ᕳ㢌ㄽᩥᚴᆅᡫဇᲢȑȃǷȳǰǪȕᲣƱɧദᇤʗᲴ
ᇤʗඥƴƓƚǔ‫ݣ‬ᇌƱǳȳȐȸǸǧȳǹMary LAFRANCE▮㔝 ᩄᶞ ヂ 


ࡣࡌࡵ࡟㻌

 Ⓩ㘓ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿၟᶆ࡜Ⓩ㘓ࡉࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸ၟᶆࡢ཮᪉࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࠊἲไᗘ㛫ࡢ᫂☜࡞ᩥ໬ⓗ┦㐪ࡀᏑᅾࡍࡿࠋࡍ࡞ࢃࡕࠊ୍᪉ࡢἲไᗘࡣᾘ㈝⪅࡟ᑐࡍࡿブḭࢆ㜵Ṇࡍࡿࡓࡵࡢ᪉⟇࡟୍ḟⓗ࡞౯್ࢆぢฟࡍࠋ௚᪉ࡢἲไᗘࡣᾘ㈝⪅ブḭࡢ㜵Ṇࢆ➇தつไ࡜࠸࠺ࠊࡼࡾᗈ࠸┠ⓗࡢ୰࡟ໟᦤࡉࢀࡿࡶࡢ࡜
ᤊ࠼ࡿࠋࢥ࣮ࣔࣥࣟࡢᅜࠎ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊ࡯࡜ࢇ࡝ࡢሙྜࠊࡼࡾ⊃࠸┠ᶆ࡛࠶ࡿᾘ㈝⪅ಖㆤࡀඃ఩ࢆ༨ࡵࡿࠋ௚᪉ࠊ኱㝣ἲࡢᅜࠎࡣࠊ୙ṇ➇த࡜࠸࠺ᗈ࠸ᴫᛕࢆ㔜どࡋ࡚⪃࠼࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡓࡔࠊ➇தつไ࡟ᑐࡍࡿ࢔ࣉ࣮ࣟࢳࡢ
ᕪࡣࠊ௒㏙࡭ࡓ┦㐪ࡼࡾࡶࠊࡶࡗ࡜ᚤጁ࡞ࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋୖグࡢ஧ศ㢮ࡣࠊ


IGT Professor of Intellectual Property Law, William S. Boyd School of Law, Universityof Nevada, Las Vegas. ࡇࡢㄽᩥࡣࠊᖺ  ᭶᪥࠿ࡽ᪥࡟࠿ࡅ࡚໭ᾏ㐨኱ᏛἲᏛ◊✲⛉࡟࠾࠸࡚㛤ദࡉࢀࡓ Conference on Law and Multi-Agential Governance: An
Impact of Law on Market, Competition and/or Innovation ࡟࠾ࡅࡿⓎ⾲ࢆඖ࡟ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
➹⪅ࡣࠊࡇࡢ఍ྜ࡟ཧຍࡋࡓ඲࡚ࡢฟᖍ⪅࡟ᑐࡋࠊᐶ኱࡞ࡈពぢࢆ㈷ࡗࡓࡇ࡜࡟ឤ
ㅰࡍࡿࠋ࡜ࡾࢃࡅࠊ⏣ᮧၿஅᩍᤵࠊBranislav HazuchaࠊAdi AyalࠊAntonina Bakardjieva
Engelbrektࠊᯘ⚽ᘺࠊᑠᓥ❧ࠊMatthias Leistnerࠊ኱ᮌⰋᏊࠊ㕥ᮌᑘᩥࠊᰗᕝ⠊அࡢྛẶ࡟ឤㅰࡢពࢆ⾲ࡋࡓ࠸ࠋ
ࡇࡇ࡛⏝࠸࡚࠸ࡿࠕ୙ṇ➇தࠖࡢㄒࡣࠊ኱㝣ἲ࡟࠾ࡅࡿᗈ࠸ᴫᛕࢆᣦࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

኱㝣ἲ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ୙ṇ➇தࡢᴫᛕࡣࠊࡓ࡜࠼ᾘ㈝⪅࡟ࡼࡿΰྠࡀ⏕ࡌ࡞࠸࡜ࡋ࡚ࡶつไᑐ㇟࡜ࡍࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋ⡿ᅜ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊࠕ୙ṇ➇தࠖࡢㄒࡣࣃࢵࢩࣥࢢ࢜ࣇ࡜ྠ⩏࡛⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿࡢࡀ㏻౛࡛࠶ࡿࠋ

▱ⓗ㈈⏘ἲᨻ⟇Ꮫ◊✲ 9RO   ᕳ㢌ㄽᩥブ⛠㏻⏝ ࣃࢵࢩࣥࢢ࢜ࣇ ࡜୙ṇ➇த 㻸㼍㻲㼞㼍㼚㼏㼑 ᩥ໬ⓗ࡞ᑐ❧ࢆ༢⣧໬ࡋ㐣ࡂࡿࡁࡽ࠸ࡀ࠶ࡿࠋࢥ࣮ࣔࣥࣟ࡜኱㝣ἲࡢศ㔝࡟ࡋ࡞ࡅࢀࡤ࡞ࡽ࡞࠸⌮⏤ࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜ࡣ⚾࡟ࡣᛮ࠼࡞࠸ࠋࡑࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࡇ

࡟࠾࠸࡚ᵝࠎ࡞࢔ࣉ࣮ࣟࢳࡢ௙᪉ࡀ࠶ࡾࠊᗄࡘ࠿ࡢࢥ࣮ࣔࣥࣟࡢἲᇦ࡟࠾

࡜ࡣ➇தࢆ㜼ᐖࡍࡿࡔࡅ࡛࠶ࢁ࠺ࠋࠖ

࠸࡚ࡣࠊ୙ṇ➇தἲࡢ⪃࠼᪉ࡢ඲࡚ࢆྲྀࡾ㎸ࡴ࡜ࡲ࡛࠸࠿࡞࠸ࡶࡢࡢࠊࢥ

࣮ࣔࣥࣟ࡟࠾ࡅࡿࣃࢵࢩࣥࢢ࢜ࣇࡢ⪃࠼᪉ࢆࡼࡾᗈࡃゎ㔘ࡋ࡚ࡁ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ ࣃࢵࢩࣥࢢ࢜ࣇ࡜୙ṇ➇தࡢᩥ໬ⓗ⾪✺ࡣࠊ᭱ࡶ㏆᫬࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣ୍㐃ࡢẚ㍑ᗈ࿌࡟㛵ࡍࡿ஦௳࡟⌧ࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊࡑ࠺ࡋࡓ⾪✺ࡣࠊ࢟ࣕࣛࢡࢱ࣮ࡸ ୍⯡ⓗ࡟ゝࡗ࡚ࠊ኱㝣ἲࡢᅜࠎࡢ࢔ࣉ࣮ࣟࢳ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊ➇தࡼࡾࡶබ

ⴭྡேࡢၟရ໬ࢆࡵࡄࡗ࡚ࡶぢࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋఝࡓࡼ࠺࡞⾪✺ࡣ࣮࢟࣡ṇࡉ㸦ࣇ࢙࢔ࢿࢫ㸧ࡀ┠ᣦࡍࡶࡢ࡟㔜ࡁࢆ⨨ࡃࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࠊࡑࢀᨾ࡟኱㝣ἲ࣮ࢻᗈ࿌ࡢᩥ⬦࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡶ⌧ࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡼ࠺࡟ぢཷࡅࡽࢀࡿࠋࡇࢀࡽࡢ౛࡟

ࡣ཯➇தⓗ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ࡢᢈุ࡟᫹ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࢀ࡟ᑐࡋࠊࢥ࣮ࣔࣥࣟࡢ࢔

ぢࡽࢀࡿࣃࢵࢩࣥࢢ࢜ࣇ࡜୙ṇ➇தἲࡢ࢔ࣉ࣮ࣟࢳࡢ┦㐪ࡣࠊ⡿ᅜࡸࡑࡢࣉ࣮ࣟࢳࡣ➇தࢆ☜ಖࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟୺║ࢆ⨨ࡁࠊබṇࡉ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠊ➇த⪅௚ࡢᆅᇦ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊၟရࡸࢧ࣮ࣅࢫࡢᅜቃࢆ㉺࠼ࡓྲྀᘬ࡟㛵୚ࡋࡓ࠸࡜⪃ࡢ⾜Ⅽࡀ≉࡟ᴟ➃࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ㄆࡵࡽࢀࡿሙྜ࡟㝈ࡾ⪃៖ࡉࢀࡿࡶࡢ࡜ࡋ࡚

࠼࡚࠸ࡿ඲࡚ࡢၟᶆᶒ⪅ࡀ⪃៖࡟ධࢀ࡞ࡅࢀࡤ࡞ࡽ࡞࠸஦᯶࡛࠶ࡿࠋ

࠸ࡿࠋࡑ࠺ࡋࡓᴟ➃࡞⾜Ⅽ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ㄆࡵࡽࢀࡿሙྜ࡜ࡣࠊ౛࠼ࡤࠊ➇த⪅ࡢ࡜ࡗࡓ⾜ື࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ᾘ㈝⪅ࡀၟရࡢᛶ㉁ࡸฟᡤ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ㄗㄆཪࡣΰྠ

 ࣃࢵࢩࣥࢢ࢜ࣇ࡜୙ṇ➇தἲࡢ㔜኱࡞ᕪ␗ࡣṧࡗࡓࡲࡲ࡛࠶ࡿࡶࡢࡢࠊ

ࡍࡿྍ⬟ᛶࡀ࠶ࡿሙྜ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡑ࠺ࡋࡓᴟ➃࡞⾜ືࡀ࡞࠸ሙྜࠊࢥࣔࣥࣟ

୧⪅ࡢࢠࣕࢵࣉࡣ⊃ࡲࡗ࡚ࡁ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࢥ࣮ࣔࣥࣟࡢᅜࠎ࡟࠾ࡅࡿุ౛ἲࡣࠊ

࣮ࡢ࢔ࣉ ࣮ࣟ ࢳࡣࠊᕷሙ࡟ ࠾ࡅࡿ⾜ ືࡀ ᙜヱᶆ❶ࡢࠕࢢࢵࢻ࢘࢖ࣝ

ᣑ኱ࢆ⥆ࡅࡿၟྲྀᘬάື࡟㐺⏝ࡍࡿࡓࡵ࡟ࠊࣃࢵࢩࣥࢢ࢜ࣇࡢᴫᛕࢆᑡࡋ

㸦goodwill㸧ࠖ㸫㛵㐃௜ࡅࡽࢀࡓၟရࡸࢧ࣮ࣅࢫ࡟ᾘ㈝⪅ࢆᘬࡁ௜ࡅࡿᶆ❶ࡎࡘᗈࡆ࡚ࡁ࡚࠸ࡿࠋḢᕞ㐃ྜ㸦EU㸧ෆ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊࡇࢀࡽࡢἲཎ๎ࡢ

ࡢຊࢆᣦࡍ㸫ࢆᦆ࡞࠺࠾ࡑࢀࡀ࠶ࡿሙྜ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡢࡳࠊἲⓗᩆ῭ࢆ୚࠼ࡿࠋ

ᑐ❧࡟ගࡀᙜ࡚ࡽࢀࠊḢᕞྖἲ⿢ุᡤ㸦ECJ㸧ࡢุỴࢆ㏻ࡌ࡚ࡑࡢ཰ ᮰ ໬ࡀᛴࡀࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡍ࡞ࢃࡕࠊࡇࢀࡽࡢุỴ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊECJ ࡣᗄࡘ࠿ࡢḢᕞ䝁䞁䝞䞊䝆䜵䞁䝇 ࢥ࣮ࣔࣥࣟཬࡧ኱㝣ἲ࠸ࡎࢀࡢ࢔ࣉ࣮ࣟࢳࡶᾘ㈝⪅ཬࡧ➇த⪅ࡢ฼┈ᣦ௧ࢆᗈ⠊࡞ᴫᛕ࡛࠶ࡿ୙ṇ➇த࡜ྜ⮴ࡍࡿ᪉ἲ࡛ゎ㔘ࡋࠊⱥᅜ࡟ᑐࡋࠊ

࡟㓄៖ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊࢥ࣮ࣔࣥࣟࡢ࢔ࣉ࣮ࣟࢳ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊᴫࡋ

ࠕࣃࢵࢩࣥࢢ࢜ࣇࠖ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊඖࡢព࿡࡜ࡣ࠿ࡅ㞳ࢀࡓゎ㔘ࢆ࡜ࡿࡼ࠺ᅽ

࡚ࠊᾘ㈝⪅ࡢ฼┈ࡀ᭱ࡶ㔜どࡉࢀ࡚ࡁ࡚࠸ࡿࠋᑐ↷ⓗ࡟ࠊ኱㝣ἲ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ

ຊࢆ࠿ࡅ࡚࠸ࡿࠋEU ࡢᨻ⟇࡟ᣊ᮰ࡉࢀ࡞࠸ࢥ࣮ࣔࣥࣟࡢᅜࠎ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊ

୙ṇ➇தࡢ㆟ㄽ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊᾘ㈝⪅ࡢ฼┈࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࢥ࣮ࣔࣥࣟ࡯࡝࡟㔜どၟᶆᶒ⪅ࡓࡕࡣࠊ❧ἲ⪅࡟ᑐࡋࠊఏ⤫ⓗ࡞ࣃࢵࢩࣥࢢ࢜ࣇࡢ୺ᙇࡢせ௳࡛ࡉࢀࡎࠊᕷሙ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ➇த⪅ࡢࠕබṇୟࡘㄔᐇ࡞ࠖ⾜Ⅽ࡜࠸࠺ࠊᴫࡋ࡚୙

