智財權簡訊

本　期　提　要HEADLINES

1.配合經濟發展諮詢委員會共同意見之專利法修正草案(行政院版)

專利法（以下簡稱本法）係三十三年五月二十九日由國民政府制定公布，三十八年一月一日施行，歷經七度修正，現行本法係經　總統於九十年十月二十四日修正公布(本刊九卷十九期曾登載是項修正要點)；另為配合我國加入世界貿易組織之「專利法」部分條文修正案，業於八十六年五月七日公布，其施行日期授權由行政院另定之，目前迄未訂定施行日期。
茲以經濟發展諮詢委員會總結報告，於所獲三百二十二項之共同意見中，將「健全智財權審查機制」一項列入，要求加強智慧財產權保障，加速建立創新環境及健全智慧財產權之審查機制；又多數意見亦有「加速智財權除罪化，塑造公平競爭環境：專利法、著作權法及智慧財產法儘速除罪化」一項，建議專利刑罰應除罪化。復因本法具有國際性，我國為國際之一員，自應密切關注各國規定，並與國際規範相調和。是有感於國內企業發展、國際立法趨勢及提升專利審查品質之需要，現行專利制度有再修正之必要，經濟部智慧財產局爰擬具「專利法」修正草案，行政院院會並於九十年十一月二十八日通過是項草案，且於同日報請立法院審議。茲將是項草案修正要點敘述如次：
一、明確界定本法有關期間之計算期間之計算，一致修正為「之日起」，並明定原則上始日不計算在內，僅於有特別規定時，如專利權存續等期間，即日起算。（修正條文第二十條）
二、修正專利新穎性、進步性及創作性之規定有關專利新穎性、進步性及創作性之認定，攸關專利申請案件之准駁，影響人民權益至鉅，現行條文容有疏漏或未周延之處，爰參照國外立法例，酌為增修正，以資完備。（修正條文第二十二條、第九十三條及第一百零九條）
三、修正說明書記載、補充、修正、更正規定（修正條文第二十六條、第四十七條、第六十三條、第一百十六條及第一百二十一條）
四、明確列舉不予專利之法定事由參照行政程序法第五條規定意旨，對於不予專利之行政處分，宜有明確規定，爰將本法中所有不予專利審定之事由予以列舉，俾專利審查人員及申請人有所遵循。（修正條文第四十四條、第九十六條及第一百十九條）
五、廢除再審查程序
依現行本法第四十條規定，專利申請人對於不予專利之審定，得申請再審查，致行政程序冗長，造成行政資源重複浪費，亦與各國專利審查實務制度不同，實務運作上時生疑義，配合行政爭訟新制及參考外國立法例，爰將再審查程序廢除。（刪除現行條文第四十條）
六、廢除異議程序
現行本法關於專利之公眾審查區分為核准審定後領證前之異議制度及領證後之舉發制度。由於異議爭訟曠日費時，以致有無專利權之爭議遲遲無法確定，或常有藉異議程序阻礙專利權人領證之情事，對於專利權人之保護，實顯不周。況我國現行舉發程序，對於得提起舉發與得提起異議之法定事由大致相同，且二者所踐行之程序，並無二致，對之不服者，所能提起之行政救濟程序亦完全相同，實無併存之必要，爰將異議程序廢除。而整合提起異議與舉發之法定事由，將得提起異議事由納入舉發事由中，以保留原有公眾審查之精神，達到簡化專利行政爭訟層級，使權利及早確定。（刪除現行條文第四十一條）
七、修正核發專利權之時點明定申請案一經審定即可繳納規費，取得專利權。（修正條文第五十條、第一百條及第一百十二條）
八、增訂舉發審查程序規定舉發審查程序依現行本法之規定，原係準用異議有關之規定，本次修正已廢除異議程序，舉發之審查無法準用異議程序之條文，爰另為規定。（修正條文第六十八條至第七十一條）
九、刪除專利物品之標示及刑罰規定現行本法規定專利權之標示不得逾越專利權之範圍，對於非專利物品或非專利方法所製物品，不得附加請准專利字樣或讓人誤為已准專利之標示，如有違反，應負刑事責任。惟專利物品應如何標示，其標示是否確實，有無欺騙行為或致損害於他人，刑法、公平交易法及民事侵權等現行法律之規範已足資適用，爰刪除現行條文第八十三條及第一百三十條。(刪除現行條文第八十三條及第一百三十條)
十、修正專利權人專利年費之減免規定
（修正條文第八十二條）
十一、新型專利改採形式審查制參考世界主要國家新型專利審查制度，均將技術層次較低之新型專利，捨棄實體要件審查制，改採形式審查，以達到早期賦予權利之需求，爰參考修正之。（修正條文第九十六條至第九十八條）
十二、增訂新型專利技術報告由於新型專利改採形式審查，未對其新穎性及進步性進行實質審查，導致新型專利權之權利內容有相當之不安定性及不確定性，爰參考外國立法例，引進新型專利技術報告制度，任何人於新型專利公告後均可向專利專責機關申請新型專利技術報告。另為防止新型專利權人利用此制而濫用行使權利，對第三人技術利用及研發帶來相當大之危害，爰參考國際立法例，新型專利權人於行使權利前，應提示由專利專責機關所作成之新型專利技術報告。（修正條文第一百零二條至第一百零四條）
十三、廢除新型專利及新式樣專利之刑罰規定按經濟發展委員全體會議之多數意見有「加速智權除罪化
，塑造公平競爭環境：專利法、著作權法及智慧財產法儘速除罪化…」一項，建議專利刑罰應除罪化。又現行本法業將侵害發明專利權除罪化，卻仍維持侵害新型、新式樣專利之刑事責任，屢遭批評，咸認侵害技術層次較高之發明專利無刑事責任，侵害技術層次較低之新型、新式樣專利，反科以刑事責任，顯有輕重失衡之不合理情況。再以本次修正，新型專利已改採形式審查，對於僅經形式審查之新型專利權，是否合於取得專利權之實質條件，並不確定，如仍採取刑事罰，以國人習慣以刑逼民之作法，易對被告造成無法彌補之傷害，爰將侵害新型、新式樣專利權，均予廢除刑罰，完全回歸民事解決，以解決現行本法輕重失衡體例不一之狀況，並避免將來專利權人動輒發動刑事程序影響企業之發展，爰刪除現行條文第一百二十五條、第一百二十六條、第一百二十八條及第一百二十九條。
十四、增訂主管機關得將專利審查業務委託法人或團體辦理之法源依據為增進專利審查效率，加強與民間團體人才交流，配合目前政府之政策，加速精簡政府職能與組織，積極擴大民間扮演的角色，讓民間的活力盡情發揮，並參照行政程序法第十六條規定之意旨，爰增訂主管機關得將專利審查業務委託法人或團體辦理之法源依據。（修正條文第一百三十三條）
十五、增訂過渡條款本次修正重點包括廢除再審查、異議程序、新型專利改採形式審查、導入新型專利技術報告等等，皆屬專利制度重大變革，爰增訂新舊法律過渡期間規定。（修正條文第一百三十七條及第一百三十八條）
前揭專利法修正草案條文對照表，可至經濟部智慧財產局網站瀏覽，網址如下：
http://www.moeaipo.gov.tw/news/ShowNewsContent.asp?otype=1&postnum=822&from=board

