九卷二十一期　90年11月16日

本　期　提　要HEADLINES
1.WIPO公布網域名稱第二階段研究最終報告

WIPO於2001年9月3日公布網域名稱第二階段研究的最終報告，該報告的全名為「網際網路網域名稱系統內之權利認識與名稱使用」(The Recognition of Rights and the Use of Names in the Internet Domain Name System)，其是以商標之外的標識(identifier)為對象，探討將若干標識作為網域名稱，進行惡意與引人錯誤的註冊行為，以及在網域名稱使用上所可能產生的問題與解決之道，該報告的全文資料讀者可至http://wipo2.wipo.int/ process
2/report/htm1/report.htm1網站瀏覽。

WIPO Publishes Final Report of the Second Internet Domain Name Process

WIPO published its final report of the Second Internet Domain Name Process on September 3, 2001. The full name of the report is "The Recognition of Rights and the Use of Names in the Internet Domain Name System", which is concerned with a range of identifiers other than trademarks. It is directed at examining the bad faith and misleading registration and use of those identifiers as domain names, and possible solutions for these problems. Readers who wish to view a full copy of this report may go to:http://wipo2.wipo.int/
process2/report/htm1/report.htm1. 

2.我國完成WTO智財權法案及加速健全智財權審查機制

立法院在本(九十)年十月三十一日前陸續通過了十四項WTO法案，而與智慧財產權有關部分，包括「專利法部份條文修正草案」、「著作權法部份條文修正草案」及制定「光碟管理條例」，其中「專利法部份條文修正草案」於九十年十月二十四日經總統令修正公布，並於九十年十月二十六日施行，而「光碟管理條例」則於九十年十一月十四日經總統令公布，並於九十年十一月十六日施行，另「著作權法部份條文修正草案」也於九十年十月二十五日由立法院三讀通過。
本刊已於9卷19期報導前揭「專利法部份條文修正草案」修正要點，另也於9卷20期刊載前揭「著作權法部份條文修正草案」修正要點及「光碟管理條例」要點。
經濟部智慧財產局日前表示，著作權法此次主要僅是為加入WTO及配合行政程序法之施行等作小幅修正，除了達到國際規範的保護標準外，同時對於建置良好的著作權保護與利用環境，具有正面效益。至於有關網際網路對著作權產生衝擊之因應，經濟部已依全國經濟發展諮詢委員會議之決議，於十月十二日另提「著作權法部分條文修正草案」函送行政院審議中，將俟行政院完成審查後，續送請立法院審議。
另外，經濟部智慧財產局依據「全國經濟會議」決議之「儘速完成智慧財產權相關法律」，及「經發會」共識之「健全智慧財產權之審查機制」，已陸續完成相關法令之修正，茲將其表述如下：

Taiwan Finalizes IPR Laws for WTO

As at October 31, 2001 the Legislative Yuan had passed a total of 14 bills geared towards entry to the WTO, a number of which were related to intellectual property rights. Amongst these, the "Draft Partial Amendments to Patent Law" was gazetted by order of the President on October 24 and entered into force on October 26, 2001; the "Optical Media Management Law" was gazetted by order of the President on November 14 and entered into force on November 16, 2001; and the third reading of "Draft Partial Amendments to Copyright Law" was also passed on October 25, 2001.
In Volume 9, Issue 19 of IPR News we had previously discussed the main amendments included in the "Draft Partial Amendments to Patent Law", while in Issue 20 we had discussed the "Draft Partial Amendments to Copyright Law" and the "Optical Media Management Law".
The IPO has recently indicated that the present amendments to the Copyright Law were principally minor amendments made to facilitate entry to the WTO, as well as to achieve consistency with the Law of Administrative Procedures. These amendments would not only bring Copyright Law in line with international protection standards, but would also aid the creation of a sound copyright use and protection environment. Insofar as impact of the Internet on copyright issues is concerned, in accordance with the resolution of the Economic Development Advisory Conference (EDAC), the MOEA had submitted a separate "Draft Partial Amendments to the Copyright Law" to the Administrative Yuan on October 12. Once the Administrative Yuan 
oncludes its consideration of these Amendments, they will be submitted for the Legislative Yuan's consideration.
The IPO has also completed amendments to various relevant laws, pursuant to the National
Economic Conference's resolution to "finalize IPR legislation as soon as possible", and the EDAC's resolution relating to creating "Sound Examination Mechanisms for Intellectual Property Rights". Below is an outline of these amendments in table form:


