| DC 欄位 |
值 |
語言 |
| DC.contributor | 產業經濟研究所 | zh_TW |
| DC.creator | 陳姵璇 | zh_TW |
| DC.creator | Pei-Hsuan Chen | en_US |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2023-7-28T07:39:07Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2023-7-28T07:39:07Z | |
| dc.date.issued | 2023 | |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://ir.lib.ncu.edu.tw:88/thesis/view_etd.asp?URN=110424003 | |
| dc.contributor.department | 產業經濟研究所 | zh_TW |
| DC.description | 國立中央大學 | zh_TW |
| DC.description | National Central University | en_US |
| dc.description.abstract | 商標與網域名稱之間，爭議好發於網域名稱搶註冊之層面，有鑒於國內外已有法規針對此爭議作規範，故本文轉向探討另一層面之問題，亦即通用詞彙與通用頂級域名（gTLD）之結合得否註冊為商標。
此類商標組合於美國實務上屢次出現爭議，舉凡如何識別商標為通用性亦或是描述性、取證上應採納何種證據。
法院與行政機關之多數見解，認為通用詞彙與不具商標上意義之頂級域名之結合，理所當然地無法取得商標保護，並且此類商標具有反競爭之疑慮，基於此二項理由，此類商標組合將無法取得商標註冊。
直至2020年，美國最高法院審理之BOOKING.COM商標註冊案，法院認為只要通用詞彙與頂級域名之結合，於相關消費者心目中主要意義為製造商，將可例外被賦予商標保護，此判決之出現，再次引起此類商標型態是否得取得商標註冊正反兩面之論辯。
本文將討論關於識別商標性質之方式，以及採用主要意義測試法時，蒐集直接與間接證據時應加以注意之細節，並配合過往相似案例做比對與評析。
關於此類詞彙取得商標保護後是否影響競爭之爭議，本文將討論商標混淆誤認審查應注意之處，分析此類商標權人提起混淆誤認訴訟是否高機率得取得勝訴之結果。並且對應至我國實務，以TutorABC提起之一系列訴訟案為例，比對我國與美國法院如何識別此類商標之性質。
關鍵詞：通用詞彙、藍能法、網域名稱、主要意義測試法 | zh_TW |
| dc.description.abstract | Disputes between trademarks and domain names often arise at the level of domain name registration. Recognizing that regulations addressing such disputes already exist both domestically and internationally, this article focuses on another aspect, namely the registration of trademarks combined with generic terms and generic top-level domains (gTLDs).
In the United States, there have been numerous controversies surrounding the determination of trademarks as generic or descriptive and the types of evidence that should be considered for validation.
The majority opinion of courts and administrative agencies holds that the combination of generic terms and top-level domains lacking trademark significance naturally cannot obtain trademark protection. Moreover, such trademark combinations raise concerns about anti-competitive practices. Based on these two reasons, trademarks of this nature are unable to be registered.
Until 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court heard the case of the trademark registration for BOOKING.COM. The court held that if the combination of a generic term and a top-level domain name primarily conveys to relevant consumers that it is a specific brand, it may be eligible for trademark protection as an exception. The emergence of this ruling has once again sparked a debate on whether such trademark types can obtain trademark registration.
This article will discuss the methods of determining the nature of trademarks and the specific details to consider when applying the primary significance test, as well as compare and analyze them with similar past cases. Regarding the controversy over whether the protection of such terms as trademarks affects competition, this article will address the key considerations in the examination of trademark confusion and analyzing the likelihood of success for trademark holders in bringing claims of confusion. Furthermore, using a series of lawsuits initiated by TutorABC as an example, it will compare how such trademarks are determined in both our country and US courts.
Keywords: generic terms, Lanham Act, domain names, Primary Significance Test. | en_US |
| DC.subject | 通用詞彙 | zh_TW |
| DC.subject | 藍能法 | zh_TW |
| DC.subject | 網域名稱 | zh_TW |
| DC.subject | 主要意義測試法 | zh_TW |
| DC.subject | generic terms | en_US |
| DC.subject | Lanham Act | en_US |
| DC.subject | domain names | en_US |
| DC.subject | Primary Significance Test | en_US |
| DC.title | 通用詞彙域名之商標適格性與競爭效應-Booking.com商標案之分析與檢討 | zh_TW |
| dc.language.iso | zh-TW | zh-TW |
| DC.type | 博碩士論文 | zh_TW |
| DC.type | thesis | en_US |
| DC.publisher | National Central University | en_US |