy/answer/6008942?hl=en-GB (last visited Mar. 29, 2017).
13.Hecht, Dan, A Beginner's Guide to Retargeting Ads, available at: http://blog.hubspot.com/marketing/retargeting-campaigns-beginner-guide#sm.0001i27pxj4s2d6a11jl8eu3vnmdq (last visited Nov. 10, 2016).
14.Jacobs, David, Is Non-Use of a Trademark Excusable, available at: http://www.smithhopen.com/news_detail/561/Is_Non-Use_of_a_Trademark_Excusable (last visited Dec. 6, 2016).
15.Kirkwood, Andy & Justine Flanagan, The Motive Web Design Glossary pop-up, pop-under windows, available at: http://www.motive.co.nz/glossary/popup.php?ref (last visited Mar. 19, 2017).
16.Marrs, Megan, 7 Ways to Use Facebook for Marketing, available at: http://www.wordstream.com/blog/ws/2013/04/15/facebook-marketing (last visited Nov. 10, 2016).
17.McDowall, Krystil, A Critical Look at “Use” under the Lanham Act, available at: http://jipel.law.nyu.edu/vol-4-no-2-2-mcdowall/#_ftn19 (last visited Dec. 6, 2015).
18.Nielsen, Jakob, The Most Hated Advertising Techniques, available at: https://www.nngroup.com/articles/most-hated-advertising-techniques/ (last visited Nov. 11, 2016).
19.Nielsen, Jakob, Utilize Available Screen Space, available at: https://www.nngroup.com/articles/utilize-available-screen-space/ (last visited Nov. 11, 2016).
20.Renee's Rescues, About Us, available at: http://reneesrescues.org/about/ (last visited Nov. 24, 2016).
21.Rosoff, Matt, Study Shows Bing Is More Accurate than Google, and It's Gaining Share, available at: http://www.businessinsider.com/bing-more-accurate-than-google-and-gaining-share-2011-2. (last visited Mar. 3, 2017).
22.Saper, Daliah, Can I Use a Competitor’s Trademarked Words in Keyword Advertising?, available at: http://www.business.com/articles/legalities-around-using-competitors -trademarked-words-in-search-terms-and-keyword-advertising/ (last visited Mar. 25 , 2017).
23.Schroeder, Stan, Web Users Now Spend More Time on Facebook Than Google, available at: http://mashable.com/2010/09/10/facebook-overtakes-google/. (last visited Mar. 3, 2017).
24.Sloane, Peter S. & Laura J. Winston, Incontestability: Does Anybody Really Understand It?, available at: http://www.inta.org/INTABulletin/Pages/IncontestabilityDoesAnyb odyReallyUnderstandIt.aspx (last visited Apr. 18, 2017).
25.SocialTimes, How to Win With In-Game Advertising, available at: http://www.adweek.com/socialtimes/how-to-win-with-in-game-advertising/627399 (last visited Nov. 10, 2016).
26.Stern, Thomas, Columnist Thomas Stern discusses best practices for video advertising across a wide variety of platforms and channels, including mobile, display and social., available at: http://marketingland.com/comprehensive-guide-video-advertising-2016-170879 (last visited Nov. 10, 2016).
27.World Stream, Online Ads: A Guide to Online Ad Types and Formats, available at: http://www.wordstream.com/online-ads#BingAds (last visited Nov. 10, 2016).
28.World Stream, The History of Search Engines - An Infographic, available at: https://www.wordstream.com/articles/internet-search-engines-history (last visited Nov. 11, 2016).

IV. Case
1.1-800 Contacts, Inc. v. Lens.Com, Inc., 722 F.3d 1229 (10th Cir. 2013).
2.1-800 Contacts, Inc. v. Lens.com, Inc., 755 F. Supp. 2d 1151 (2010).
3.1-800 Contacts, Inc. v. Whenu.Com and Vision Direct, Inc. 309 F.Supp.2d 467 (2003).
4.1-800 Contacts, Inc. v. WhenU.com, Inc., 414 F.3d 400 (2d Cir. 2005).
5.800-JR Cigar, Inc. v. GoTo.com, Inc. 437 F.Supp. 2d 273 (D.N.J. 2006).