Patent Law Amendments According to Resolution of EDAC

The Patent Law was first promulgated by the National Government on May 29, 1944, and entered into force on January 1, 1949. Following 7 amendments, the present version was promulgated by order of the President on October 24, 2001 (Volume 9, Issue 19 of IPR News set out the main points of the most recent amendment). In coordination with Taiwan's entry to the WTO, certain amendments to the Patent Law were also promulgated previously on May 7, 1997, with the enforcement date yet to be determined by the Administrative Yuan.
The final report of the Economic Development Advisory Conference (EDAC) had reached a consensus on 322 reso
lutions, one of which was "Sound Examination Mechanisms for Intellectual Property Rights". In accordance with this resolution, Taiwan should enhance its prot
ection for intellectual property rights, create an environment that encourages innovations, and establish sound examination mechanisms for IPRs. The majority opinion also advised "accelerating decriminalization of IPR infringements, so as to forge an environ
ment of fair competition: the Patent Law, Copyright Law and other intellectual property rights laws should be decriminalized as soon as possible". As the Patent Law is one that involves international elements, Taiwan as a member of the international community should also pay close attention to regulatory systems in other nations, and seek to become consistent with int
ernational standards. Taking into account industrial developments within Taiwan, international regulatory trends and the need to further enhance the quality of patent examination, the IPO considered it necessary to further revise the present patent system. Therefore a further draft amendment to the Patent Law was proposed by the IPO and passed by the Administrative Yuan on November 28, 2001. On the same day the draft was submitted for deliberation by the Legislative Yu
an. Below are the main points of these amendments:
a.Clearly define calculation of time periodsCalculation of time periods will revise all such provisions to "from the date", and in principle define the time period as not including the first day unless otherwise specified (such as the term of patent right, which will include the first day). (amend Article 20)
b.Revise provisions involving novelty, inventive step and innovationDeterminations of novelty, inventive step and innovation affect the approval or rejection of a patent application, and have an enormous impact on people's rights and interests. Therefore, where the existing pro
visions contain omissions or are inadequate, insertions and/or amendments are made following reference to overseas examples. (amend Articles 22, 93 and 109)
c.Revise provisions concerning contents, supplements, amendments & corrections of specifications (amend Articles 26, 47, 63, 116 and 121)
d.Clearly itemize reasons for rejection of patent application Pursuant to Article 5 of the Code of Administrative Procedures, an administrative decision that rejects a patent application must be made in accordance with clear guidelines. Therefore the amendments will itemize all reasons contained in the Patent Law for rejecting a patent application, as guideline for patent examiners and applicants.(amend Articles 44, 96 and 119)
e.Abolish reexamination procedure Under the existing Article 40 of the Patent Law, an applicant may apply for reexamination where the application has been rejected. This prolongs the admini
strative process, results in wastage of administrative resources, and is also inconsistent with international practices. Therefore, having taken into account the new litigation system as well as overseas regulatory examples, the reexamination procedure under the Patent Law will now be abolished.(delete Article 40)
f.Abolish opposition procedure Under the existing Patent Law, public examination of patents can be categorized into the "opposition" procedure prior to issue of patent certificate, and "can
cellation" procedure after issue of patent certificate. As the opposition procedure is time and cost consuming, it results in prolonged uncertainties in whether the patent should be granted, and people may also utilize this mechanism to obstruct the applicant's receipt of the patent. Clearly this represents a loophole in the protection offered to patent owners. In addition, an opposition action under the present system may be raised on roughly the same grounds as a cancellation, and the procedures, remedies and appeal avenues applicable are the same in both. There is no practicable reason for their coexistence. Accordingly the amendments will abolish the opposition procedure, integrate the grounds for opposition and cancellation actions, and include the grounds for opposition within the grounds for cancellation, so as to retain the spirit of public examination. In this way the patent litigation procedures will be simplified, and the rights and interests of parties will be ascertained much sooner. (delete Article 41)