࠶ࡿᾘ㈝⪅࡟ᑐࡍࡿḭ▇⾜Ⅽࡢせ௳ࡢ㐺⏝ࢆ✵ᩥ໬ࡋࠊၟᶆ㸦Ⓩ㘓ၟᶆཬ᫂☜࡞ᴫᛕ࡟↔Ⅼࢆᙜ࡚ࡿഴྥࡀ࠶ࡿࠋᗄࡘ࠿ࡢ౛࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊ୙ṇ➇த

ࡧⓏ㘓ࡉࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸ၟᶆ཮᪉ࡢ㸧ಖㆤࡢ⠊ᅖࢆᣑ኱ࡋ⥆ࡅࡿࡓࡵ࡟ᙳ㡪ຊἲࡢᗈ⠊࡞ゎ㔘ࡀࠊၟᶆࡢಖㆤࢆཌࡃࡋࠊⴭస⪅ே᱁ᶒ࡟㏆࠸ࡼ࠺࡞ᶒ฼

ࢆ⾜౑ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࠊࡑ࠺ࡋࡓάືࡣࠊᕼ㔘໬㸦dilution ࡸࢧ࢖ࣂ࣮

࡜ࡋ࡚ᢅ࠺ሙྜࢆ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋⱥᅜࡢ Laddie ุ஦ࡣࠊ୙ṇ➇தࡢᗈ⠊࡞ࢫࢡ࣡ࢵࢸ࢕ࣥࢢ࡟㛵ࡍࡿ❧ἲⓗᑐᛂ࡟⤖ࡧ௜࠸࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡑ࠺ࡋࡓ❧ἲἲཎ๎࡜ࢥ࣮ࣔࣥࣟୖࡢ୙ἲ⾜Ⅽ࡛࠶ࡿࣃࢵࢩࣥࢢ࢜ࣇ࡜ࡢ㛫ࡢ⥭ᙇ㛵ࡢ㐺⏝ࡀ࡞࠸ሙྜ࡛ࡶࠊၟᶆᶒ⪅ࡓࡕࡣࠊࣃࢵࢩࣥࢢ࢜ࣇࡢᴫᛕࡢ⠊ᅖࢆಀ࡟ࡘࡁࠊHodgkinson & Corby Ltd. v. Wards Mobility Services Ltd. ࡟࠾࠸࡚ḟࡢࡼ࠺࡟㏙࡭࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ࠕࡇࡢ୙ἲ⾜Ⅽࡣḭ▇⾜Ⅽࡢྲྀ⥾ࡾࡢ⠊ᅖࢆഹ࠿࡛ࡶ㉺࠼ࡓࡇ࡜ࡣ࡞
࠸ࠋࡶࡋࡑ࠺࡞ࢀࡤㄔᐇ࡞➇தࡢ☜ಖ࡜࠸࠺㡿ᇦ࡟ධࡿࡇ࡜࡜࡞ࡾࠊ
ブḭ⾜Ⅽ௨እࡢఱࡽ࠿ࡢ⌮⏤࡛㐪ἲࢆᐉゝࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡜࡞ࡿࠋࡑࡢࡼ࠺ ▱ⓗ㈈⏘ἲᨻ⟇Ꮫ◊✲ 9RO  
[1994] 1 WLR 1564, [1995] FSR 169.

Hazel Carty, Character Merchandising and the Limits of Passing Off, 13 Legal Stud. 289,

290 (1993).See 15 U.S.C. § 1125 (c); see infra notes 124-27 and accompanying text.



See id. § 1125 (d).

▱ⓗ㈈⏘ἲᨻ⟇Ꮫ◊✲ 9RO   ᕳ㢌ㄽᩥブ⛠㏻⏝ ࣃࢵࢩࣥࢢ࢜ࣇ ࡜୙ṇ➇த 㻸㼍㻲㼞㼍㼚㼏㼑 ᣑ኱ࡋ⥆ࡅࡿࡼ࠺⿢ุᡤࢆㄝᚓࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡋࡤࡋࡤᡂຌࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ ࡋ࠿ࡋࠊูࡢࢥ࣮ࣔࣥࣟࡢἲᇦ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊఏ⤫ⓗ୙ἲ⾜Ⅽ࡛࠶ࡿࣃࢵ

ࢩࣥࢢ࢜ࣇࢆከᵝ࡞᪉ἲ࡛ᣑᙇࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࢀࡽᣑᙇࡉࢀࡓࣃࢵࢩࣥࢢ࢜ ࡇ࠺ࡋࡓഴྥࡀ⥆ࡅࡤࠊࣃࢵࢩࣥࢢ࢜ࣇ࡜୙ṇ➇தไᗘ࡜ࡢ㛫ࡢከࡃࡢࣇࡣࠊ୙ṇ➇த࡟㛵ࡍࡿ୍⯡ἲ࡜ゝ࠺ࡇ࡜ࡣ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ࡶࡢࡢࠊᗄࡘ࠿ࡢ஦

┦㐪Ⅼࡣࠊ᭱⤊ⓗ࡟ࡣᾘ࠼ཤࡿࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡿ࡛࠶ࢁ࠺ࠋ

౛࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊ୙ᙜ฼ᚓࡸࡓࡔ஌ࡾ㸦ࣇ࣮ࣜࣛ࢖ࢹ࢕ࣥࢢ㸧ࡢࡼ࠺࡞㢮ఝࡢἲཎ⌮ࡢᙳ㡪ࢆཷࡅ࡚࠸ࡿࡼ࠺࡟ぢཷࡅࡽࢀࡿࠋ

Ϩ㸬ࣃࢵࢩࣥࢢ࢜ࣇ࡟㛵ࡍࡿఏ⤫ⓗ࡞ほᛕ࡜ᣑ኱ࡉࢀࡓほᛕ㻌 ⱥᅜ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊࠕᣑᙇࡉࢀࡓࣃࢵࢩࣥࢢ࢜ࣇࠖࡢᴫᛕࡣࠊၟရࡢ≉ᛶࡸ ࣃࢵࢩࣥࢢ࢜ࣇࡢᴫᛕࡣࠊࢥ࣮ࣔࣥࣟࡢᅜࠎ࡟࠾ࡅࡿၟᶆಖㆤࢩࢫࢸ࣒

ရ㉁࡟㛵ࡍࡿ୙ᐇ⾲♧࡟ᑐࡋ࡚㐺⏝ࡉࢀࡿࠋࡑࡇ࡛ࡣࠊࣃࢵࢩࣥࢢ࢜ࣇ

ࡢ୰᰾࡟఩⨨ࡍࡿࠋࡑࡢ㉳※ࡣࠊࢥ࣮ࣔࣥࣟ࡟࠾ࡅࡿブḭ⾜Ⅽࡢつไ࡟࠶ࡢᴫᛕࡣࠊ≉ᐃࡢၟேࡢၟရࢆಖㆤࡍࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࢆ㉺࠼࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡑࡢ௦

ࡿࠋᮏ᮶ࠊḭ⨕ࡢពᅗࡢ࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀἲᚊୖࡢせ௳࡛࠶ࡗࡓࡀࠊࣃࢵࢩࣥࢢ

ࢃࡾ࡟ࠊࣃࢵࢩࣥࢢ࢜ࣇࡣࠊ≉ᐃࡢ࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜ࡟ᒓࡍࡿၟရࢆ≉ᐃࡍࡿゝ

࢜ࣇࡀᾘ㈝⪅࡟୚࠼ࡿᙳ㡪࡟↔Ⅼࢆྜࢃࡏࡿࡼ࠺࡟࡞ࡗࡓࡓࡵࠊࡇࡢせ௳ⴥࡸゝ࠸ᅇࡋࢆࠊ⿕࿌ࡀㄗゎࢆᣍࡃࡼ࠺࡞⏝࠸᪉ࢆࡋࡓሙྜ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊࡑ

ࡣࡶࡣࡸᚲせ࡜ࡉࢀ࡞࠸ࠋࡇࡢ୙ἲ⾜Ⅽࡢᡂ❧⠊ᅖࡀ᫬ࢆ⤒࡚ᣑ኱ࡉࢀࠊ

ࡢ≉ᐃࡢ࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜࡢၟရࢆ⏕⏘ࡍࡿ඲࡚ࡢၟேࢆಖㆤࡍࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡑ

ࡑࡢࠕኚᗁ⮬ᅾ࡞ᛶ㉁ ࠖࡀᣦ᦬ࡉࢀࡿ୍᪉ࠊࡑࢀࡣ࣮ࣚࣟࢵࣃ኱㝣࡟࠾ࢀᨾ࡟ࠊΰྠࡢྍ⬟ᛶࡣࡇࡇ࡛ࡶ࡞࠾ᚲせ࡜ࡉࢀࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽࠊၥ㢟ࡅࡿ୙ṇ➇தἲࡢᴫᛕ࡟ࡲ࡛ᮍࡔ㏆௜࠸࡚ࡣ࠸࡞࠸ࠋ࡞ࡐ࡞ࡽࠊࣃࢵࢩࣥ

࡜ࡉࢀࡿࢢࢵࢻ࢘࢖ࣝࡣࠊၟᶆ࡜⤖ࡧ௜࠸࡚࠸ࡿࡶࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊ༢୍ࡢၟ

ࢢ࢜ࣇࡣࠊᶆ❶ࡢ↓ᙧࡢ౯್࡟㛵ࡍࡿ୙ṇ┠ⓗ౑⏝㸦misappropriation㸧࡟ே࡟ᒓࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡶࡢ࡛ࡶ࡞࠸ࠋࢢࢵࢻ࢘࢖ࣝࡣࠊࡑࡢ࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜ࡟≉᭷ࡢᑐࡍࡿ୍⯡ⓗ࡞ἲⓗ࢔ࢡࢩ࡛ࣙࣥࡣ࡞࠸࠿ࡽ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ

ရ㉁ࢆ᭷ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿၟရࢆ㈍኎ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ඲࡚ࡢၟே࡟㸦㞟ᅋⓗ࡟㸧ᒓࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢᙧᘧࡢࣃࢵࢩࣥࢢ࢜ࣇࡣࠊᑡᩘࡢ஦౛࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡢࡳᢅࢃ ఏ⤫ⓗ࡞ࣃࢵࢩࣥࢢ࢜ࣇࡢ୺ᙇ࡟࠾ࡅࡿᮏ㉁ⓗせ௳ࡣ௨ୗࡢ࡜࠾ࡾ࡛

ࠕࢩࣕࣥࣃࣥ㸦champagne ࠖࠊࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊ
ࠕ࢔ࢻ࣮࣎࢝ࢺ㸦advocaat ࠖࠊ࠶ࡿ㸦ࡋࡤࡋࡤࠕྂ඾ⓗ࡞୕✀ࡢ⚄ჾ㸦classic trinity㸧ࠖ࡜࿧ࡤࢀࡿ㸧ࠋ ࠕࢫࢥࢵࢳ࢘࢖ࢫ࣮࢟㸦Scotch whisky ࠖࠊࠕࣁࣜࠕࢩ࢙࣮ࣜ㸦sherry ࠖࠊࢢࢵࢻ࢘࢖ࣝ㸦ᶆ❶࡜ࡢ⤖ࡧ௜ࡁ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ၟရࢆ㉎ධࡋࡼ࠺࡜ࡍࡿᾘ㈝⪅ࠊࠕࢫ࢖ࢫࢳࣙࢥ࣮ࣞࢺ㸦Swiss chocolate ࠖࠊࢫࢶ࢖࣮ࢻ㸦Harris tweed ࠖࡢḧồ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚㏙࡭ࡿ୙᫂☜࡞⏝ㄒ࡛࠶ࡿ㸧ࠊ  ฟᡤ࡟㛵ࡍࡿ୙ᐇ⾲♧ࠊ ୙ᐇ⾲♧ࡢ⤖ᯝ࡜ࡋ࡚ࢢࢵࢻ࢘࢖ࣝࡀᦆᐖࢆཷࡅࡿྍ⬟ᛶࠊ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
ྂ඾ⓗ࡞ᯟ⤌ࡳ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊࣃࢵࢩࣥࢢ࢜ࣇࡣࠊၟேࡀࠊ➇த⪅ࡢ㢳ᐈࢆ㦄ࡋཪࡣΰ஘ࡉࡏࠊბࡢࣛ࣋ࣝࡀ௜ࡉࢀࡓၟရࢆ㉎ධࡉࡏࡿࡓࡵ࡟ࠊ➇ᴗ⪅ࡢၟᶆࢆၟရࡸࢧ࣮ࣅࢫ࡟௜ࡍሙྜ࡟࠾࠸࡚ᡂ❧ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡜࡞ࡿࠋ
ࡇࡢᴫᛕࡣ࢝ࢼࢲ࡛ࡶㄆࡵࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋSee John McKeown, Vodka, Champagne andPassing Off, http://www.casselsbrock.com/Doc/Vodka__Champagne_and_Passing_Off.
Erven Warnink BV v. J Townsend & Sons, (Hull) Ltd., [1979] AC 731, 742 (HL).



See Bollinger v. Costa Brava Wine, [1960] RPC 16 ⿕࿌ࡣࠕࢫࣃࢽࢵࢩ࣭ࣗࢩࣕࣥ

ࣃࣥ㸦Spanish champagne㸧ࠖࡢྡࢆࢫࣃ࣮ࢡࣜࣥࢢ࣭࣡࢖ࣥ࡟⏝࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡣ࡛ࡁ࡞
࠸ࠋ࡞ࡐ࡞ࡽࠊࡑࡢࡼ࠺࡞ྡ⛠ࡣࠊᾘ㈝⪅ࢆࡋ࡚ࡑࢀࡀࣇࣛࣥࢫࡢࢩࣕࣥࣃ࣮ࢽࣗ



ᆅ᪉࡛⏕⏘ࡉࢀࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ㄗゎࡉࡏࡿ࠿ࡽ࡛࠶ࡿࠊ࡜ࡋࡓ .

Carty, supra note 4, at 289.

Vine Prods. Ltd. v. Mackenzie & Co., Ltd., [1969] RPC 1.Lionel Bently & Brad Sherman, Intellectual Property Law 711 (3d ed. 2008).