Sound Examination Mechanisms for Intellectual Property Rights

一、合理智慧財產1.增加專業審查人員員額編制修正「經濟部智慧財產局組織條例」
局組織編制(90.8.31報院，行政院10.18函請經濟部會商相關單位)
RationalizeIncrease no. of professional examiners revise "IPO Organizational Structure Regulations"IPO Structure(submitted to Administrative Yuan 8.31.01; Administrative Yuan requests MOEA to consultrelevant departments 10.18.01)
2.暢通進用專業審查人員管道修正「專利」「商標」審查官資格條例」
(90.8.31報院，行政院10.29函請經濟部會商相關單位)
Relax channels for professional examiners revise "Qualification Regulations for Patent & Trademark Examiners" (submitted to Administrative Yuan 8.31.01; Administrative Yuan requests MOEA to consult relevant departments 10.29.01)

1.修正「專利法」導入國內優先權
Revise PatentIntroduce local priority system
Law 引進早期公開制度
Introduce early publication system
規定專利權得信託
Trust over patent rights(90.10.24公布)
延長專利權期限，符合TRIPS之規定gazetted 10.24.01
(加入WTO前所取得之專利權入會時15年
補為20年)
Extend patent period to be consistent With TRIPS (preWTO rights extend from 15 to 20 years)
廢除再審查制度
Abolish reexamination system
增訂得委託民間團體辦理專利審查業務
Permit outsourcing patent examination procedures to private sector
核准後即領證(90.10.22報經濟部審查中)
Certificate issued upon approvalConsidered by MOEA 10.22.01
廢除異議程序
Abolish objection procedures
新型專利採形式審查
"Examination of form" for new utility
models

二、加速智慧財產2.修正「商標法」廢除延展註冊之實體審查(90.10.24立法院完成委員會
權三大法修正Revise TrademarkAbolish substantive examination for審查) Speed upLawrenewed registrationsLegislative Yuan committee amendments 增訂邊境管制措施completes consideration
of 3 majorIncrease border control measures10.24.01 IPR laws 增訂得委託民間辦理商標審查業務
Permit outsourcing of trademark(90.8.31報院)examination procedures to privateSubmitted to AY 8.31.01 sector
加強商標權之保護，便利申請人措施
(例如擴大商標保護範圍、加強著名商標保(90.9.12報行政院)
護、一案多類別、商標在網路上使用規範)Submitted to AY 9.12.01 Strengthen trademark protection & 
streamline application procedures (e.g.increase scope of protection, enhance protection of famous marks, multiple class applications, trademarks on Internet)

3.修正「著作權法」電腦程式著作權期限與文字著作權期限相同(90.10.25完成三讀)
Uniform copyright terms for Computer3rd reading complete Programs & literary works10.25.01
增訂科技保護措施及電子化著作權管理資訊保護
technical protective mechanisms & protection(90.10.12報行政院of electronic rights management information審議)
修正合理使用規定Submitted to A.Y.revisions to reasonable use provisions10.12.01
修正侵害刑責規定revisions to penalties for infringement

三、提升專利商標1.制定「專利師法」
代理人素質Draft Patent Agent Law(78.4.19立法院完成委員會審查)Improve quality of patent Legislative Yuan committee completes & trademark agents2.制定「商標師法」consideration 4.19.89
Draft Trademark Agent Law

四、調整專利商標規費1.修訂「商標規費收費準則」(89年11月1日修訂發布)
Revise patent &amend Trademark Fees Regulationsgazetted 11.1.00 trademark fees
2.修訂「專利規費收費準則」(90.10.30報經濟部核定)
amend Patent Fees Regulationssubmitted to MOEA for review 10.30.01