g.Revise timing for issue of patentThe amendments will provide that an applicant may pay the relevant fees and obtain the patent right, immediately upon the application being approved. (amend Articles 50, 100 and 112)
h.Insert provisions concerning examination of cancellation actionsUnder the existing Patent Law, examination procedures for cancellation actions are the same as those applicable to opposition actions. As the opposition action process will be abolished by these amendments, it is appropriate to insert new provisions concerning examination procedures applicable to cancellation actions. (amend Articles 68 to 71)
i.Delete provisions concerning labeling of patented goods & related penalties Under the existing Patent Law, the labeling of patent rights must not exceed the scope of the patent. Goods that are not patented, or are not manufactured by a patented process, must not contain labels that allude to grant of patent, or that mislead consumers into believing there has been a grant of patent. A violation of these provisions will incur a criminal penalty. However, matters such as how patented goods should be labeled, truth of such labels, and whether there is a deceitful act or infringing act are all matters sufficiently regulated by the Criminal Code, the Civil Code (concerning infringement) and the Fair Trade Law. Accordingly, it is appropriate to delete Articles 83 and 130 of the existing Patent Law.(delete Articles 83 and 130)
j.Revise provisions concerning reduction/exemption of patent fees(amend Article 82)
k.Examination as to form for utility model patents
As the technical complexity of utility model patents is lower than other forms of patents, other major countries usually adopt examination procedures that merely examine as to compliance in form, rather than substantive examinations. This enable utility model patents to be granted as early as possible. Accordingly these amendments also make this change (amend Artic
les 96 to 98)
l.Insert technical report for utility model patentsAs the new "examination as to form" procedure for utility model patents no longer conduct substantive examinations as to their novelty and inventive step elements, there may be greater instability and uncertainty in the contents of these patents. Therefore, having taken into account overseas regulatory examples, these amendments introduce a technical report system for utility model patents. Any person may apply to the specialized patent authority for a utility model patent technical report, after the patent has been published in the official gazette. In addition, in order to prevent patent owners from abusing this system, and endangering the technological exploitation and R&D of third parties, utility model patent owners must produce the technical report prepared by the specialized patent authority, prior to exercising the rights of a utility patent owner. (amend Article 102 to 104)
m.Abolish criminal penalties for utility model and new design patentsThe majority opinion of the EDAC advised "accelerating decriminalization of IPR infringements, so as to forge an environment of fair competition: the Patent Law, Copyright Law and other intellectual property rights laws should be decriminalized as soon as possible". The present Patent Law is also criticized for being inconsistent in decriminalizing infringements to invention patents, but retaining criminal penaltyes for utility models and new design patents. It is unreasonable, as well as unbalanced, to remove criminal liability for infringing invention patents, which are of greater technological complexity, while retaining criminal liability for utility models and new design patents, which are of lesser technological complexity. Further, the present amendments will adopt an "examination as to form" system for utility model patents, and there will be uncertainty in whether a utility model patent application truly meets the substantive criteria for a patent. If criminal penalties were retained, given that criminal litigation is often used to exert pressure on competitors, such a system may cause irreparable damage to defendants. Therefore utility model and new design patent infringements will now all be resolved by civil procedures, so as to remove the existing imbalance in penalties for different violations, and to prevent patent owners from using criminal procedures to restrict industrial development. (delete Articles 125, 126, 128, 129)
n.Legal basis for outsourcing patent examination procedures(amend Article 133)
o.Insert transitional provisionsThe present amendments will involve revolutionary ch
anges to the patent system, including the abolishment of the reexamination and opposition systems, "examination as to form" and technical reports utility model patents and so on. Therefore it is necessary to insert transitional provisions for the transition period be
tween enforcement of old and new laws. (amend Articles 137 and 138)For a crossreference table of the Patent Law and its amendments, readers may go to the website of the IPO at:http://www.moeaipo.gov.tw/news/ShowNewsContent.asp?otype=1&postnum=822&from=board.