John Walker & Sons v. Douglas McGibbon, 1972 SLT 128.

See Erven Warnink BV v. J Townend & Sons (Hull) Ltd., [1979] AC 731, 742 (HL);Argyllshire Weavers Ltd. v. A Macaulay Tweeds Ltd., 1965 SLT 21.

Reckitt & Colman Ltd. v. Borden, Inc., [1990] RPC 341; BMW Canada, Inc. v. NissanChocosuisse Union des Fabricants Suisses de Chocolat v. Cadbury Ltd., [1998] RPC 117,

Canada, Inc., [2007] FCJ No. 991, ¶ 30.

aff’d, [1999] RPC 826.

 ▱ⓗ㈈⏘ἲᨻ⟇Ꮫ◊✲ 9RO  ▱ⓗ㈈⏘ἲᨻ⟇Ꮫ◊✲ 9RO   ᕳ㢌ㄽᩥブ⛠㏻⏝ ࣃࢵࢩࣥࢢ࢜ࣇ ࡜୙ṇ➇த 㻸㼍㻲㼞㼍㼚㼏㼑 ࡜࠸ࡗࡓㄒࡢ୙ᐇ⾲♧ࡢ஦౛࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ཎ࿌ഃࡣ຾฼ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ㏆᫬ࠊࣦ࢛ࣛࣥࣁ࣒ἲ࡟ࡣࠕ⹫ഇᗈ࿌㸦false advertising㸧ࠖ࡟㛵ࡍࡿ᮲㡯ࡀ⨨࠿ࢀ࡚࠾ࢺ࢝㸦vodka㸧ࡢ〇㐀⪅ࡀࠊࠕVODOKATࠖ㸦࢔ࣝࢥ࣮ࣝ㣧ᩱࡔࡀࠊ࣮ࣚࣟ

ࡾࠊࡑࡇ࡛ࡣࠊ➇த⪅ࡢ⹫ഇࡢㄝ᫂㸦➇த⪅ࡢၟရ࡟㛵ࡍࡿ⹫ഇㄝ᫂ཬࡧ

ࢵࣃἲࡢୗ࡛ࡣࣦ࢛ࢺ࢝࡜ࡋ࡚㈍኎ࡍࡿἲᚊୖࡢᇶ‽ࢆ‶ࡓࡋ࡚࠸࡞࠸㸧ᙜヱၟேࡢၟရ࡟㛵ࡍࡿ⹫ഇㄝ᫂཮᪉ࢆྵࡴ㸧࡟ࡼࡾᦆᐖࢆ⿕ࡗࡓၟே࡟ࡢ〇㐀⪅࡟ᑐࡋࠊྠᵝࡢ୺ᙇࢆࡋ࡚຾ッࡋࡓ ࠋVODKAT ࡢㄒࡣࠊࣦ࢛ࢺ

ᑐࡋࠊ㐃㑥ἲୖࡢᩆ῭ᥐ⨨ࡀᐃࡵࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊࣛࣥࣁ࣒ἲ࡟࠾

࢝ࡢ≉ᐃࡢࣈࣛࣥࢻ࡛౑⏝ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿၟᶆ࡟㢮ఝࡋ࡚࠸ࡓࢃࡅ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊ

ࡅࡿ⹫ഇᗈ࿌ࡢ୺ᙇࡣࠊ➇த⪅ࡢㄝ᫂ࡀᩥᏐ࡝࠾ࡾ⹫ഇ࡛࠶ࡿ࠿ཪࡣᾘ㈝ࡋࡓࡀࡗ࡚ࠊఏ⤫ⓗ࡞ࣃࢵࢩࣥࢢ࢜ࣇࡢ⌮ㄽ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ᑐᛂ࡛ࡁࡿ஦౛࡛ࡣ

⪅ࢆΰ஘ࡉࡏࠊ㦄ࡍࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡿྍ⬟ᛶࡀ࠶ࡿሙྜ࡟㝈ࡽࢀࡿࠋ௬࡟➇த࡞࠿ࡗࡓࠋࡑࢀ࡟ࡶ࠿࠿ࢃࡽࡎࠊࡑࡢ⾲♧ࡀ༢࡟㯲♧ⓗ࡟〇ရࡢရ㉁࡟ࡘ

⪅ࡢ㏙࡭࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ⹫ഇ࡛࡞࠸ሙྜࠊཎ࿌ࡣᾘ㈝⪅ࡀ⌧ᐇ࡟ㄗᑟࡉࢀࡓ

࠸࡚୙ᐇ⾲♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡓ࡜࠸࠺⌮⏤࡛ࠊᣑᙇࡉࢀࡓ⌮ㄽࡢୗ࡛ἲⓗᑐᛂࡀྍࡇ࡜ࢆド᫂ࡋ࡞ࡅࢀࡤ࡞ࡽ࡞࠸ࠋ

⬟࡞ࡶࡢ࡜ࡉࢀࡓࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋVODKAT ஦௳ࡣࠊᣑᙇࡉࢀࡓࣃࢵࢩࣥࢢ࢜

ࡑࢀᨾ࡟ࠊ⹫ഇᗈ࿌࡟㛵ࡍࡿつᐃࡣࠊ࢝ࣜࣇ࢛ࣝࢽ࢔⏘ࡢࢫࣃ࣮ࢡࣜࣥ

ࣇࡢ⌮ㄽࡀࠊ୍ὶရࡸ㧗⣭ရ࡟㝈ࡗ࡚㐺⏝ࡉࢀࡿࡶࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࢆ᫂ࡽ

ࢢ࣡࢖ࣥࢆࠕࢩࣕࣥࣃࣥࠖ㸦⡿ᅜࡢᾘ㈝⪅ࡣࡇࢀࢆ୍⯡ྡ⛠࡜ㄆ㆑ࡋ࡚࠸

࠿࡟ࡋࡓ᭱ึࡢ஦௳࡜ࡋ࡚≉➹࡟್ࡍࡿࠋ⿢ุᡤࡢぢゎ࡟ࡼࢀࡤࠊࡓ࡜࠼

ࡿ㸧࡜ࡋ࡚኎ࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠊࡑࢀࡀࣇࣛࣥࢫ⏘࡛࠶ࡿ࡜᫂♧ࡉࢀࠊཪࣦ࢛ࢺ࢝࡜࠸ࡗࡓ୍⯡ྡ⛠࡛࠶ࡗ࡚ࡶࠊࢢࢵࢻ࢘࢖ࣝࢆ⏕ࡌࡿࡢ࡟༑ศ࡞

ࡣᙉࡃ♧၀ࡉࢀࡓ࡜࠸࠺ࡢ࡛࡞࠸㝈ࡾࠊ㐺⏝ࡉࢀࡿࡶࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋྠᵝ࡟ࠊಙ⏝ຊࢆ᭷ࡍࡿࠋRix ุ஦㸦Lord Justice Rix㸧ࡣࠊูグࡉࢀࡓពぢ࡟࠾࠸

VODKAT ࣐࣮ࢡ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡶࠊࡑࡢྡ⛠ࡀ┦ᙜ࡞ᩘࡢᾘ㈝⪅ࢆࡋ࡚㸣ࡢ࡚ࠊᣑᙇࡉࢀࡓࣃࢵࢩࣥࢢ࢜ࣇࡣࠊᚑ๓ࠊ୍ὶရ㸦ࢩࣕࣥࣃࣥ㸧ࠊ㧗ᗘ࡟ࣦ࢛ࢺ࡛࢝࠶ࡿ࡜ಙࡌࡉࡏࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜❧ドࡉࢀࡿࡢ࡛࡞࠸㝈ࡾࠊ⹫ഇ≉Ṧ໬ࡋࡓ〇ရ㸦࢔ࢻ࣮࣎࢝ࢺ㸧ࠊཪࡣ≉ูࡢᆅ⌮ⓗ࡞㉳※ࢆᣢࡘ〇ရ㸦ࢩᗈ࿌࡜ࡋ࡚ἲⓗᥐ⨨ࢆ࡜ࡿࡇ࡜ࡣ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ࠋ

ࣕࣥࣃࣥࡸࢫ࢖ࢫࢳࣙࢥ࣮ࣞࢺ㸧࡟㐺⏝ࡉࢀ࡚ࡁࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡾࠊࡇࢀࢆࣦ

࢛ࢺ࢝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞୍⯡ⓗ࡞〇ရ࡟㐺⏝ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡣࠊ⿢ุᡤࡀ୙㐺ษ࡟ࡇࡢἲ ࡶ࠺  ࡘࡢࣃࢵࢩࣥࢢ࢜ࣇ࠿ࡽὴ⏕ࡋࡓἲ⌮㸫⹫ഇಖド㸦false en-ཎ๎ࢆᣑ኱ࡋࡓࡇ࡜࡜࡞ࡿ࡜ࡢᠱᛕࢆ⾲᫂ࡋࡓࠋRix ุ஦ࡢ⪃࠼࡟ࡼࢀdorsement㸧࡜ࡋ࡚▱ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ㸫ࡣࠊ⡿ᅜࠊⱥᅜཬࡧ࣮࢜ࢫࢺࣛࣜ࢔࡛ㄆ

ࡤࠊࣃࢵࢩࣥࢢ࢜ࣇࡣࠕᣑᙇ࡟ᣑᙇࢆ㔜ࡡࡿࡇ࡜࡛ࠊᮏศ࡛࠶ࡿࢢࢵࢻ࢘

▱ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋఏ⤫ⓗ࡞ࣃࢵࢩࣥࢢ࢜ࣇࡣࠊ⿕࿌ࡀ↓チㅙ࡛ฟᡤ⾲♧ࢆ౑࢖ࣝࡢಖㆤ࡜࠸࠺㡿ᇦࢆ㉺࠼࡚ࠊ୙ṇ➇த࡜࠸࠺Ᏺഛ⠊ᅖእࡢ㡿ᇦ࡟㋃ࡳ

⏝ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛ࠊᾘ㈝⪅ࡀࠊ⿕࿌ࡀ㈍኎ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿၟရཪࡣࢧ࣮ࣅࢫࡢฟᡤࡀ

㎸ࡴ࡭ࡁ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠖࠋ௚ࡢุ஦ࡢ୰࡟ࡣࠊⱥᅜἲ࡟࠾ࡅࡿࣃࢵࢩࣥࢢ࢜ࣇ

ཎ࿌࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ಙࡌࡿྍ⬟ᛶࡀ࠶ࡿሙྜ࡟ᡂ❧ࡍࡿࠋࡇࢀ࡟ᑐࡋࠊ⹫ഇಖドࡀࠊࡑࡢఏ⤫ⓗ࡞┠ⓗ࡛࠶ࡿᶆ❶ࢆฟᡤ⾲♧࡜ࡋ࡚ಖㆤࡍࡿࡇ࡜࠿ࡽ㞳ࢀࠊࡣࠊཎ࿌ࡀ⿕࿌ࡢၟရཪࡣࢧ࣮ࣅࢫࢆಖドࡋࠊᢎㄆࡋཪࡣఱࡽ࠿ࡢᥦᦠ㛵୍⯡ⓗ࡞ἲ࡛࠶ࡿ୙ṇ➇தࡢ㡿ᇦ࡟ྥ࠿ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ᩥ໬ⓗࢩࣇࢺࡀಀࢆ᭷ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ᾘ㈝⪅ࡀಙࡌࡿྍ⬟ᛶࡀ࠶ࡿሙྜ࡟ᡂ❧ࡋᚓࡿࡶࡢ࡛

㉳ࡁ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ᠱᛕࢆ⾲᫂ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ⪅ࡶ࠸ࡿࠋRix ุ஦ࡢ㛵ᚰ஦࠶ࡿࠋ⡿ᅜ࡛ㄆࡵࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࣃࣈࣜࢩࢸ࢕ᶒ࡟ᑐࡍࡿⱥᅜࡢᣄ⤯཯ᛂ࡟ࡶࡣࠊࡇ࠺ࡋࡓᠱᛕ࡜㌶ࢆ୍࡟ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

࠿࠿ࢃࡽࡎࠊⱥᅜ࡛ࡣࠊ⹫ഇಖドࡢἲ⌮ࡣࠊ୍㒊ࡢⴭྡேࡀࡑࡢ⫝̸ീࡸྡ๓ࡀ↓チㅙ࡛ၟᴗⓗ࡟౑⏝ࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ㜵Ṇࡍࡿࡓࡵ࡟⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿࠋ⡿ ᣑᙇࡉࢀࡓࣃࢵࢩࣥࢢ࢜ࣇࡣࠊ⡿ᅜ࡛ࡣㄆ▱ࡉࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࠋࡑࡢ௦ࢃࡾࠊ







15 U.S.C. § 1125 (a)(1)(B).Lipton v. Nature Co., 71 F.3d 464, 474 (2d Cir. 1995).Clorox Co. v. Procter & Gamble Comm. Co., 228 F.3d 24 (1st Cir. 2000); United Indus.

Diageo North America Inc. v. Intercontinental Brands (IBC) Ltd., [2010] EWCA Civ.

920, [2010] EWHC 17 (30 July 2010).Diageo, [2010] EWCA Civ. 920, at ¶ 76.Corp. v. Clorox Co., 140 F.3d 1175, 1182 (8th Cir. 1998).

Id.



 ▱ⓗ㈈⏘ἲᨻ⟇Ꮫ◊✲ 9RO  

Irvine v. Talksport, Ltd., [2002] FSR 60, aff’d, [2003] EWCA Civ. 423.