(本表資料來源：經濟部智慧財產局網站，網址http://www.moeaipo.gov.tw) 
Information from IPO website: http://www.moeaipo.gov.tw



3.<cesar.com.tw>網域名稱續由原註冊人使用

有關<cesar.com.tw>網域名稱爭議處理結果揭曉，由資策會科技法律中心所受理的此件網域名稱爭議，已由專家小組於90年10月3日做出決定，繼續由原註冊人上和電訊有限公司使用此一網域名稱。
本案申訴人為享有「CESAR」愛犬食品商標的美商瑪斯公司(Mars Corporation)，其主張「CESAR」商標為著名商標，且註冊人之英文譯名亦與「CESAR」毫無關連。註冊人上和電訊有限公司則主張，該網站站長的英文名字為Cesar Lin，因此以該名作為網站名稱與網域名稱，具有正當性。本案專家小組指出，自網站站主於英文護照上的名字可知，其已多年使用Cesar為其英文別名，而以自己姓名之全部或一部申請註冊為網域名稱，在實務上係屬正常之事；另註冊人早在1995年網際網路尚未發達時即已使用該別名，因此專家小組並不認為註冊人是以搶註該網域名稱的方式，妨礙申訴人使用此一網域名稱。
專家小組並認為，即便「CESAR」商標為一著名商標，然而由於申訴人在市場上所推出之商品或廣告內容均限於狗食，且其所舉證之市場調查報告顯示：真正有使用盒裝濕類狗食的家庭比例並不高，並且在有使用這些產品的家庭中，「CESAR」尚非品牌，且與第一品牌有明顯之差距。因此網路使用者是否真的會將「CESAR」與申訴人加以聯想，仍有待商榷。
另專家小組在進行商標檢索後發現，有關「CESAR」之商標，除申訴人外，尚有不同的商標註冊人於1999年取得專用於不同類商品（第五類與第二十五類）的商標註冊，是以即便如申訴人所言「CESAR」應為其所擁有的網域名稱，只要在沒有商標法第三十七條第七款所言「有致公眾混淆誤認之虞」，他人仍能就相同或近似於著名商標的圖樣申請註冊於其他類別的商品。因此在現行商標註冊的方式下，何以不分商品或服務類別的「.com」網域名稱註冊，必然就應歸屬於申訴人？而且誠如註冊人之主張，日本、德國、英國有關<cesar>此一網域名稱的使用，非屬申訴人所有，因此申訴人似無理由主張<cesar.com.tw>在我國一定要由其取得註冊，並作為與狗食相關之網站。
因此本案專家小組決定駁回申訴。

Domain Name <cesar.com.tw> Remains with Original Registrant

The dispute over use of the <cesar.com.tw> domain name was handled by the Science & Technology Law Center (STLC) of the Institute for Information Industry (III), and a decision was delivered by the panel of experts on October 3, 2001. The panel held that the original registrant, Sunhouse Network Inc., may continue to use this domain name.
The complainant in this case was Mars Corporation, a U.S. company that owned the trademark "CESAR" in respect of dog food products. It argued that "CESAR" is a famous trademark, and the registrant's English name has no connection to the word "CESAR" whatsoever. On the other hand, the registrant Sunhouse argued that the English name of its webmaster is Cesar Lin, and therefore it is proper for Sunhouse to use such name as its website and domain name.
The panel of experts in this case found that the said webmaster has been using the name "Cesar" as his English name for many years, as proven by the name stated on his passport. In practice, it is quite common for applicants to register the whole or part of their names as domain names. In addition, the registrant has been using the name "Cesar" since 1995, long before the Internet has become as popular as it is today. Therefore the panel does not believe that the registrant is interfering with the complainant's use of the domain name by "cybersquatting".
The panel found that even if "CESAR" were a famous trademark, the complainant has used this trademark only in respect of products and advertisements for dog food; further, the complainant's own market research report shows that the proportion of families who use packed wet dog food is not particularly high. Insofar as these families are concerned, "CESAR" is not yet considered a brand, and it is clearly still a long way from becoming the leading brand in the market. Therefore it is by no means certain that Internet users will connect "CESAR" to the complainant.
After conducting a trademark search, the panel of experts has also found that a registrant different from the complainant had registered "CESAR" as a trademark in 1999, in respect of different classes of products (classes 5 and 25). Under the Trademark Law, a person may register an identical or similar trademark in respect of different classes of products, so long as there is no "likelihood of misleading or causing confusion to the public" under Article 37, Paragraph 7 of the Trademark Law. Given that the trademark "CESAR" is registrable for different classes of products, why should a ".com" domain name that does not distinguish between classes of goods or services necessarily belong to the complainant? In any case, as the registrant submits, the complainant is not owner of the domain name "cesar" in other countries such as Japan, Germany and England. Therefore, there appears to be no merit in the complainant's argument that it must be registered owner of the domain name<cesar.com.tw> in Taiwan, and that the domain name must be used for creating a website relating to dog food.Accordingly the panel of experts has rejected the complaint.