2.<boss.com.tw> 的網域名稱爭議處理結果揭曉

有關<boss.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，已由專家小組於民國90年9月2日做出決定，繼續由原註冊人台亞彩色製版股份有限公司使用此一網域名稱。
本案申訴人為德商雨果伯斯公司(Hugo Boss,Inc.)，其主張台亞彩色製版股份有限公司所註冊的<boss.com.tw>網域名稱，其特取部分<boss>與該公司之<BOSS>、<HUGO BOSS>等商標相同或近似，而有所混淆。且「boss」一詞已因申訴人之反覆使用，成為一頗具顯著性、著名性的商標，並已獲我國商標註冊之申請許可。申訴人並認為註冊人覬覦申訴人商標之知名度，誤導一般消費者至其網站瀏覽，進而獲取商業利益。
註冊人則主張早於2000年7月規劃「博仕網」網站之規劃，且從未以申訴人之名義，或其他類似或易造成他人混淆的商標或文字，對外公開從事商業行為。此外，在本身網站上的相關內容，亦無公開或隱含任何與申訴人所註冊營業項目相同或近似之處。再者，註冊人藉由網站所提供的服務，旨在協助一般企業達成「自行開辦網路商店」的目的，因此以「boss」註冊應有正當性。
擔任本案專家小組的元智大學資訊社會研究所王郁琦教授首先指出，網域名稱爭議處理機制，原則上是採取書面辯論主義，由專家小組就當事人所提出的事實證據，作為決定基礎。申訴人必須有充分的證據證明申訴的三個要件都成立。專家小組認為，雖然<boss.com.tw>網域名稱的特取部分「boss」，與申訴人的商標近似，而有造成混淆的可能，然而在本案申訴人對其他兩個申訴要件，並未列有充分證據證明其成立。
專家小組在決定書中指出，註冊人所主張已以善意使用或準備使用系爭網域名稱的見解可採。另外在註冊是否具有惡意的認定上，專家小組認為，就申訴人認為註冊人之註冊符合處理辦法第五條第三項第二、四款之事由而言，申訴人並未舉證證明註冊人在主觀有阻止申訴人使用系爭的網域名稱。在客觀上會妨礙申訴人註冊該網域名稱方面，係因註冊人已先行以合法正當方式註冊；此一排他性為註冊的必然結果，因此並不足以據此認定註冊人從事「惡意」的行為。申訴人雖得以證明其註冊商標為世界著名商標，然而註冊人以英文之「boss」為「老闆」之義，建構其輔導一般公司開辦網路商店，提供企業建構電子商務環境所需資訊系統之網站，並先於申訴人註冊系爭網域名稱，其註冊應具有正當性。依註冊人所提供之證據及各項資料，專家小組認定註冊人之主觀意識，並無意圖混淆申訴人之商標，藉以引誘、誤導網路使用者瀏覽註冊人之網站
，以達其營利之目的。
因此綜上所述，本案專家小組遂不認為本案申訴符合處理辦法第五條第一項之三要件，因此決定駁回申訴人對系爭網域名稱所提出的申訴。