6.AMF Incorporated v. Sleekcraft Boats, 599 F.2d 341 (9th Cir. 1979).
7.Amoco Oil Co. v. Rainbow Snow, 748 F.2d 556 (10th Cir. 1984).
8.Australian Gold, Inc. v. Hatfield, 436 F.3d 1228 (10th Cir. 2006).
9.Brookfield Communications, Inc. v. West Coast Entertainment Corporation, 174 F.3d 1036 (9th Cir. 1999).
10.Brunswick Corp. v. Spinit Reel Co., 832 F.2d 513 (10th Cir. 1987).
11.Coca-Cola Co. v. Busch, 44 F. Supp. 405 (E.D. Pa. 1942).
12.Davis v. Hsbc Bank, 691 F.3d 1152 (9th Cir. 2012).
13.Dreamwerks Prod. Group v. SKG Studio, 142 F.3d 1127 (9th Cir. 1998).
14.E. & J. Gallo Winery v. Gallo Cattle Co., 967 F.2d 1280 (9th Cir. 1992).
15.Eagle Snacks v. Nabisco Brands, 625 F. Supp. 571 (D.N.J. 1985).
16.Fort Howard Paper Co. v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 390 F.2d 1015 (C.C.P.A. 1968).
17.Fortune Dynamic, Inc. v. Victoria's Secret Stores Brand Mgmt., Inc., 618 F.3d 1025 (9th Cir. 2010).
18.Freeman v. Time, Inc., 68 F.3d 285 (9th Cir. 1995).
19.Frisch's Rests., Inc. v. Elby's Big Boy of Steubenville, 670 F.2d 642 (6th Cir. 1982).
20.GEICO v. Google, 330 F. Supp. 2d 700 (E.D. Va. 2004).
21.Gen. Motors Corp. v. Urban Gorilla, LLC, 500 F.3d 1222 (10th Cir. 2007).
22.General Motors Corporation v. Lanard Toys, 468 F.3d 405 (6th Cir. 2006).
23.General Steel Domestic Sales, LLC. v. Ethan Daniel Chumley, 627 Fed. Appx. 682 (10th Cir. 2015).
24.Google v. American Blind, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6228 (N.D. Cal. 2005).
25.Grotrian, Helfferich, Schulz, Th. Steinweg Nachf. v. Steinway & Sons, 523 F.2d 1331 (2d Cir. 1975).
26.Gucci Am., Inc. v. Guess?, Inc., 868 F. Supp. 2d 207 (S.D.N.Y. 2012).
27.Hard Rock Cafe Licensing Corp. v. Concession Servs., Inc., 955 F.2d 1143 (7th Cir. 1992).
28.Henri's Food Prods. Co., Inc. v. Kraft, Inc., 717 F.2d 352 (7th Cir. 1983).
29.Home Box Office, Inc. v. Showtime/The Movie Channel Inc., 832 F.2d 1311 (2d Cir. 1987).
30.Huthwaite, Inc. v. Sunrise Assisted Living, Inc., 261 F. Supp. 2d 502 (2003).
31.In re E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357 (C.C.P.A. 1973).
32.International Kennel Club of Chicago v. Mighty Star, Inc., 846 F.2d 1079 (7th Cir. 1988).
33.Internet Specialties West, Inc. v. Milon-Digiorgio Enterprises, 559 F.3d 985 (9th Cir. 2009).
34.Inwood Laboratories, Inc. v. Ives Laboratories, Inc., 456 U.S. 844 (1982).
35.ITC Ltd v. Punchgini, Inc., 482 F.3d 135 (2d Cir. 2007).
36.Jarrow Formulas, Inc. v. Nutrition Now, Inc., 304 F.3d 829 (9th Cir. 2002).
37.Kellogg Company v. Exxon Corporation, 209 F.3d 562 (6th Cir. 2000).
38.King of the Mountain Sports, Inc. v. Chrysler Corp., 185 F.3d 1084 (10th Cir. 1999).
39.KP Permanent Make-up, Inc. v. Lasting Impression I, Inc., 543 U.S. 111 (2004).
40.Lindy Pen Co., Inc. v. Bic Pen Corp., 725 F.2d 1240 (9th Cir. 1984).