4.<Decathlon.com.tw>網域名稱爭議處理結果揭曉

法商迪卡隆公司(Decathlon S. A.)向資策會科技法律中心就<Decathlon.com.tw>網域名稱提起爭議處理申訴一案，已於民國90年9月16日由專家小組做出決定：註冊人彰紀公司繼續註冊與使用此一網域名稱。
申訴人法商迪卡隆公司主張，其為舉世聞名的運動器材製造及銷售廠商，「DECATHLON」不僅為其公司名稱的特取部分，亦為其所首創的商標與服務標章，並且在我國與其他國家有相當高的知名度。申訴人認為：疑與彰紀公司有關係企業之嫌的彰榮公司，曾為申訴人「DECATHLON」品牌產品的代工廠商。其以「笛卡特龍」(STEELMAN DECATHLON)圖樣向前經濟部中央標準局申請商標註冊，惟已經申訴人申請評定無效，因此註冊人並無註冊該網域名稱的權利與正當利益。再者，註冊人係為避免因彰榮公司之前與申訴人間的代工關係，削弱其取得該網域名稱的正當性而成立，其申請與使用該網域名稱顯係攀附申訴人的商譽，並且註冊人係惡意佔有與使用該網域名稱、妨礙申訴人以該名稱進行電子商務活動。
註冊人彰紀公司則主張：系爭網域名稱之特取部分，為其所有之「迪卡龍」服務標章的音譯，且彰榮公司與該公司係屬不同之法人。註冊人所提供之服務，可從國內各大入口網站見其網頁內容。再者，「Decathlon」為「十項運動」之意，在英語系國家為一常用之普通名詞，在許多國家也可見以「Decathlon」申請網域名稱註冊者，因此「Decat
hlon」非申訴人所獨創。此外，註冊人於網域名稱之使用，係在性質不同的服務上，並未混淆誤導消費者。
擔任本次網域名稱爭議處理的輔仁大學財經法律學系張懿云教授，雖肯定本申訴案符合第一個申訴要件「與申訴人的商標相同或近似」，但對於第二、三個要件「註冊人並無權利或正當利益」與「惡意註冊或使用網域名稱」，則認為申訴人有未盡其舉證責任的情形。
本案專家小組指出，註冊人享有「迪卡龍」之服務標章，且其營業項目與實際經營方式皆與申訴人不同。誠如註冊人所述，「Decathlon」確實為「十項運動」之意，不論在全球皆有不同於申訴人的註冊人，以該名稱註冊為網域名稱或商標，並存於不同的商品或服務種類。縱然申訴人所享有之Decathlon品牌的產品，在我國相關產業內享有極高之知名度，但是否已達到「相關公眾所共知」的標準，在申訴人未提供在我國之銷售狀況、廣告資料數量等資料下，仍難據以認定申訴人之商標是否已屬我國之「著名商標」。因此專家小組並不認為註冊人有混淆、誤導消費者或以減損商標申訴人註冊商標的方式，獲取商業利益。
至於在申訴人主張註冊人係惡意註冊或使用該網域名稱的部分，專家小組則是認為：申訴人雖已舉證證明「彰紀公司」與「彰榮公司」確有相同的公司住址與營業項目，但並未說明兩者彼此在公司資本、股東或人事上有任何重疊交錯的事實，因此難以認定兩者為關係企業。再者，申訴人亦未積極舉證註冊人有攀附商譽的行為，專家小組因而無法確認註冊人有惡意註冊或使用該網域名稱的事實存在。
綜合以上的說明，本案專家小組決定駁回申訴，使得彰紀公司得以繼續註冊與使用<Decathlon.com.tw>此一網域名稱。