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

The dispute over use of the <boss.com.tw> domain name was handled by the STLC, and the panel of experts delivered its decision on September 2, 2001. The panel held that the original registrant, Taiya Color Printing Co., Ltd., may continue to use this domain name.
The complainant in this case was the German company Hugo Boss, Inc., who submitted that the core part of the domain name <boss.com.tw> registered by Taiya was identical or similar to Hugo Boss' registered trademarks "BOSS" and "HUGO BOSS", and may cause confusion to the public. In addition, the word "BOSS" has been used extensively by the complainant, so that it has become a distinctive and famous trademark. It is also a registered trademark in Taiwan. The complainant submitted that the registrant is seeking to freeride on the fame of the complainant's trademark, and obtain commercial gain by misleading general consumers into viewing its website.
However, the registrant submitted that it had designed a "博仕網" (pronounced "bo shi wang") website as far back as July 2000. Further, it had never used the complainant's name, or any other similar or misleading trademarks or text to engage in commercial activities. Its own website did not market any public or hidden items that are identical or similar to business items for which the complainant's is registered. The services to be provided by the registrant via the website are related to assisting ordinary businesses to open their own Eshops. Therefore it is proper for the registrant to register the name "boss".
The expert panel in this case was led by Professor Wang YuChi of the Graduate School of Information and Social Studies at Yuan Ze University. Professor Wang pointed out that domain name dispute resolution is primarily handled by means of written submissions, and the panel of experts reaches its decision based on the facts and evidence submitted by the parties. The complainant must provide sufficient proof to show that all three essential elements for a successful complaint are present. The panel held that although the core part "boss" of the domain name <boss.com.tw> is similar to the complainant's trademark, and may cause confusion, the complainant had failed to submit sufficient evidence to support the presence of the other two elements.
In its decision, the panel indicated that there is merit in the registrant's argument that its use or prospective use of the said domain name is in good faith. Insofar as whether a registration is in bad faith under Article 5, Paragraph 3, Subparagraphs 2 and 4 of the dispute resolution rules, the panel believed that the complainant had failed to prove that the registrant had a subjective intention to prevent the complainant from using the said domain name. Objectively speaking, the registrant's formal registration of the domain name naturally precludes other people from using the mark, as this is an inevitable result of registration; however, this fact is insufficient to prove that the registrant had acted in "bad faith". Although the complainant has proven that its registered trademark is an internationally famous trademark, there is also proper cause for the registrant choosing the English word "boss" to create a website that will assist ordinary companies to open Eshops, and to provide businesses with information systems necessary for establishing an Ecommerce environment. The panel held that the registrant had no subjective intention to create a confusion with the complainant's trademark, in order to derive commercial gains by attracting or misleading Internet users to view the registrant's website.
Based on the above, the panel held that the case did not satisfy the three elements specified in the dispute resolution rules. Accordingly the complaint was dismissed.