▱ⓗ㈈⏘ἲᨻ⟇Ꮫ◊✲ 9RO   ᕳ㢌ㄽᩥブ⛠㏻⏝ ࣃࢵࢩࣥࢢ࢜ࣇ ࡜୙ṇ➇த 㻸㼍㻲㼞㼍㼚㼏㼑 ᅜ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊ⹫ഇಖドࡢ୺ᙇࡣࣃࣈࣜࢩࢸ࢕ᶒࡢ౵ᐖ࡜⤖ࡧ௜ࡅ࡚୺ᙇ ࣃࢵࢩࣥࢢ࢜ࣇࡣࠊཎ࿌ࡢၟရࡢရ㉁࡟㛵ࡍࡿ୙ᐇ⾲♧࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡶ㐺⏝ࡉࢀᚓࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊ⹫ഇಖドࡢ୺ᙇࡣࠊྡ⛠ࡸ⫝̸ീ௨እࡢฟᡤ⾲♧̿౛࠼ࡀᣑᙇࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ౛࠼ࡤࠊⱥᅜࡢ⿢ุᡤࡣࠊཎ࿌〇㐀⪅ࡀᇶ‽ࢆ‶ࡓࡋࡤ↓Ⓩ㘓ၟᶆ̿ࢆ౑⏝ࡋࡓ↓チㅙၟᴗάືࢆ㜵Ṇࡍࡿࡓࡵ࡟ࡶ⏝࠸ࡽࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸࡜ࡋ࡚ᤞ࡚ࡓၟရࢆࠊཎ࿌ࡢ᪂ࡓ࡟ᨵⰋࡉࢀࡓ〇ရ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜⛠ࡋᚓࡿࠋ⹫ഇಖドࡢᴫᛕࡢၥ㢟Ⅼࡢ  ࡘࡣࠊ⿢ุᡤࡀࠊཎ࿌࡜⿕࿌࡜ࡢ㛫ࡢ࡚⿕࿌ࡀ㈍኎ࡋ࡚࠸ࡓ஦᱌࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊࣃࢵࢩࣥࢢ࢜ࣇࡢᡂ❧ࢆㄆࡵࡓࠋ

㛵ಀᛶ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢᾘ㈝⪅ࡢㄆ㆑࡜ࡣఱ࠿ࠊ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࢆᐃ⩏௜ࡅࡿࡇ࡜࡟

ࡇࡢ஦౛࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊၟရࡢฟᡤࡀཎ࿌࡛࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠺⾲♧ࢆࡋࡓⅬ࡟࠾࠸࡚ᅔ㞴ࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠺Ⅼ࡛࠶ࡿ ࠋ౛࠼ࡤⱥᅜ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊSir Michael Kerr ࡣࠊࡣ⿕࿌࡟⹫ഇࡣ࡞࠿ࡗࡓࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊ⿕࿌ࡢ⾲♧ࡣࠊᙜヱၟရࡀ୍⣭ࡢရ㉁බ⾗ࡀࠊཎ࿌࡜⿕࿌ࡢࣅࢪࢿࢫ࡜ࢆఱࡽ࠿ࡢᙧ࡛ΰྠࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛༑ศ࡛࠶

࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࢆ㛤♧ࡋ࡚࠸࡞࠿ࡗࡓ࡜࠸࠺Ⅼ࡛୙ᐇ࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋࡇ࠺ࡋࡓࣃ

ࡿ࡜♧၀ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ ࠋࡇࢀ࡜ᑐ↷ⓗ࡟ࠊMillett ุ஦㸦Lord Justice Millett㸧ࢵࢩࣥࢢ࢜ࣇࡢἲ⌮ࡢ㐺⏝ࡣࠊ⡿ᅜ࡛ࡶྠᵝ࡟ཷࡅධࢀࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ⡿ࡣࠊබ⾗ࡀࠊ⿕࿌ࡢၟရࡢရ㉁࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ཎ࿌ࡀ㈐௵ࢆᣢࡘ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࢆㄆ

ᅜ࡛ࡣࠊࡇ࠺ࡋࡓࣃࢵࢩࣥࢢ࢜ࣇࡢ㐺⏝ࡣࠊࢢࣞ࢖࣭࣐࣮ࢣࢵࢺၟရࡢ㍺

㆑ࡋ࡞ࡅࢀࡤ࡞ࡽ࡞࠸࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࢆᥦ♧ࡋ࡚࠾ࡾࠊ⤒῭ⓗ࡞༠ຊ㛵ಀࡀㄆධࢆ㜵Ṇࡍࡿࡓࡵ࡟ࡶ⏝࠸ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

㆑ࡉࢀࡿࡔࡅ࡛ࡣ㊊ࡾ࡞࠸࡜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ  ࠋ࣮࢜ࢫࢺࣛࣜ࢔ࡢ⿢ุᡤࡣࠊ



Hogan v. Koala Dundee ཬࡧࡇࢀ࡟⥆ࡃᗄࡘ࠿ࡢ஦౛࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊྠᵝࡢၥ㢟 ఏ⤫ⓗ࡞ࣃࢵࢩࣥࢢ࢜ࣇࡢࡶ࠺  ࡘࡢᣑᙇ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊᗄࡘ࠿ࡢࢥ࣮ࣔࣥࣟ

Ⅼ࡟㛵ࡋ᫂☜࡞ゎỴ⟇ࢆぢ௜ࡅࡽࢀ࡞࠸ࡲࡲࠊࡇࢀࢆゎỴࡋࡼ࠺࡜ດຊࢆ

ࡢἲᇦ࡟࠾࠸࡚ㄆࡵࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡢࡀࠊࠕ㏫ࣃࢵࢩࣥࢢ࢜ࣇ㸦reverse passing㔜ࡡ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽࠊၟရཪࡣࢧ࣮ࣅࢫࡀ㢮ఝࡋ࡞࠸ሙྜ࡟࠾࠸

off, inverse passing off, upside down passing off㸧ࠖ㸧࡜ࡋ࡚▱ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿᴫᛕ

࡚ࡶ⹫ഇಖドࡢ㈐௵ࡀᡂ❧ࡍࡿࠊ࡜࠸࠺Ⅼ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣ᫂ࡽ࠿࡛࠶ࡿ ࠋḟ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢᴫᛕࡣࠊ⿕࿌ࡀࠊබ⾗࡟ᑐࡋࠊཎ࿌ࡢၟရࢆ⿕࿌⊂⮬ࡢၟရ➨࡟ࠊ⿢ุᡤࡣࠊබ⾗ࡀ㈍኎ಁ㐍άື࡟ぶࡋࢇ࡛࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ⹫ഇಖド࡟ࡼ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜⹫ഇ࡟⾲♧ࡋࠊཪࡣ⿕࿌ࡀࡑࡢၟရࡢရ㉁࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊཎ࿌ࡢၟရ

ࡿΰྠࡢྍ⬟ᛶࡢㄆᐃࡢᨭ࠼࡜ࡍࡿࡼ࠺࡟࡞ࡗ࡚ࡁ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ౛࠼ࡤࠊ

ࡢရ㉁࡟㛵ࡍࡿㄝ᫂ࢆὶ⏝ࡍࡿሙྜ㸦౛࠼ࡤࠊཎ࿌ࡢၟရࡢ෗┿ࡸࢧࣥࣉᖺࠊⱥᅜࡢ⿢ุᡤࡣࠊࣛ࢖ࢭࣥࢫ࡞ࡋ࡛⿕࿌ࡀࢸ࢕࣮࢚ࣥ࢖ࢪ࣭࣑࣮ࣗࢱ

ࣝࢆ⏝࠸ࠊཪࡣཎ࿌ࡢၟရ࡟㛵ࡍࡿ㉎㈙⪅ࡢឤ᝿ࢆ⿕࿌ၟရ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ᘬ⏝ࣥࢺ࣭ࢽࣥࢪ࣭ࣕࢱ࣮ࢺࣝࢬ㸦Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles㸧ࡢ࢖࣓࣮ࢪࢆ

ࡍࡿሙྜ㸧࡟ㄆࡵࡽࢀࡿࠋⱥᅜࡢ⿢ุᡤࡣࠊࡇࡢ୙ἲ⾜Ⅽࢆㄆࡵࡿࡇ࡜

㸦⾰᭹࡟㸧↓᩿࡛౑⏝ࡋࡓ⾜Ⅽ࡟ࣃࢵࢩࣥࢢ࢜ࣇࡢᡂ❧ࢆㄆࡵࡓࠋࡇࡢ஦

࡟✚ᴟⓗ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊ⡿ᅜ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡼࡾ㢖⦾࡟ࡇࡢ୙ἲ⾜Ⅽࡀ㐺⏝ࡉࢀ࡚౛࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊ⿢ุᡤࡣࠊ࢟ࣕࣛࢡࢱ࣮ࢢࢵࢬࡢ⏕⏘࡟ࡣ୍⯡ⓗ࡟ࣛ࢖ࢭࣥ

࠸ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽࠊⱥᅜཬࡧ⡿ᅜ཮᪉࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊ᭱ࡶ୍⯡ⓗ࡟ࡇࡢ୙ࢫࡀᚲせ࡜ࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࢆබ⾗ࡢ┦ᙜᩘࡀ▱ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࠊබ⾗ࡀࠊ⿕

࿌ࡢࢢࢵࢬࡀࣛ࢖ࢭࣥࢫࢆཷࡅ࡚࠸ࡿࡶࡢ࡜ㄗಙࡍࡿྍ⬟ᛶࡀ࠶ࡿࠊ࡜ࡋ



Spalding v. Gamage, [1915] RPC 273 (HL); Carty, supra note 24, at 191.



See, e.g., Davidoff & Cie, S.A. v. PLD Int’l Corp., 263 F.3d 1297, 1301-02 (11th Cir.



ࡓ ࠋ

2001).

See, e.g., Societe des Produits Nestle, S.A. v. Casa Helvetia, Inc., 982 F.2d 633, 644 (1st

Cir. 1992).Hazel Carty, An Analysis of the Economic Torts 194 (2001).

Carty, supra note 24, at 195-96.

Ewing v. Buttercup Margarine, 34 RPC 232, 237 (1917); Carty, supra note 24, at 194.

Carty, supra note 24, at 196; see Matthew Gloag & Son Ltd. v. Welsh Distilleries Ltd.,Harrods v. Harrodian School, [1996] RPC 697; Carty, supra note 24, at 194.

[1998] FSR 718, 724; John Roberts Powers School v. Tessensohn, [1995] FSR 947; Bristol12 IPR 508 (1988); see infra notes 106-12 and accompanying text.

Conservatories Ltd. v. Conservatories Custom Built Ltd., [1989] RPC 455.

Carty, supra note 24, at 195.



Mirage Studios v. Counter-Feat Clothing Co., Ltd., [1991] FSR 145.

ࢣ࣮ࢫ࡛ࡣࠊᐇ㝿࡟ࡣ⹫ഇᗈ࿌ࡀၥ㢟࡜࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋSee Mary LaFrance, When You⡿ᅜࡢከࡃࡢ⿢ุᡤࡀࡇࡢἲ⌮ࢆ㐺⏝ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊ௘⣽࡟᳨ウࡍࡿ࡜ࠊࡇࢀࡽࡢ ▱ⓗ㈈⏘ἲᨻ⟇Ꮫ◊✲ 9RO  ▱ⓗ㈈⏘ἲᨻ⟇Ꮫ◊✲ 9RO   ᕳ㢌ㄽᩥブ⛠㏻⏝ ࣃࢵࢩࣥࢢ࢜ࣇ ࡜୙ṇ➇த 㻸㼍㻲㼞㼍㼚㼏㼑 

ἲ⾜Ⅽࡢᡂ❧ࡀㄆࡵࡽࢀࡿࡢࡣࠊ⿕࿌ࡢྡࡢୗ࡟ཎ࿌ၟရࡀ⌧ᐇ࡟㈍኎ࡉ

ࡇࢀࡲ࡛ࡢ࡜ࡇࢁࠊ࡯࡜ࢇ࡝ࡢ኱㝣ἲࡢἲᇦ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊブḭ⾜Ⅽࢆྵࢇࢀ࡚࠸ࡿሙྜ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋࡑ࠺࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊᑀࢁ⿕࿌ࡢၟရࡢရ㉁ࢆഇࡿ⹫ഇ

࡛࠸࡞࠸ከࡃࡢ⾜Ⅽࢆྵࡴࡼ࠺࡟୙ṇ➇தࢆゎ㔘ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋḢᕞྖἲ⿢ุ

ᗈ࿌ࡢ୍✀ࡢሙྜ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀከ࠸ࠋࡇࡢሙྜ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊཎ࿌ࡢࢢࢵࢻ࢘

ᡤ㸦ECJ㸧࡟ࡼࢀࡤࠊEC ၟᶆᣦ௧㸦EC Trade Marks Directive㸧࡛෌⌧ࡉࢀ࢖ࣝࡣ඲ࡃ฼⏝ࡉࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࠋ࡞ࡐ࡞ࡽࠊཎ࿌ࡢၟᶆࡸၟྕ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ఱࡽ

࡚࠸ࡿࠕᕤᴗୖཪࡣၟᴗୖࡢබṇ࡞័⩦ࠖࡢせ௳࡜ࡣࠊ
ࠕၟᶆᶒ⪅ࡢྜἲ

ゝཬࡋ࡚࡞࠸࠿ࡽ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ࠾ࡑࡽࡃࠊࡇࡢᙧែࡣࣃࢵࢩࣥࢢ࢜ࣇ࡟ࡣ඲ࡃ

ⓗ࡞฼┈࡟㛵ࡋ࡚බṇ࡟⾜ືࡍࡿ⩏ົࠖࢆྵពࡍࡿ࡜ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊከ

࠶࡚ࡣࡲࡽ࡞࠸ࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ㏫ࣃࢵࢩࣥࢢ࢜ࣇࡢᴫᛕࡣࠊ୙ṇ➇தࡢ୺ࡃࡢゎ㔘ࡢవᆅࢆṧࡋ࡚࠾ࡾࠊࡲࡓࠊࠕᚠ⎔ㄽἲ࡛࠶ࡿࠖ࡜ᢈุࡉࢀ࡚࠸