Decision Issued for Domain Name Dispute over <decathlon.com.tw>

The complainant Decathlon S. A. had requested that the STLC handle the dispute over use of the <decathlon.com.tw> domain name, and a decision was issued by the panel of experts on September 16, 2001: the registrant Chang Chi Company will remain owner and user of the domain name.
The complainant Decathlon S.A. argued that it is a worldrenowned manufacturer and supplier of sport equipment. The name "DECATHLON" is not only the core part of its company name, it is also its trademark and service mark, and enjoys substantial fame in Taiwan as well as other countries. The complainant subm
itted that one of its previous distributors for the "DECATHLON" brand had been Chang Long Company, which may be an affiliate of Chang Chi. Chang Long had previously attempted to register a logo "STEELMAN DECATHLON" with the former Central Standards Bureau, but the complainant had successfully caused the registration to be invalidated. Therefore the registrant has no right or proper interest for registering the domain name in question. In addition, Chang Chi was established to circumvent its previous OEM relationship with the complainant, so that its illicit motive would not be so obvious. Its application for and use of the said domain name is clearly an attempt to free ride on the complainant's business reputation; in addition, the complainant is possessing and using such domain name in bad faith, and has interfered with the complainant's Ecommerce activities using the name.

The registrant Chang Chi on the other hand submitted that the core part of the domain name is the English pronunciation for its "迪卡龍" (Di Ka Long) service mark, and Chang Long and Chang Chi are different corporate entities. The services provided by the registrant can be viewed on its webpage from major portals in Taiwan. Further, the word "decathlon" literally means "ten sports", and is a commonly used word in Englishspeaking countries. The word has also been used in domain names in many countries, and had not been invented by the complainant. The registrant is using the domain name in respect of different services, and has not misled nor caused confusion to the general public.
The domain name dispute in question was handled by Professor Chang YiYun, from the Faculty of Financial & Economic Law of Fujen Catholic University. Although Professor Chang confirms that the complaint had met the first criterion, i.e. "identical or similar to the complainant's trademark", she finds that the complainant has not satisfied its burden of proof in respect of the second and third criteria, being "the registrant has no proper right or interest" and "reg
istering or using the domain name in bad faith".
The panel of experts indicated that the registrant owned the "迪卡龍" (Di Ka Long) service mark, and its business scope and actual operations all differed from that of the complainant. As the registrant submitted, the word "decathlon" indeed means "ten sports", and different persons around the world have registered the word as a domain name or trademark, in respect of different products or services. Even if the complainant's "Decathlon" brand products do enjoy great fame in Taiwan, it is difficult to declare that it is a "famous mark" that is "well known to the relevant public", as the complainant has not provided sales and advertising information in Taiwan. Accordingly, the panel does not believe that the registrant has misled or caused confusion to consumers, or is attempting to derive improper commercial gain by eroding the complainant's registered trademark.
Insofar as the registrant may have registered or used the said domain name in bad faith, the panel found that: although the complainant did prove that Chang Chi and Chang Long have the same registered company address and business items, it did not show that the two companies overlapped in terms of company capital, shareholders or management. Therefore it is difficu
lt to conclude that one is affiliated to the other. In addition, the complainant had not actively proven that the registrant is freeriding on its business reputation; therefore the panel is unable to conclude that the registrant has registered or used the said domain name in bad faith.
In light of the above considerations, the panel decided to reject the complaint and permit Chang Chi to continue using the domain name <decathlon.com.tw>.