41.M2 Software, Inc. v. Madacy Entertainment; Handleman Company; Sfx Entertainment, 421 F.3d 1073 (9th Cir. 2005).
42.Mattel, Inc. v. MCA Records, Inc., 296 F.3d 894 (9th Cir. 2002).
43.Mobil Oil Corporation, v. Pegasus Petroleum Corporation, 818 F.2d 254 (2d Cir. 1987).
44.Multi Time Machine, Inc. v. Amazon.Com, Inc., 792 F.3d 1070 (9th Cir. 2015).
45.Multi Time Machine, Inc. v. Amazon.Com, Inc., 804 F.3d 930 (9th Cir. 2015).
46.Nabisco, Inc. v. PF Brands, Inc., 191 F.3d 208 (2d Cir. 1999).
47.Network Automation, Inc. v. Advanced Systems Concepts, Inc., 638 F.3d 1137 (9th Cir. 2011).
48.New Kids On The Block v. News America Publishing, 971 F.2d 302 (9th Cir. 1992).
49.Nissan Motor Co. v. Nissan Computer Corp., 378 F.3d 1002 (9th Cir. 2004).
50.One Industries, LLC v. Jim O'neal Distributing, 578 F.3d 1154 (9th Cir. 2009).
51.Orient Express Trading Company v. Federated Department Stores Inc., 842 F.2d 650 (2d Cir. 1988).
52.Perfumebay.com Inc. v. eBay Inc., 506 F.3d 1165 (9th Cir. 2007).
53.Playboy Enterprises, Inc. v. Netscape Communications Corporation, 354 F.3d 1020 (9th Cir. 2004).
54.Playtex Products v. Georgia-Pacific Corp., 390 F.3d 158 (2d Cir. 2004).
55.Polaroid Corp. v. Polarad Electronics Corp., 287 F.2d 492 (2d Cir. 1961).
56.Qualitex Co. v. Jacobsen Prods. Co., 514 U.S. 159 (1995).
57.Rescuecom Corp. v. Google Inc., 562 F.3d 123 (2d Cir. 2009).
58.Robert Nmi Murray, Dba: America Speaks, v. Cable National Broadcasting Company, Dba: America's Talking, 86 F.3d 858 (9th Cir. 1996).
59.Rosetta Stone Ltd. v. Google, Inc., 676 F.3d 144 (4th Cir. 2012).
60.Sally Beauty Co. v. Beautyco, Inc., 304 F.3d 964 (10th Cir. 2002).
61.Schering Corp. v. Pfizer Inc., 189 F.3d 218 (2d Cir. 1999).
62.Shatel Corp. v. Mao Ta Lumber And Yacht Corporation, 697 F.2d 1352 (11th Cir. 1983).
63.Stahly, Inc. v. M. H. Jacobs Co, Inc., 183 F.2d 914 (7th Cir. 1950).
64.Sterling Brewers, Inc. v. Schenley Industries, Inc., 441 F.2d 675 (C.C.P.A. 1971).
65.The Coca-Cola Company v. Gemini Rising, Inc., 346 F. Supp. 1183 (1972).
66.Tisch Hotels, Inc. v. Americana Inn, Inc., 350 F 2d 609 (7th Cir. 1965).
67.Tomotive Gold, Inc. v. Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 457 F.3d 1062 (9th Cir. 2006).
68.Toyota Motor Sales v. Tabari, 610 F.3d 1171 (9th Cir. 2010).
69.Trans Union, LLC v. Credit Research, Inc., 142 F. Supp. 2d 1029 (2001).
70.Ty Inc. v. Perryman, 306 F.3d 509 (7th Cir. 2002).
71.United Drug Co. v. Theodore Rectanus Co., 248 U.S. 90 (1918).
72.Universal Money Ctrs., Inc. v. American Tel. & Tel. Co., 22 F.3d 1527 (10th Cir.1994).
73.Vail Associates v. Vend-Tel-Co, 516 F.3d 853 (10th Cir. 2008).
74.Worden v. California Fig Syrup Company, 187 U.S. 516 (1903).
75.Zatarains, Inc. v. Oak Grove Smokehouse, 698 F.2d 786 (5th Cir. 1983).

QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
無相關點閱論文