ᙇ࡟ࡼࡾ㏆࠸࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋ࡞ࡐ࡞ࡽࠊ┐⏝ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡢࡣཎ࿌ࡢࢢࢵࢻ࢘

ࡿࠋ࡞࠾ ECJ ࡣࠊཎ࿌࡜⿕࿌࡜ࡢ㛫ࡢၟᴗⓗ⤖ࡧ௜ࡁࢆㄗㄆࡉࡏࡿࡼ࠺

࢖࡛ࣝࡣ࡞ࡃ㸦࡞ࡐ࡞ࡽ⿕࿌ࡣཎ࿌ࢆၟရࡢฟᡤ࡜ࡋ࡚ཧ↷ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡉ࠼

࡞౑⏝ࡢሙྜࡔࡅࢆࠕ୙බṇࠖ࡜ㄆᐃࡍࡿࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋྠ⿢ุᡤࡣࠊ〇ရࡋ࡚࠸࡞࠸㸧
ࠊཎ࿌ࡢ㧗ရ㉁ࡢၟရࢆ⏕ࡳฟࡍ๰㐀ᛶ࡜ດຊࡔ࠿ࡽ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ

ࢆၟᶆᶒ⪅ࡢ〇ရࡢࠕᶍೌࡸࣞࣉ࡛ࣜ࢝ࠖ࠶ࡿ࡜ࡋࡓࡾࠊᶆ❶ࡢಙ⏝ࢆࡇࢀࡣࠊࢥ࣮ࣔࣥࣟࡢἲไࡀᴫࡋ࡚࠶ࡲࡾㄆࡵࡓࡀࡽ࡞࠿ࡗࡓ୙ṇ┠ⓗ౑യ௜ࡅࡓࡾ୰യࡍࡿሙྜࠊᶆ❶ࡢࠕ≉᭷ࡢᛶ㉁ࡸྡኌ࡟㛵ࡍࡿ୙බṇ࡞฼⏝㸦misappropriation㸧ࡢ୺ᙇ࡟➼ࡋ࠸ࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿ ࠋ௚᪉ࠊᾘ㈝⪅࡟ᑐࡍ┈ࠖࢆᚓࡿࡼ࠺࡞౑⏝ࡢሙྜࡶࡲࡓࠕ୙බṇ࡛ࠖ࠶ࡿ࡜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

ࡿḭ▇⾜Ⅽࢆ㜵Ṇࡍࡿ࡜࠸࠺Ⅼ࡛ࡣࠊ㏫ࣃࢵࢩࣥࢢ࢜ࣇࡢ⪃࠼᪉ࡣࠊࣃࢵ

ࢩࣥࢢ࢜ࣇࡢ୍⯡ⓗ࡞┠ⓗ࡜ྜ⮴ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

ࠕࣇ࣮ࣜࣛ࢖ࢹ࢕ࣥࢢ㸦free riding㸧ࠖࡢㄒࡣࠊ୙ṇ➇தࢆᵓᡂࡋᚓࡿ㠀ḭ▇ⓗ⾜Ⅽࡢ㢮ࢆ⾲ࢃࡍࡢ࡟⏝࠸ࡽࢀ࡚ࡁ࡚࠸ࡿࠋୡ⏺▱ⓗᡤ᭷ᶒᶵ㛵ϩ㸬୙ṇ➇த㸦㼁㼚㼒㼍㼕㼞㻌㻯㼛㼙㼜㼑㼠㼕㼠㼕㼛㼚㸧㻌

㸦WIPO㸧ࡣࠊࣇ࣮ࣜࣛ࢖ࢹ࢕ࣥࢢࢆࠕ➇த⪅ࡸࡑࡢ௚ࡢᕷሙཧຍ⪅ࡀࠊ௚⪅ࡢᕤᴗୖཪࡣၟᴗୖࡢᡂᯝࢆࠊࡑࡢ࢜ࣜࢪࢼࣝࡢᡂᯝ࠿ࡽ኱ࡁࡃእࢀࡿ ᕤᴗᡤ᭷ᶒࡢಖㆤ࡟㛵ࡍࡿࣃࣜ᮲⣙➨᮲ࡢ  ࡣࠊྠ┕ᅜ࡟୙ṇ➇த࡟ࡇ࡜࡞ࡋ࡟ࠊ⮬ࡽࡢࣅࢪࢿࢫୖࡢ┠ⓗࡢࡓࡵ࡟┤᥋ⓗ࡟฼⏝ࡍࡿ඲࡚ࡢ⾜ᑐࡍࡿಖㆤࢆồࡵ࡚࠾ࡾࠊࡑࡇ࡛ࡣࠕᕤᴗୖཪࡣၟᴗୖࡢබṇ࡞័⩦࡟཯

Ⅽࠖ࡜ᐃ⩏ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

ࡍࡿࡍ࡭࡚ࡢ➇த⾜Ⅽࠖࡀ୙ṇ➇த⾜Ⅽ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ᐃ⩏ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ ࠋྠ᮲ࡢ  ࡀ᫂☜࡟♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ၏୍ࡢ⾜Ⅽࡣࠊ➇த⪅ࡢࣅࢪࢿࢫ࡜ࡢΰྠࢆ⏕ ኱㝣ἲࡢἲᇦࡣࠊ୙ṇ➇தࡢἲ⌮ࢆ␗࡞ࡿ࣓࢝ࢽࢬ࣒࡛Ⓨ㐩ࡉࡏ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

ࡌࡉࡏࡿ⾜Ⅽࠊ➇த⪅ࡢࣅࢪࢿࢫࡢಙ⏝ࢆᐖࡍࡿ⾜Ⅽࠊ➇த⪅ࡢၟရࡢᛶ

ᗄࡘ࠿ࡢᅜࠎ࡛ࡣࠊẸἲࡢ୍⯡᮲㡯ࡢྖἲゎ㔘ࢆ㏻ࡌ࡚୙ṇ➇தἲࢆⓎᒎ㉁࡟ࡘ࠸࡚බ⾗ࢆㄗࡽࡏࡿ⾜Ⅽࠊ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࢀࡽ  ࡘࡢ⾜Ⅽࡣࠊࢥࣔࣥࣟ

ࡉࡏࡓ㸦౛࠼ࡤࠊࣇࣛࣥࢫࠊ࢖ࢱࣜ࢔ཬࡧ࢜ࣛࣥࢲ ࠋ௚ࡢᅜࠎ࡛ࡣࠊ୙

࣮ࡢἲᇦ࡟࠾ࡅࡿࣃࢵࢩࣥࢢ࢜ࣇࡢᇶ♏࡜࡞ࡿブḭ⾜Ⅽࢆྵࢇ࡛࠸ࡿ ࠋṇ➇தࡢἲ⌮ࡣ≉ูࡢ❧ἲ࡟ᇶ࡙࠸࡚࠾ࡾ㸦࣮࢜ࢫࢺࣛࣜ࢔ࠊ࣋ࣝࢠ࣮ࠊ





Wish Upon Dastar: Creative Provenance and the Lanham Act, 23 Cardozo Arts & Ent. L.

Intell. Prop. L. & Prac. 48 (2008).

Rev. 197, 207-09 (2005).



First Council Directive 89/104/EEC (Dec. 21, 1988).Bently and Sherman, supra note 8, at 755.

Gillette Co. v. L-A Laboratories Oy, [2005] FSR 37, 2005 ECJ EUR-Lex LEXIS 41;⡿ᅜ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊ୙ṇ┠ⓗ౑⏝ࡢ୙ἲ⾜Ⅽࡢᡂ❧ࡀㄆࡵࡽࢀࡿࡢࡣࠊInternational

News Service v. Associated Press, 248 U.S. 215 (1918) ࡢ஦ᐇ㛵ಀ࡟ᇶ࡙࠸࡚ࠊᴫࡋ࡚
ࠕ࣍ࢵࢺࢽ࣮ࣗࢫࠖࡢሙྜ࡟㝈ᐃࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

2005 ECR I-02337 (Mar. 17, 2005).
Alkin, supra note 39, at 49.Gillette, [2005] FSR at 37.

Art. 10bis (1)-(2).



WIPO, Protection Against Unfair Competition 55 (1994) (WIPO Pub. No. 725(E)).See Tom Alkin, Should There Be a Tort of ‘Unfair Competition’ in English Law?, 3 J.

Anselm Kamperman Sanders, Unfair Competition Law 23 (1997). ▱ⓗ㈈⏘ἲᨻ⟇Ꮫ◊✲ 9RO  ▱ⓗ㈈⏘ἲᨻ⟇Ꮫ◊✲ 9RO   ᕳ㢌ㄽᩥブ⛠㏻⏝ ࣃࢵࢩࣥࢢ࢜ࣇ ࡜୙ṇ➇த 㻸㼍㻲㼞㼍㼚㼏㼑 ࢹ࣐࣮ࣥࢡࠊࣇ࢕ࣥࣛࣥࢻࠊࢻ࢖ࢶࠊ᪥ᮏࠊࣝࢡࢭࣥࣈࣝࢢࠊ࣮࣌ࣝࠊ㡑ᣍࡃ࠿࡝࠺࠿࡟࠿࠿ࢃࡽࡎࠊ୙ṇ➇த࡜ࡋ࡚ἲⓗᥐ⨨ࢆ࡜ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀྍ⬟࡛ᅜࠊࢫ࣌࢖ࣥࠊࢫ࢙࣮࢘ࢹࣥཬࡧࢫ࢖ࢫ㸧ࠊ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣᗈ⠊࡞❧ἲ୰ࡢ≉ᐃ࠶ࡿࠋ౛࠼ࡤࠊࢻ࢖ࢶ࡛ࡣࠊࣇ࢓ࢵࢩࣙࣥࢹࢨ࢖ࣥ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊࡓ࡜࠼ࡑ

ࡢ᮲㡯࡟ᇶ࡙࠸࡚࠸ࡿ㸦࣎ࣜࣅ࢔ࠊࣈࣛࢪࣝࠊࣈࣝ࢞ࣜ࢔ࠊ࢝ࢼࢲࠊࢥࣟ

ࢀࡀ≉ᐃࡢ▱ⓗ㈈⏘ἲ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ಖㆤࡉࢀ࡞࠸࡜ࡋ࡚ࡶࠊ୙ṇ➇தἲ࡟ࡼࡗ

ࣥࣅ࢔ࠊࣁ࣮ࣥ࢞ࣜࠊ࣓࢟ࢩࢥࠊ࣮࣌ࣝࠊ࣮࣐ࣝࢽ࢔ཬࡧ࣋ࢿࢬ࢚ࣛ

ࠋ࡚ࡇࢀࢆಖㆤࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇ࠺ࡋࡓ௚ࡢἲᚊ࡛ࡣಖㆤࡉࢀ࡞࠸ᶍೌ࡟ࡘ࠸

࡚୙ṇ➇தἲࢆ㐺⏝ࡍࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࡣࠊᶍೌ⪅ࡣ௚⪅ࡢ๰㐀ⓗ࡞ᢞ㈨࡟ࡼ

 ࣇࣛࣥࢫ࡛ࡣࠊ୙ṇ➇தࡣࠊࣇࣛࣥࢫẸἲ᮲ࡢ୍⯡୙ἲ⾜Ⅽ࠿ࡽὴࡿ฼┈ࢆ୙㐺ษ࡟㸦㏻ᖖࡣ᭱ప㝈ࡢࢥࢫࢺ㈇ᢸࡸປຊ࡛㸧฼⏝ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜

⏕ࡋࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋḟࡢ  ࡘࡢ࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜࡢ୙ṇ➇தࡀㄆࡵࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

࠸࠺ㄆ㆑࡟ᇶ࡙࠸࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋࢫ࣌࢖࡛ࣥࡣࠊᶍೌࡣࡑࢀࡀࠕࢩ

ࡍ࡞ࢃࡕࠊ  concurrence deloyale㸦୙බṇ➇த㸧ࠊཬࡧ  concurrenceࢫࢸ࣐ࢳࢵࢡ࡟ࠖ⾜ࢃࢀࠊࡲࡓࠕᕷሙ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ㏻ᖖࡢ཯ᛂࠖࢆ㉸࠼࡚➇த

parasitaire㸦ࣇ࣮ࣜࣛ࢖ࢹ࢕ࣥࢢ㸧࡛࠶ࡿࠋconcurrence deloyale㸦୙බṇ➇⪅ࢆ㜼ᐖࡍࡿሙྜ࡟ࡣࠊ㐪ἲ࡜ࡉࢀࡿࠋᙜ↛࡞ࡀࡽࠊྜἲ࡞ᶍೌ࡜㐪ἲத㸧ࡣ୍⯡࡟ΰྠࡢせ௳ࢆᚲせ࡜ࡍࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊ➇த㛵ಀ࡟࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡣᚲ

࡞ᶍೌ࡜ࡢ㛫ࡢ⥺ᘬࡁࡣࠊࡋࡤࡋࡤᅔ㞴ࢆక࠺ࠋ

せ࡛࡞࠸ࠋconcurrence parasitaire㸦ࣇ࣮ࣜࣛ࢖ࢹ࢕ࣥࢢ㸧࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣΰྠ
ࡢせ௳ࡉ࠼ᚲせ࡜ࡉࢀ࡞࠸ࠋ౛࠼ࡤࠊࣇࣛࣥࢫࡢ⿢ุᡤࡣࠊ࠶ࡿ࢟ࣕࣥ

Ϫ㸬ᑐ❧࡜ࢥࣥࣂ࣮ࢪ࢙ࣥࢫ㸸㸱ࡘࡢ஦౛ࡢ◊✲㻌ࢹ࢕఍♫ࡀࠊᕷሙࡢࣃ࣮ࢭࣥࢺࢆࢩ࢙࢔ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿཎ࿌ࡀ᪤࡟౑⏝ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿእほ࡜ྠࡌࢢ࣒ࣛࣂ࣮  ࣃࢵࢡࡢ࢟ࣕࣥࢹ࢕ࣂ࣮ࡢ㈍኎ࢆ㛤ጞࡋࡓ EU ෆ࡛ࡣࠊࢥ࣮ࣔࣥࣟ࡟࠾ࡅࡿࡼࡾ⊃࠸ࣃࢵࢩࣥࢢ࢜ࣇࡢᴫᛕ࡜୙ṇሙྜ࡟ࠊ୙බṇ➇தࡢᡂ❧ࢆㄆࡵࡿࠋࡇࡢሙྜࠊࣈࣛࣥࢻྡࡸࢺ࣮ࣞࢻࢻ

➇தἲ࡟࠾ࡅࡿࡼࡾᗈ⠊࡞つไ࡜ࡢ㛫࡛ᩥ໬ⓗ࡞⾪✺ࡀ㉳ࡁ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡢ

ࣞࢫࡢ㢮ఝᛶ࡟ࡼࡿΰྠࡢㄆᐃࢆࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡞ࡋ࡟ࠊ⿢ุᡤࡣࠊ୙ᙜ฼ᚓࡢ

⾪✺ࡣࠊⱥᅜࡢ Jacob ุ஦㸦Lord Justice Jacob㸧ࢆࡋ࡚ࠕḢᕞࡢၟᶆἲࡣࡔ

ἲ⌮࡟౫ᣐࡋ࡚ࠊ⿕࿌ࡀ୙බṇ࡟ཎ࿌ࡢࠕᡂຌ࠿ࡽ฼┈ࢆᚓ࡚࠸ࡿࠖ࡜ࡍ

ࢀࡶࡀ㐨࡟㏞࠺ุ౛ἲࡢ᳃࡜࡞ࡿ༴ᶵ࡟㝗ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠖ࡜Ⴣ࠿ࡏ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

ࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ

ᚋ࡟㆟ㄽࡍࡿ࡜࠾ࡾࠊ ࡘࡢッゴศ㔝ࡀࠊࣃࢵࢩࣥࢢ࢜ࣇไᗘ࡜୙ṇ➇தไᗘࡢ㛫ࡢᑐ❧࡜ ཰ ᮰ ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚᭷┈࡞᳨ウࡢሙࢆᥦ౪ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ㸫ࡑࢀ ࣇࣛࣥࢫࡢ⿢ุ౛ࡀ♧ࡍࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ኱᢬ࡢ኱㝣ἲࡢἲไࡢୗ࡛ࡣࠊ୙ṇ➇ࡽࡣ  ᶍೌရ㸦copycat products㸧࡜ẚ㍑ᗈ࿌㸦comparative advertising㸧ࠊதࡢ୺ᙇࢆࡍࡿࡓࡵ࡟ブḭࡢせ௳ࡸΰྠࡢせ௳ࡣᚲせ࡜ࡉࢀ࡞࠸ࠋᐇ㝿ࠊ ၟရ໬㸦merchandising㸧ࠊཬࡧ  ࣮࣮࢟࣡ࢻᗈ࿌㸦keyword advertising㸧ࠊᗄࡘ࠿ࡢ኱㝣ἲࡢἲᇦ࡛ࡣࠊ〇ရࡢ≉ᚩࡢࠕ᏶඲࡞ᶍೌ㸦slavish imitation㸧
ࠖ

࡛࠶ࡿࠋ

ࡣࠊࡑࢀࡀ▱ⓗ㈈⏘ἲ࡛ಖㆤࡉࢀࡿ࠿࡝࠺࠿ࠊཪࡣᶍೌࡀᾘ㈝⪅ࡢΰྠࢆ



䝁䞁䝞䞊䝆䜵䞁䝇

Id.ࣇࣛࣥࢫ࡛ࡢἲᚊࡣ Art. 1382 of the Civil Code ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ࢖ࢱࣜ࢔࡛ࡣ Art. 2598



Sanders, supra note 45, at 27, 39, 49; Christopher Heath, The Law of Unfair Competi-of the 1942 Civil Code ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ

tion in Japan 120-40 (2001) ࣮ࣚࣟࢵࣃ࡜᪥ᮏ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ᏶඲ᶍೌ࡬ࡢᑐฎࡢ௙᪉࡟ࡘ



Sanders, supra note 45, at 24-27.

࠸࡚ẚ㍑᳨ウࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ .

Judgment of October 20, 1993, Cour d’appel, Versailles, [1994] R.J.D.A., No. 751, dis-

Heath, supra note 50, at 122-23.

cussed in 1-9 Doing Business in France § 9.04[3].



Id. at 122-23.

Societe Mars Alimentaire v. Societe Aegean Trade Cy and Istanbul Gida Dis Ticaret As,

Id. at 123 (citing § 11 of Spain’s Unfair Competition Act 3/1991).

Paris 17.5.1993, [1993] PIBD no. 550 III-522; [1993] EIPR D-282.ࡇࡢ஦௳࡟ࡘ࠸࡚㏙Id. at 128-29, 136-40.

࡭ࡿᩥ⊩࡜ࡋ࡚A.W.J. Kamperman Sanders, Unjust Enrichment, The New Paradigm forO2 Holdings Ltd. v. Hutchison 3G UK Ltd., [2006] EWCA Civ. 1656, [2007] RPC 407,

Unfair Competition Law? 15-18 (The Intellectual Property Institute 1996)ࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ

¶ 35 (Jacob, L.J.).

 ▱ⓗ㈈⏘ἲᨻ⟇Ꮫ◊✲ 9RO  ▱ⓗ㈈⏘ἲᨻ⟇Ꮫ◊✲ 9RO   ᕳ㢌ㄽᩥブ⛠㏻⏝ ࣃࢵࢩࣥࢢ࢜ࣇ ࡜୙ṇ➇த 㻸㼍㻲㼞㼍㼚㼏㼑 㸿ᶍೌရ࡜ẚ㍑ᗈ࿌

ࡢᨺ㏦୰࡟ὶࡉࢀࡓࢸࣞࣅᗈ࿌࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊࢥ࣮ࣛ㸦Coke㸧࡜࣌ࣉࢩ㸦Pepsi㸧ࠊ ၟᶆἲࡢᶍೌ㸦ࢥࣆ࣮࢟ࣕࢵࢺ㸧〇ရཬࡧẚ㍑ᗈ࿌࡬ࡢ㐺⏝ࡣࠊ኱㝣ἲ

࣑࣮ࣛ㸦Miller㸧࡜࢔ࣥࣁ࢖ࢨ࣮ࣈࢵࢩࣗ㸦Anheuser-Busch㸧ࡣࠊࡋࡤࡋࡤ

࡟࠾࠸࡚ᗈࡃ⏝࠸ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࢔ࣉ࣮ࣟࢳࡢ௙᪉࡜ࠊⱥ⡿ἲࡢ࢔ࣉ࣮ࣟࢳࡢ

ᙼࡽࡢ➇த⪅ࡢ〇ရ㸦᫬࡟ࡣ➇த⪅ࡢ㢳ᐈ㸧ࢆლ➗ࡋࡓࠋ㛗ᮇ㛫ᨺᫎࡉࢀ┦㐪ࢆ↷ࡽࡋฟࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࣃࢵࢩࣥࢢ࢜ࣇࡢไᗘࡣࠊㄗᑟࡢሙྜࢆ㝖࠸࡚ࠊ࡚࠸ࡿ࣏ࣆ࣮ࣗࣛ࡞㐃⥆ࢸࣞࣅᗈ࿌࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊ࢔ࢵࣉࣝࢥࣥࣆ࣮ࣗࢱࡣࠊ

๭ྜ࡟⮬⏤࡞ẚ㍑ᗈ࿌ࢆㄆࡵࡿഴྥ࡟࠶ࡿࠋࡲࡓࣃࢵࢩࣥࢢ࢜ࣇไᗘࡣࠊ

࣐࢖ࢡࣟࢯࣇࢺࡢ〇ရ㸦ཬࡧᬯ࡟ࡑࡢᛅᐇ࡞㢳ᐈ㸧ࢆྂ⮯ࡃࠊ㔜㐣ࡂࠊᖹ௚⪅〇ရࡢᶍೌ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡶࠊࡑࢀࡀㄗᑟࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡛࡞ࡃ㸦౛࠼ࡤࠊၟရࡢ

ซ࡛ࡘࡲࡽ࡞࠸ࡶࡢ࡜ࢫࢸࣞ࢜ࢱ࢖ࣉ໬ࡋࡓࠋ

ฟᡤ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ᾘ㈝⪅ࢆㄗࡽࡏࡿࡼ࠺࡞᪉ἲ࡛ࡢ➇த⪅ࡢࢺ࣮ࣞࢻࢻࣞࢫ

ࡢᶍೌ࡛࡞ࡃ㸧ࠊࡲࡓⴭసᶒἲࡸ≉チἲ࡛ಖㆤࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ௚⪅ࡢᶒ฼ࢆ౵ ᶍೌ㸦ࢥࣆ࣮࢟ࣕࢵࢺ㸧〇ရࡣࠊࡑࢀࡀ▱ⓗ㈈⏘ᶒ㸦≉チᶒࠊⴭసᶒࠊ

ᐖࡍࡿࡢ࡛࡞࠸㝈ࡾࠊࡇࢀ࡜࠸ࡗࡓつไࢆࡋ࡞࠸ࠋ

ࢺ࣮ࣞࢻࢻࣞࢫࠊࢺ࣮ࣞࢻࢩ࣮ࢡࣞࢵࢺ㸧ࢆ౵ᐖࡋ࡞࠸㝈ࡾࠊ⡿ᅜ࡛ࡣチᐜࡉࢀࡿࠋ࠶ࡿᴗ⪅ࡀࠊ᭷ྡࣈࣛࣥࢻࡢ〇ရ࡜⎩஧ࡘ࡛࠶ࡿࡀ▱ⓗ㈈⏘ᶒ ⡿ᅜ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊẚ㍑ᗈ࿌ࡣࠊၟᴗⓗゝㄽࡢ⮬⏤ࡢ୍㢮ᆺ࡜ࡋ࡚㧗࠸౯್ࢆ౵ᐖࡋ࡞࠸〇ရࢆ㈍኎ࡋࡓሙྜ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊࡑࡢ᭷ྡࣈࣛࣥࢻࢆၟᶆ࡟ࡼ

ࢆ᭷ࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡜ࡉࢀࡿࠋಖㆤࢆཷࡅࡿࡓࡵࡢ၏୍ࡢせ௳ࡣࠊᗈ࿌ෆᐜࡀ┿ࡗ࡚≉ᐃࡋࠊࡑࡢࣈࣛࣥࢻရࡢ㢮ఝရ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ᗈ࿌ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡣチࡉࢀࡿࠋᐇ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜㸫࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣࠊᑡ࡞ࡃ࡜ࡶ஦ᐇࡢ୺ᙇ࡟᫂ࡽ࠿࡞⹫ഇࡀྵࡲࢀ

ࡑࢀᨾ࡟ࠊ౛࠼ࡤࠊࢪ࢙ࢿࣜࢵࢡཪࡣࠕࣁ࢘ࢫࣈࣛࣥࢻ㸦house brand㸧࡚ࠖ࠸࡞࠸ࡇ࡜㸫࡛࠶ࡿࠋࠕ㄂኱ᗈ࿌㸦puffery㸧ࠖ㸫≉ẁࡢ஦ᐇࡢ⿬௜ࡅࢆక

ࡢ་⸆ရ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊࡑࡢ་⸆ရࡀࣈࣛࣥࢻ་⸆ࢆ㈍኎ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ➇த⪅ࡢ〇ࢃ࡞࠸࡛ࠊ࠶ࡿ〇ရࡀ௚ࡼࡾඃࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜₍↛࡜୺ᙇࡍࡿࡇ࡜㸫࡟ᑐࡍࡿရ࡜ྠࡌ᭷ຠᡂศࢆྵࢇ࡛࠸ࡿሙྜࠊࡇࢀࢆࠊࡑࡢࡼ࠺࡞〇ရ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ࡋ

㧗࠸ᐶᐜࡀᏑᅾࡍࡿࠋከࡃࡢሙྜ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊ௚⪅〇ရࢆࡅ࡞ࡍࡇ࡜ࡣチࡉ࡚ᗈ࿌ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡣチࡉࢀࡿࠋࡇࡢ⪃࠼᪉ࡣࠕࢥࣆ࣮࢟ࣕࢵࢺࠖ㤶Ỉ࡟ࡘ࠸ࢀࡿࠋࡓࡔࡋࠊࡇࡢሙྜ࡟ࡶ᫂ⓑ࡞⹫ഇ஦ᐇࡢ୺ᙇࡀ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࡀ᮲௳࡛࠶

࡚ࡶྠᵝ࡟㐺⏝ࡉࢀࡿࠋࡋࡓࡀࡗ࡚ࠊࢥࣆ࣮࢟ࣕࢵࢺ㤶Ỉࢆ㈍኎ࡍࡿሙྜ

ࡿࠋ┿ᐇ࡟ᇶ࡙ࡃẚ㍑ᗈ࿌࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊ➇த⪅ࡢࡇ࡜ࢆၟᶆ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚≉࡟ࠊࡑࡢᗈ࿌ཪࡣ௚ࡢ㈍኎ಁ㐍㈨ᩱࡸࣛ࣋ࣝ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊᶍೌࡢᑐ㇟࡛࠶ࡿ

ᐃࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀチࡉࢀࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇ࠺ࡋࡓ⪃࠼᪉ࡣࠊࡑࡢᗈ࿌࡟࠾ࡅࡿ୺

᭷ྡ࡞㤶Ỉࢆ≉ᐃࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡣྜἲ࡞ࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊẚ㍑ᗈ࿌ࢆ⾜࠺ᶒᙇࡀࠊ࠶ࡿ⪅ࡢၟရࡀ௚ࡢ〇ရࡼࡾඃࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜୺ᙇࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿ࠿ࠊ

฼ࡣࠊၟᶆᶒ౵ᐖ࡟㛵ࡍࡿἲࡢ⫼ᚋ࡟࠶ࡿࣃࢵࢩࣥࢢ࢜ࣇࡢᴫᛕ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࡲࡓ〇ရࡀ㢮ఝࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜୺ᙇࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿ࠿ࢆၥࢃࡎࠊ୍㈏ࡋ

ไ㝈ࡉࢀࡿࠋࡍ࡞ࢃࡕࠊ᭷ྡ࡞〇㐀ᴗ⪅ࡢၟᶆࢆࠊᾘ㈝⪅ࢆࡋ࡚ࢥࣆ࣮࢟

࡚㐺⏝ࡉࢀࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊ஦ᐇ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢ୙ᐇࡢ⾲♧ࡀ࡞࠸㝈ࡾ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊ➇ࣕࢵࢺ〇ရࡢฟᡤࢆㄗㄆࡉࡏࡿࡼ࠺࡞᪉ἲ࡛⏝࠸࡚ࡣ࡞ࡽ࡞࠸ࠋࡶࡋ᭷ྡ

த⪅ࡢ〇ရࢆ㈘ࡵࡓࡾࠊហᘝࡋࡓࡾࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡶチࡉࢀࡿࠋࢫ࣮ࣃ࣮࣎࢘ࣝ

࡞ࠕࢩࣕࢿࣝࢼࣥࣂ࣮ࣇ࢓࢖ࣈ㸦Chanel No.5㸧ࠖࡢၟᶆࡀࠊࢥࣆ࣮࢟ࣕࢵ




Deere & Co. v. MTD Products, 41 F.3d 39 (2d Cir. 1994)ࡣࠊ࠾ࡑࡽࡃࡇࡢ࣮ࣝࣝ࡟

㛵ࡍࡿ౛እⓗ࡞஦᱌࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢ஦௳ࡣࠊ⿕࿌ࡢᗈ࿌ࡀཎ࿌ࡢၟᶆࡢ㌍ືࡍࡿ㮵㸦running deer㸧ࢆ㈘ࡵ࡚⾲⌧ࡋࡓ㸦➇த⪅ࡢ〇ရ࡟᛼࠼ࡓᛧࡀࡾࡢࢺࢼ࢝࢖࡜ࡋࡓ㸧ࢺ㤶Ỉࡢ࣎ࢺࣝ࡟వࡾ࡟┠❧ࡘࡼ࠺࡞ែᵝ࡛⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡓሙྜࠊࡇࢀࡣᾘ㈝⪅ࡢ୍㒊ࢆࡋ࡚ࠊᶍೌࡉࢀࡓ〇ရ࡜ᮏ≀ࡢࢩࣕࢿࣝࢼࣥࣂ࣮ࣇ࢓࢖ࣈࡀྠ
ࡌ〇㐀ᴗ⪅࠿ࡽ㈍኎ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ㄗಙࡉࡏࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࠶ࡾᚓࡿࠋᨾ࡟ࠊࡇ࠺
ࡋࡓሙྜ࡟ࡣࠊྂ඾ⓗ࡞ࣃࢵࢩࣥࢢ࢜ࣇ࡟ヱᙜࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡜࡞ࡿࠋ

ࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊ➨஧ᕠᅇ༊᥍ッ⿢ุᡤࡣࠊᕼ㔘໬㸦ࢲ࢖࣮ࣜࣗࢩࣙࣥ㸧ࡢ୺ᙇࢆㄆ

ࡵࡓࠋ⿢ุᡤࡢุ᩿ࡣࠊ୍⯡ⓗ࡞୙ṇ➇தࡸࣃࢵࢩࣥࢢ࢜ࣇࡢἲ⌮࡜࠸࠺ࡼࡾࡶࢲ ኱㝣ἲࡢἲไᗘ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊẚ㍑ᗈ࿌࡟ᑐࡋ࡚Ṕྐⓗ࡟㧗࠸つᚊࡀຍ࠼࢖࣮ࣜࣗࢩࣙࣥࡢἲ⌮࡟ᇶ࡙ࡃࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋࡇࡢ⿢ุᡤࡢุ᩿ࡣ⃭ࡋ࠸ᢈุࢆᾎ
ࡧࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡾࠊ⡿ᅜ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ୍⯡ⓗ࡞ࢲ࢖࣮ࣜࣗࢩࣙࣥࡢᛮ⪃᪉ἲࢆ♧ࡍࡶࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋ ▱ⓗ㈈⏘ἲᨻ⟇Ꮫ◊✲ 9RO  ▱ⓗ㈈⏘ἲᨻ⟇Ꮫ◊✲ 9RO   ᕳ㢌ㄽᩥブ⛠㏻⏝ ࣃࢵࢩࣥࢢ࢜ࣇ ࡜୙ṇ➇த 㻸㼍㻲㼞㼍㼚㼏㼑 ࡽࢀ࡚࠾ࡾࠊ᫬࡟᏶඲࡟⚗Ṇࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ౛࠼ࡤࠊࢻ࢖ࢶࡣࠊఏ⤫ⓗ࡟F  ၟရࡸࢧ࣮ࣅࢫࡢࠊ ࡘཪࡣࡑࢀ௨ୖࡢࠊ㔜せ࡛ࠊ㛵㐃ᛶࡀ࠶ࡾࠊ

ࠕᐇ㉁ⓗ࡟ࠊ඲࡚ࡢᙧែࡢẚ㍑ᗈ࿌ࡣࠊࡓ࡜࠼ࡑࢀࡀ┿ᐇࢆ⾲ࢃࡍࡶࡢ࡛

ド᫂ྍ⬟࡛ࠊୟࡘ௦⾲ⓗ࡞ᛶ㉁ࢆᐈほⓗ࡟ẚ㍑ࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ

࠶ࡗ࡚ࡶࠊ୙ṇ➇த࡟ヱᙜࡍࡿ㸫⪃࠼᪉࡜ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊ᪂つཧධ⪅ࡣࠊ௚⪅ࡢ࡜㸹☜❧ࡉࢀࡓྡኌ࡟౽஌ࡋ࡚ࡣ࡞ࡽ࡞࠸ࠊ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿ㸫ࠖ࡜ࡢ❧ሙ࡟G  ➇த⪅ࡢၟᶆࠊၟྕࠊࡑࡢ௚ࡢ㆑ู࣐࣮ࢡࠊၟရࠊࢧ࣮ࣅࢫࠊ

❧ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࣇࣛࣥࢫ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊ஦ᐇ࡟༶ࡋࡓẚ㍑ᗈ࿌ࡣࠊࡑࢀࡀࠊ

άືཪࡣᴗົୖࡢ஦᝟ࢆㄦㅫཪࡣ୰യࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡛࡞࠸ࡇ࡜㸹ᙜヱ〇ရࡢ௦⾲ⓗ࡞≉ᚩ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊᚲせୟࡘ㐺ษ࡟ࠊ❧ドྍ⬟࡞⠊ᅖ࡛ᐈ͐ほⓗ࡟ẚ㍑ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿሙྜ࡟㝈ࡾࠊチᐜࡉࢀࡿࠋࡍ࡞ࢃࡕࠊ⿕࿌ࡢᗈ࿌I  ➇த⪅ࡢၟᶆࠊၟྕཪࡣࡑࡢ௚ࡢ㆑ู࣐࣮ࢡཪࡣ➇ྜ〇ရࡢฟࡀࠊࡓ࡜࠼┿ᐇ࡛࠶ࡗࡓ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡶࠊࡑࢀࡀཎ࿌࡟ᑐࡍࡿ୺ほⓗ࡞ᨷᧁࢆຍ

ᡤ⾲♧ࡀ᭷ࡍࡿホุ࠿ࡽ୙ṇ࡟฼ࢆᚓࡿࡶࡢ࡛࡞࠸ࡇ࡜㸹>ཬࡧ@࠼ࠊ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣࡇࢀࢆぢୗࡍࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡗࡓሙྜ࡟ࡣࠊ୙ṇ➇தࡢ୺ᙇࢆཷࡅ

J  ၟရཪࡣࢧ࣮ࣅࢫࡀࠊಖㆤࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿၟᶆࡸၟྕࢆ௜ࡋࡓၟရ

ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࠶ࡾᚓࡿࠋ

ཪࡣࢧ࣮ࣅࢫࡢᶍೌရࡸ」〇ရ࡜ࡋ࡚⾲♧ࡉࢀࡿࡶࡢ࡛࡞࠸ࡇ
࡜㹿




 ࡋ࠿ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽࠊ᭱㏆ࡢ EU ࡢࢺࣞࣥࢻࡣࠊ⮬⏤໬࡟ྥ࠿ࡗ࡚ࡁ࡚࠸ࡿ ࠋࡇࡢࢺࣞࣥࢻࡣࠊᖺࡢẚ㍑ᗈ࿌ᣦ௧㸦Comparative Advertising Directive, ᭱㏆ࡲ࡛ࠊⱥᅜࡣࠊẚ㍑ᗈ࿌࡟ࡘ࠸࡚⡿ᅜ࡜ྠᵝࡢ࢔ࣉ࣮ࣟࢳࢆ࡜ࡗ࡚

CAD㸧࡟࠾࠸࡚᭱㧗₻࡟㐩ࡋࡓࠋࡇࡢᣦ௧ࡣࠊຍ┕ᅜ࡟ᑐࡋࠊ≉ᐃࡢ᮲௳࠸ࡓࠋࡍ࡞ࢃࡕࠊࡑ࠺ࡋࡓᗈ࿌ࢆᇶᮏⓗ࡟ࡣ➇தࢆಁ㐍ࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡜ࡋ࡚ዡ

ࡢୗ࡛ẚ㍑ᗈ࿌ࢆチྍࡍࡿࡼ࠺࿨ࡌ࡚࠸ࡿ ࠋࡇࢀࡽ᮲௳ࡢᗄࡘ࠿ࡣࠊၟ

ບࡋ࡚࠸ࡓࠋࡑ࠺ࡋࡓ࢔ࣉ࣮ࣟࢳࡣࠊL’Oreal SA v. Bellure NV ࡢ๓ࡲ࡛࡜

ရཪࡣࢧ࣮ࣅࢫࡢᛶ㉁ࡸฟᡤ࡟㛵ࡍࡿᾘ㈝⪅ࡢΰྠࢆ㜵ࡄ࡜࠸࠺ࡼࡾ⊃ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡓࠋࡇࡢ஦௳࡟࠾ࡅࡿㄽⅬࡣࠊࢥࣆ࣮࢟ࣕࢵࢺ㤶Ỉࡢ〇㐀⪅ࡀࠊ࠸┠ⓗ࡟ྥࡅࡽࢀ࡚࠾ࡾࠊࡑࢀᨾ࡟ࣃࢵࢩࣥࢢ࢜ࣇࡢἲไᗘ࡜᏶඲࡟ྜ⮴࡝ࡢ⿕࿌〇ရࡀⴭྡ࡞㤶Ỉ࡟ᑐᛂࡍࡿ〇ရ࡛࠶ࡿ࠿ࢆᾘ㈝⪅࡟ㄝ᫂ࡍࡿ

ࡍࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊ௚ࡢ᮲௳ࡣࠊୖグࡢᾘ㈝⪅ࡢΰྠࢆ㜵Ṇࡍࡿ࡜࠸࠺┠ⓗࡓࡵࡢẚ㍑ࣜࢫࢺ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊᶍೌࡢᑐ㇟࡛࠶ࡿⴭྡ࡞㤶Ỉࡢྡ⛠ࢆୖࡆࡿࢆ᭦࡟㉺࠼ࡓࡶࡢ࡛ࠊ୙ṇ➇தἲࡢ౯್ほࢆ཯ᫎࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ≉➹ࡍ࡭ࡁࡣࠊ

ࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿ࠿࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋ࢖ࣥࢢࣛࣥࢻ࣭࢙࣮࢘ࣝࢬ᥍ッ㝔ࡣࠊ

CAD ➨  ᮲ࡀ௨ୗࡢ᮲௳࡛ẚ㍑ᗈ࿌ࢆチᐜࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋ

EC ࡢၟᶆᣦ௧㸦ࡇࡢᣦ௧࡛ࡣࠊၟᶆࢆ୰യࡋཪࡣࡑࡢ♫఍ⓗಙ⏝࠿ࡽࠕ୙

ṇ࡟฼ࢆᚓࡿࠖ⪅࡟ᑐࡍࡿᗈ⠊࡞ၟᶆಖㆤࢆㄆࡵ࡚࠸ࡿ㸧࡜ CAD ࡜ࡢ㛫See 2-31 The Law of Advertising § 31.04 (2011).ࡢ⢭☜࡞㛵ಀ࡟㛵ࡍࡿᗄࡘ࠿ࡢ␲ၥⅬ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊḢᕞྖἲ⿢ุᡤ㸦ECJ㸧O2 Holdings Ltd. v. Hutchison 3G UK Ltd., [2006] EWCA Civ. 1656, [2007] RPC 407,࡬௜クࡋࡓࠋࡲࡓࠊᾘ㈝⪅ࡢΰྠࡀ⏕ࡌࡿྍ⬟ᛶࡣ࡞࠸ࡓࡵࠊࣃࢵࢩࣥ

¶ 41 (Jacob, L.J.).

ࢢ࢜ࣇࡣᡂ❧ࡋ࡞࠸࡜ࡋࡓࠋ



Consumer Code Art. L. 121-8.

Judgment of March 23, 1999, Cass. Com. No. 96-22.334; Judgment of May 31, 1996,

TGI Paris, Europe 1 Telecompagnie v. NR, discussed in 1-9 Doing Business in France ECJ ࡣࠊẚ㍑ᗈ࿌࡟࠾ࡅࡿ➇த⪅ࡢၟᶆࡢ౑⏝ࡣࠊࡓ࡜࠼ᾘ㈝⪅ࢆㄗᑟ§ 9.04[4] (2010).



2-31 The Law of Advertising § 31.04 (2011).



Id. Art. 4 (c), (d), (f), (g).

Directive 97/55/EC (amending Directive 84/450/EEC).ᖺᣦ௧ࡣࠊᖺ࡟



L’Oreal SA v. Bellure NV, [2007] EWCA Civ. 968, ¶ 164 (Oct. 10, 2007).

2006/114/EC ௨ୗ CAD㻌࡜ゝ࠺ ࡟ᕪࡋ᭰࠼ࡽࢀࡓࠋᮏᩥ࡛㏙࡭ࡓẚ㍑ᗈ࿌࡟㛵ࡍࡿࠕᾘ㈝⪅ࡣហ࠿࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋᾘ㈝⪅ࡣᏳ≀ࡢࢥࣆ࣮ၟရࡀࠊ࢜ࣜࢪࢼࣝ࡜ྠࡌရ㉁ᐃࡵࡣᖺ∧ࡢᣦ௧࡛ࡶṧࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

ࢆ᭷ࡍࡿ࡜ࡣᤊ࠼࡞࠸ࠋᾘ㈝⪅ࡣࢥࣆ࣮ၟရࡣࢥࣆ࣮ၟရ࡜ࡋ࡚ㄆ㆑ࡋࠊࡑࢀ௨ୖ

ࡢ≀࡜ࡣ⪃࠼࡞࠸ࠋ
ࠖCAD, Art. 4 (a), (h).

 ▱ⓗ㈈⏘ἲᨻ⟇Ꮫ◊✲ 9RO  ▱ⓗ㈈⏘ἲᨻ⟇Ꮫ◊✲ 9RO   ᕳ㢌ㄽᩥブ⛠㏻⏝ ࣃࢵࢩࣥࢢ࢜ࣇ ࡜୙ṇ➇த 㻸㼍㻲㼞㼍㼚㼏㼑 ࠸࠿࡟ࡘ࠸࡚᫂☜࡞‽๎ࢆ♧ࡋ࡚࠸࡞࠸࡜࠸࠺Ⅼ࡛ၥ㢟ࡀ࠶ࡿ㹿㺁ࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊཪࡣΰྠࢆ⏕ࡌࡉࡏࡿྍ⬟ᛶࡀ࡞࠸࡜ࡋ࡚ࡶࠊࡑࡢᮏ㉁ୖࠊ➇த⪅ࡢၟᶆ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠕ୙ṇ࡞฼ࠖࢆᚓࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿ࠿ࡽࠊഇ㐀ရࡢሙྜࡔࡅ࡛࡞ࡃࠊࠕ࠸࠿࡞ࡿᶍೌࠊ」〇ࠖࡢሙྜ࡛࠶ࡗ࡚ࡶチࡉࢀ࡞࠸ ᭱ᚋ࡟ࠊᙼࡣࠊECJ ࡀࠊฟᡤ⾲♧ᶵ⬟࡜ࡣ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟␗࡞ࡿᶆ❶ࡢࠕࢥ࣑࡜ࡋࡓ ࠋ⿢ุᡤࡣࠊEU ၟᶆἲࡢ⪃࠼᪉ࡣࠊၟᶆࡀᣢࡘ඲࡚ࡢᶵ⬟ࢆಖㆤࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥࠊᢞ㈨ཪࡣᗈ࿌ࠖᶵ⬟࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊἲ࡟ࡼࡾಖㆤࡍ࡭ࡁ࡛࠶

ࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ᣦ᦬ࡋࡓ㸫ࡑࡢᶵ⬟࡜ࡣࠊฟᡤ⾲♧ᶵ⬟ཬࡧၟရࡢရ㉁ࡿ࡜ࡢぢゎࢆ♧ࡋࡓࡇ࡜࡟ࡘ࠸࡚␲ၥࢆ࿊ࡋࡓࠋJacob ุ஦ࡣࠊࡇࢀࡽࡢ

ಖドᶵ⬟ࡔࡅ࡛࡞ࡃࠊࠕࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥࠊᢞ㈨ࡸᗈ࿌࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢࠖᶵ⬟ᶵ⬟ಖㆤ࡟㛵ࡍࡿ❧ἲୖࡢᇶ♏ࡣぢᙜࡓࡽ࡞࠸࡜ࡋࠊࠕ᭕᫕࡛୙᫂☜࡛࠶ࢆྵࡴࠋ

ࡿࠖ࡜ࡋࡓࠋᙼࡣࡲࡓࠊẚ㍑ᗈ࿌ᣦ௧࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊྜἲⓗ࡞」〇ရࢆഇ㐀ရ࡜ྠᵝ࡟ᢅ࠺࡭ࡁ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ࡋࡓ ECJ ࡢุ᪨࡟ࡣࠕఱࡽྜ⌮ⓗ᰿ᣐࡀ࡞ ࡇࡢ ECJ ࡢุ᩿ࡣࠊⱥᅜ࡟࠾࠸࡚ዲពⓗ࡟ཷࡅṆࡵࡽࢀ࡞࠿ࡗࡓࠋJacob

࠸ࠖ࡜ࡶࡋࡓࠋ

ุ஦㸦Lord Justice Jacob㸧ࡣࠊECJ ࡢุ᩿ࡣྜἲ࡞➇த⾜Ⅽࢆ㜼ᐖࡋࠊࡲࡓ⿕࿌ࡢゝㄽࡢ⮬⏤ࢆ౵ᐖࡋࠊᾘ㈝⪅ࡀ➇ྜၟရ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢ᝟ሗࢆཷࡅྲྀ

 ECJ ࡢุ᩿ࡣࠊ࣐ࢵࢡࢫ࣭ࣉࣛࣥࢡ◊✲ᡤࡢ◊✲⪅࡟ࡼࡾ༶ᗙࡢᢈุࢆ

ࡿᶒ฼ࢆᦆ࡞࠺ࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜୺ᙇࡋࡓࠋ᭦࡟ྠุ஦ࡣࠊECJ ࡢ⪃࠼᪉ࡣཷࡅࡓࠋࡑࡢ◊✲⪅ࡣࠕࣇࣛࣥࢫࡢ⿢ุᡤࡣุ♧࡟㦫࠿࡞࠸࡛࠶ࢁ࠺ࡀࠊ

཯➇தⓗ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ホ౯ࡋࡓࠋ≉࡟ࠊᙼࡣࠕ➇தἲ࡟ᑐࡍࡿ೺඲࡞ែᗘࢆ

ⱥᅜࡢ⿢ุᐁ࡟࡜ࡗ࡚ࡣ⣡ᚓࡋ㞴࠸ෆᐜ࡛࠶ࡿࠖ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊ⿢ุᡤ࡟ࡼࡿ┿࡜ࡿ⡿ᅜࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᅜ࡛ࡣࠊ┿ᐇ࡟༶ࡋࡓᗈ࿌ࢆᢚᅽࡍࡿࡓࡵ࡟ၟᶆἲࢆ⏝ᐇࡢၟᴗⓗゝㄽ࡬ࡢつไ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ᢈุࡋࡓࠋ࠶ࡿ࣐ࢵࢡࢫ࣭ࣉࣛࣥࢡ◊࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊࡲࡓ᏶඲࡟ྜἲ࡞〇ရࢆᕷሙ࠿ࡽ᤼㝖ࡍࡿࡼ࠺࡞ࡇ࡜ࡣ

✲ᡤࡢ◊✲⪅ࡣࠊCAD ➨  ᮲ J ࡢᗫṆࢆ୺ᙇࡋࡓࠋJacob ุ஦ࡀᣦ᦬ࡋ

࡞࠸ࠖ࡜ࡋࡓࠋᙼࡣࠊECJ ࡀࠕ୙ṇ࡞ࠖ฼ࢆᚓࡿ࡜ࡣఱ࠿࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࢆ

ࡓ࡜࠾ࡾࠊECJ ࡢἲᘐពぢࡣ௚ࡢ᪉㠃࡛ࡶྠᵝ࡟ཝࡋࡃᢈุࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡏࡎࠊ⿢ุᡤࡢ⿕࿌ࡢࣅࢪࢿࢫ࡟ᑐࡍࡿ཯ឤࢆุ᩿࡟ᙳ㡪ࡉࡏࡓࡇ࡜ࢆ㠀㞴ࡋࡓࠋ

㹀ၟရ໬ᶒ㸦㻹㼑㼞㼏㼔㼍㼚㼐㼕㼟㼕㼚㼓㻌㻾㼕㼓㼔㼠㼟㸧 ↓チㅙࡢၟရ໬࡟㛵ࡍࡿ㆟ㄽࡢศᯒ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊ୙ṇ➇தࡢᗈ࠸ᴫᛕ࡜ࣃ
ࠕ⚾ࡣࠊᮏ௳࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊECJ ࡀ࠸ࢃࡺࡿࠗேẼ࡟౽஌࠘ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡢ
➇தⓗഃ㠃࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ㄽࡌ࡞࠿ࡗࡓࡇ࡜ࢆṧᛕ࡟ᛮ࠺ࠋࡇ࠺ࡋࡓ㠀㞴ࡵ
࠸ࡓẚ႘ⓗ࡞⾲⌧㸦ࠕࡓࡔ஌ࡾࠖ࡜ࡢ⾲⌧ࡶࡲࡓࡑ࠺࡛࠶ࡿ㸧ࡣࠊ⿕

Id. at ¶ 17.

Id. at ¶¶ 29-30.

࿌ࡢྲྀᘬ⾜Ⅽ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚᫂ⓑ࡞཯ឤࢆྵࢇ࡛࠸ࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊࡑ࠺ࡋ



Id. at ¶ 39.ࡓ⾲⌧ࡣྲྀᘬ⪅࡟ᑐࡋࠊఱࢆࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࠊఱࢆࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁ࡞



Annette Kur, Lionel A.F. Bently, Ansgar Ohly, Sweet Smells and a Sour Taste – The

ECJ’s L’Oreal Decision, Max Planck Institute for Intellectual Property, Competition & Tax
Law Research Paper No. 09-12, University of Cambridge Faculty of Law Research Paper

No. 10/01 (Aug. 17, 2009).



L’Oreal SA v. Bellure NV, C-487/07 (June 18, 2009), ¶¶ 73-74, 79.

Id. at ¶ 58.2011).



L’Oreal SA v. Bellure NV, [2010] EWCA Civ. 535, [2010] RPC 23 (May 21, 2010)Annette Kur, The Future of the Advertising Function (Max Planck Institute Mar. 23,
See, e.g., Darren Meale & Joel Smith, Enforcing a Trade Mark When Nobody’s Con-¶¶ 7-15.

fused: Where the Law Stands after L’Oreal and Intel, 5 Journal of Intellectual Property Law

Id. at ¶ 16-19.

& Practice 96, 103 (2010); Dev Gangjee & Robert Burrell, Because You’re Worth It:Id. at ¶ 20.L’Oreal and the Prohibition on Free Riding, 73 (2) Modern Law Review 282 (2010). ▱ⓗ㈈⏘ἲᨻ⟇Ꮫ◊✲ 9RO  ▱ⓗ㈈⏘ἲᨻ⟇Ꮫ◊✲ 9RO   ᕳ㢌ㄽᩥブ⛠㏻⏝ ࣃࢵࢩࣥࢢ࢜ࣇ ࡜୙ṇ➇த 㻸㼍㻲㼞㼍㼚㼏㼑 ࢵࢩࣥࢢ࢜ࣇࡢ⊃࠸࢔ࣉ࣮ࣟࢳࡢ㛫࡟ࠊ㢮ఝࡢ⥭ᙇ㛵ಀࡀᏑᅾࡍࡿࠋࡋ࠿

ࢆᦢྲྀࡍࡿ⾜Ⅽ࠿ࡽಖㆤࡉࢀࡿࠋ↓チㅙࡢၟရ໬࡟ᑐࡍࡿᩆ῭ᥐ⨨ࡣࠊࡋࠊᗄࡘ࠿ࡢࢥ࣮ࣔࣥࣟࡢἲᇦ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊࣃࢵࢩࣥࢢ࢜ࣇࡢᴫᛕࡣࠊࡼࡾ

࣮࢜ࢫࢺࣜ࢔࡟࠾࠸࡚≉࡟ᙉຊ࡛࠶ࡿࠋⱥᅜࢧࢵ࣮࢝ࢡࣛࣈࡢ࢚ࣥࣈ࣒ࣞ

୙ṇ➇தἲ࡟㏆௜࠸ࡓ᪉ྥ࡟ᣑ኱ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

ࡀ↓チㅙ࡛ၟရ໬࡟⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡓ஦᱌࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊ࣮࢜ࢫࢺࣜ࢔ࡢ᭱㧗⿢ุᡤࡣࠊࢡࣛࣈࡢ࢖࣓࣮ࢪ࡜ホุࢆᐤ⏕ⓗ࡟ᦢྲྀࡋࡓࡇ࡜࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊ⿕࿌ࡣἲ ୍⯡ⓗ࡟ゝࡗ࡚ࠊၟရ໬㸦merchandising㸧ࡢᴫᛕ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊၟရࡢฟ

ᚊୖࡢ㈐௵ࢆ㈇࠺࡜ࡋࡓࠋࡑࡢ㝿ࠊྠ⿢ุᡤࡣࠊᙜヱ࢚ࣥࣈ࣒ࣞࡀᾘ㈝⪅ᡤࢆ≉ᐃࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡼࡾࡶࠊᾘ㈝⪅ࡀᶆ❶࡟ὀពࢆྥࡅࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ฼⏝ࡍࡿࡇ࡟࡜ࡗ࡚㨩ຊⓗ࡛࠶ࡿ⌮⏤ࡣࠊ࢚ࣥࣈ࣒ࣞࡀࢡࣛࣈࡢ೧ᴗࢆ⾲ࢃࡍࡶࡢࡔ

࡜࡟≉࡟㔜Ⅼࡀ࠶ࡿࠋၟရ໬࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊ࