藝術商標諧擬之智財問題研究

A Study of Legal Issues Regarding the Parody of Business Trademarks in Artwork

吳介祥(Chieh-Hsiang Wu)

商標權 ； 商標諧擬 ； 文化論述權 ； 藝術自由 ； trademarks law ； trademark parody ； right to discourse ； freedom of art expression

藝術評論

20期（2010 / 12 / 01）

213 - 250

繁體中文

臺灣藝術家使用到著名商標圖像者眾，這些商標絕大部分是國外大企業的商標。目前臺灣雖還未發生因爲藝術家使用商標而產生的法律訴訟，但已有國內設計師遭著名商標警告並要求撤下圖像者。創作者使用商標的方式隨創作者的動機、方法和效應而有所不同，商標權乃針對消費者對商標的可辨性和認同感而來，而藝術家對商標的使用則常常是社會觀察與評論的形式。美國及歐洲諸國對於商標諧擬已有判例，也有較深入的學理研究。臺灣藝術家之著名商標的使用和諧擬，除了有法律面向的議題，也涉及了臺灣這個文化輸入區域之文化論述權。本研究從智財權出發，討論了臺灣智財權在相關部分的發展，進而分析商標諧擬的內涵和與言論自由的關係，最後從臺灣的角色地位和國外及臺灣藝術家之作品爲例，探討商標諧擬的文化論述權議題。

Assistant Professor of National Changhua University of Education, Department of Art Many Taiwanese artists applied trademarks or images of corporations, and most of these trademarks belong to multinational corporations. Hitherto no Taiwanese artist has been sued for using trademarks but some designers using business trademarks were warned and asked to withdraw their works or erase the trademarks from their works. The usage of trademarks brings different effects, depending on the creator's motives and styles. Different to the purposes of emphasizing their identifiability and consumers' recognition, trademarks used in art usually are the criticism on social issues by the artists. Some court decisions about disputes over trademark appropriation in the U.S. and in Europe have activated various studies which provide valuable legal and academic opinions. In Taiwan, appropriation of trademarks not only involves legal disputes but also brings forth issues regarding the right to discourse of a society adhering to dominant cultures. This study starts from an overview of intellectual property right, along with the development and enaction of intellectual property laws in Taiwan. Then, it investigates the connotation of trademark parody and its meanings to free speech. Cases throughout the world are discussed to further the exploration of the relationship between trademark parody and the right to discourse for Taiwanese artists, considering the peculiar cultural and historical status of Taiwan.

1. 張小虹(2004)。假名牌、假理論、假全球化。臺灣社會研究季刊，54，219-253。
   連結：
2. Mak, Sheldon and Rose Anderson. 1995. Parody no Automatic Defense of Trademark Infringement. http://www.usip.com/pdf/Article_Trademarks/parodytm.pdf
3. 判決書：http://openjurist.org/775/f2d/247/mutual-of-omaha-insurance-company-v-novak
4. 網路資料. http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_do_Heidi_Cody_symbols_in_American_Alphabet_mean
5. Henry, Linda G..2004. Trademark Infringement and Fair Use Defense.http://www.fenwick.com/docstore/Publications/IP/Trademark_Infringmnt_and_Fair_Use.pdf
6. Tailieu, Oliver. http://legalcatch.wordpress.com/2007/11/03/trademark-dilution-part-ii/
7. 金汝鑫。2006。全民攻「迪」！迪士尼控告黑松侵權。http://weekly.tvbs.com.tw/news/news_list.asp?no=blue20060321125855
8. Reuters. 2007. Starbucks may be “forbidden” at China Palace Museum. http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSSP27852120070118
9. 方雍仁。2007。我國商標法對 於「著名商標」之認定及保護。http://www.chainye.com/c_law03_detail.asp?ids=9
10. 網路資料. http://www.dianathorneycroft.com/collection-fifty-ways.php
11. 李御榮。2007。爭商標！星巴克告壹咖啡敗訴。http://www.tvbs.com.tw/news/news_list.asp?no=sunkiss20071222121043
12. Lidor, Danit. 2003. Artists Just Wanna Be Free.http://www.wired.com/culture/lifestyle/news/2003/07/59501
13. 台一國際專利法律事務所(Tai E International Patent & Law Office)。2008。談著名商標識別性及商譽的減損。 http://www.taie.com.tw/big5/publication.asp?ID=2079&page=2
14. Garcia-Fenech, Giovanni. 2001. The Aldrich Museum consorts with Criminals.http://artforum.com/new.php?pn=news&week=200119#news782
15. 羅永聰。2005。劇團吉蒂貓宣傳被指侵犯商標。http://siurekrek.xanga.com/349415195/item
16. (2008).Louis Vuitton Tried to Prevent the Nadia Plesner Lawsuit.New York Magazine
17. GRUR. 2005. http://www.uni-konstanz.de/FuF/Jura/fezer/GRUR2005-583.pdf
18. Tailieu, Oliver. 2007. Trademark Dilution. http://legalcatch.wordpress.com/2007/11/03/trademark-dilution-part-i/
19. Greenpeace. 2007. http://applelog.ru/wp-content/uploads/2007/04/greenpeace_apple.gif
20. 章忠信。2004。公平會不能以警告函解決著作權仲介團體的濫權。http://www.copyrightnote.org/crnote/bbs.php?board=2&act=read&id=69
21. Greenpeace. 2004.http://www.greenpeace.org/international/photosvideos/photos/parody-of-esso-logo
22. Leslie J. Lott and Brett M. Hutton. (?) Trademark Parody.http://www.lfiplaw.com/articles/trademark_parody.htm
23. Greenpeace. http://www.greenpeace.org/international/campaigns/climate-change/kitkat
24. 法條：http://www.ipwiki.de/markenrecht:bekanntheitsschutz
25. BBC. 2004. Faces of the Week－Barbie Doll。http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/3857637.stm
26. Nadia Plesner Foundation. (?) http://www.nadiaplesnerfoundation.org/page/page.php?id=emergency_room_paris
27. 智慧局。2010。3/10 新聞稿。http://www.finetpat.com.tw/Chinese/default.asp?Act=NewsDetails&ID=2610
28. Art Statements Gallery, 2009, ZEVS – Arrested After “Liquidated” CHANEL Sign In Hong Kong. http://www.freshnessmag.com/2009/07/13/zevs-arrested-after-liquidated-chanel-sign-in-hong-kong/
29. National Coalition Against Censorship. 2004. Mattel Inc. v. Walking Mountain Productions http://www.ncac.org/art-law/sum-mattel.cfm
30. 判決書：http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/metaschool/fisher/domain/tmcases/coca.htm
31. 2005．臺灣因修正著作權法而自美國優先觀察名單除名。http://www.copyrightnote.org/crnote/bbs.php?board=4&act=bbs_read&id=130&reply=130
32. 新浪網新聞。2008。帶路易威登刺青豬上海當代藝術展被禁。http://style.sina.com.cn/news/2008-11-07/140623448.shtml
33. Longvacation。2009。設計師劉一德KUSO 星巴克杯。http://www.adj.idv.tw/html/73/t-11273.html
34. Greenpeace. 2007. http://applelog.ru/wp-content/uploads/2007/04/greenpeace_apple.gif
35. Ashcroft, Bill、Griffiths, Gareth、Tiffin, Helen、劉自荃譯(1998)。逆寫帝國：後殖民文學的理論與實踐。臺北市:駱駝。
36. Coombe, Rosemary J.(1998).The Cultural Life of Intellectual Properties, Authorship, Appropriation, and the Law.Durham:Duke University Press.
37. Gerth, Karl、黃振萍譯(2007)。製造中國—清费文化與民族國家的創建。北京市:北京大學。
38. Goldstein, Paul、葉茂林譯(2000)。捍衛著作權—從印刷術到數位時段時代之著作權法。臺北市:五南。
39. King, Anthony D.(2004).Spaces of Global Cultures: Architecture Urbanism Identity.London:Routledge.
40. Lerner, Ralph E.,Bresler, Judith(2005).Art law: the guide for collectors, investors, dealers, and artists.New York City:Practising Law Institute.
41. Liao, Ping-Hui(1997).Postmodern Literature Discourse and Contemporary Public Culture in Taiwan.Boundary 2,24(3),41-63.
42. McLeod, Kembrew(2001).Owning Culture: Authorship, Ownership, and Intellectual Property Law.Pieterlen:Peter Lang Publishing.
43. Murray, Derek Conrad(2004).Hip-Hop vs. High Art: Notes on Race as Spectacle.Art Journal,63(2),4-19.
44. Myers, Gary(1996).The Lanham Act after Fifty Years.Law and Contemporary Problems,59(2),181-121.
45. Perelman, Michael(2002).Steal This Idea. Intellectual Property Rights and the Corporate Confiscation of Creativity.New York:Palgrave.
46. Shaughnessy, Robert J.(1986).Trademark Parody, A Fair Use and First Amendment Analysis.Virginia Law Review,72(6),1079-1117.
47. Smiers, Joost,van Schijndel, Marieke(2009).Imagine there is no copyright and no cultural conglomerates too...,.Amsterdam:Institute of Network Cultures.
48. Tushnet, Rebecca(2004).Copy This Essay: How Fair Use Doctrine Harms Free Speech and How Copying Serves It.The Yale Law Journal,114(3),535-590.
49. 王敏銓、曾雅玲(2009)。國立交通大學管理學院碩士在職專班科技法律組。
50. 何凱凌(2004)。東吳大學。
51. 吳嘉生(2001)。美國貿易法三○一條款評析—智慧財　產權保護之帝王條款。臺北市:元照。
52. 李英明(2003)。全球化下的後殖民思考。臺北市:生智。
53. 姚竹音(2005)。臺北藝術大學。
54. 范建得(1999)。論公平交易法對矇混行爲及商標濫權之管制—商品標識使用人之得與失。公平交易季刊，創刊號，75-100。
55. 陳寬育(2009)。爲註解的「國家」主題：彭弘智「兩百年」個展的一些延伸。今藝術，202，102-104。
56. 賀德芬(1994)。文化創新與商業契機。臺北市:月旦。
57. 楊珮芸(2006)。後現代攝影對西方繪畫正典的擬仿與顛覆—以辛蒂•雪曼與森村泰昌爲例。今藝術，166，120-124。
58. 廖炳惠(1997)。在後殖民研究的問題與前景；幾個亞太地區的啓示。認同•差異•主體性，臺北市: