現今流行的惡搞文化一直豐富著我們的社會，戲謔仿作人藉由此等惡搞作品向社會大眾傳達幽默玩笑或是諷刺意見。此等惡搞作品於著作權法領域，被學者稱為戲謔仿作，屬一種民主社會常見的言論表達方式。戲謔仿作人常於著作權侵權訴訟主張其惡搞作品屬具有憲法言論自由價值的戲謔仿作，故得合理使用著作人的著作。此等惡搞文化亦吹進商標法領域。然當戲謔仿作人的素材為商標且將其惡搞作品作為商標使用時，此等戲謔仿作人是否仍得於商標侵權訴訟主張其惡搞作品屬商標戲謔仿作，而得合理使用商標權人的商標？我國法院面對此等戲謔仿作人的主張，該如何權衡此等戲謔仿作人的言論自由與商標權人的商標權？ 美國自1976年聯邦最高法院肯認商業性言論屬第一增補條款所保障的言論後，已有不少學者為文討論商業性言論與商標權間之平衡，相關實務亦已逐漸累積法理並發展審理基準處理此等爭議。反觀我國現行商標法並無得以處理作為商標使用的商標戲謔仿作之規定，且目前相關文獻研究與實務判決亦甚少。即使已有少數的我國實務判決引述美國商標戲謔仿作法理於商標戲謔仿作個案，然在沒有明文相關規定的情況下，本文認為對於往後的我國實務判決仍易產生法院恣意判決、侵害商標戲謔仿作人與公眾言論自由及侵害商標權人商標權等結果。 是以，本文建議為保障我國公眾的言論自由與商標權人的商標權，並維持我國商標法保障消費者不受商人詐欺的立法目的，我國立法者實有制定作為商標使用的商標戲謔仿作規定之必要。然而本文建議無論是我國立法者或是我國法院，於商標法下皆不宜參酌著作權法處理戲謔仿作的方式。且於我國立法者尚未制定相關規定之前，為使我國法院於審理商標戲謔仿作個案時，避免過度偏重商標戲謔仿作人的言論自由或商標權人的商標權而侵害另一方的權利，本文擬參考美國商標戲謔仿作法理，對我國法院提出審理商標戲謔仿作基準之建議。 ;Nowadays, there are some kuso works which the parodists spread their own humorous jokes or critical comments directly to the society by making fun of the copyrighted works enriching and existing in our multiple cultures. The kuso works are parodies and are regarded as a common and constitutional protected form of expression in a democracy society. The parodists in copyright infringement usually claim that their kuso works are the constitutional protected parodies. Therefore, they may exploit the works of copyright owners and their conducts constitute the fair use of work. The parodists also aim at the trademarks as their mocking targets. However, could the parodists in trademark infringement also claim that their kuso works are “trademark parody”? How do our courts balance the parodists’ the freedom of speech and the trademark owners’ trademark right in trademark infringement? After Supreme Court of the United States recognizing that the commercial speech is a constitutional protected speech in 1976, there are a lot of academic articles studying the balance between the freedom of speech and trademark right. There are many precedents and the rule of law of trademark parody as well. By contrast, in Taiwan, there are merely few related publications, studies and researches and rare trademark parody precedents. Also, there is no trademark parody provision in Trademark Act. Even there are few trademark parody precedents referring the rule of law of trademark parody of the United States. However, in the circumstance of no uniform trademark parody provision, there might be cause the arbitrary judgments and the infringement of freedom of speech and trademark right. Therefore, in order to protect the freedom of speech of the public and the trademark owners’ trademark right and sustain the legislative purpose of Trademark Act, this paper suggests that enacting the trademark parody provision in our Trademark Act. However, this paper suggests that Legislative Yuan and the courts both shall not take the copyright parody test in Copyright Act as reference under Trademark Act. Also, if there is still no trademark parody provision in Trademark Act, this paper borrows the trademark parody perspectives of the United States courts to discuss and to establish the trademark parody guidelines of Taiwan. This paper suggests that the courts may take the trademark parody guidelines of Taiwan which is discussed by this paper as reference in trademark infringement.
