| Summary: | 仿品進口「邊境管制措施」為 TRIPs 協定（Agreement on Trade — Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights 簡稱TRIPs）第4 篇（第51 條至第60 條）所規範之範圍，另明文規範相關民事救濟。而我國2003 年「商標法」配合TRIPs 之修改等，主管機關已於2004 年9 月15 日訂定「海關查扣侵害商標權物品實施辦法」。本文就TRIPs、NAFTA、我國商標法有關「仿品」邊境管制措施之比較（區分為權利人的申請和海關依職權主動調查兩類），以作為我國未來與美國洽簽自由貿易協定是否採NAFTA 模式之參考。
(1)有關「權利人的申請」邊境管制措施，我國若與美國洽簽自由貿易協定，若採NAFTA 模式，在「海關暫緩放行」的申請等，因大致相同，故無須修改我國「商標法」；至於有關「表面證據」以及表面證據之要件，係英美法之概念，在TRIPs、NAFTA「邊境管制措施」相關規定均強調「表面證據」；而我國2003 年「商標法」第65 條第2 項前段規定：「申請，應以書面為之，並釋明侵害之事實。」
(2)另有關「海關依職權主動採取邊境管制措施」部分，我國2003 年「商標法」並未參照TRIPs 第58 條制定相關規範。由於TRIPs 第58 條並非強制性規範，我國未違反TRIPs 之規範。但TRIPs 與NAFTA 均明文規定「海關依職權主動採取邊境管制措施」，我國未來若與美國洽簽FTA 時，若採NAFTA 模式時應修改商標法，參照TRIPs 協定第58 條與NAFTA 第1718 條第11 項，增訂相關條文。
This Article tries to compare the regulations of border measures among TRIPs Agreement, NAFTA and Taiwan Trademark Law. The TRIPs Agreement distinguishes between infringement, for which civil judicial procedures and remedies must be available, and counterfeiting and piracy. In the case of counterfeiting, additional procedures and remedies, including border measure, must be made available. Special requirements related to border measures are contained in Section 4 (Article 51-Article 60) of the enforcement part of the TRIPs Agreement. Parties and must, under Article 51, provide border enforcement procedures for goods bearing a counterfeit. Taiwan Trademark Law
has been amended in order to enable Taiwan to meet the requirement of TRIPs Agreement in 2003. NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement) is the most
important Free Trade Agreement (FTA), and when Taiwan tries to establish FTA with U.S., NAFTA may be a model.
This article attempts to examine how the border measures provisions of counterfeiting might be incorporated into the existing Custom regulations. This article explains relation of border measures provisions of counterfeiting and trade policy, and compares border measures provisions of counterfeiting among
TRIPs, NAFTA, and Taiwan Trademark Law. The conclusions of this Article as follow:
I. Notice of suspension among TRIPs, NAFTA and Taiwan Trademark Law is similar but duration of suspension is different. Prima facie evidence is very important regulation in TRIPs, NAFTA, but Taiwan Trademark Law did not mention the Prima facie evidence.
II. Customs services may take action on their own action on their own initiative (ex officio action) under Article 58 based upon prima facie evidence that an intellectual property right is being infringed, which is not regulated in 2003 Trademark Law of Taiwan. It is worth noticing that ex officio action may become a trend when establishing FTA with Taiwan.
|
|---|
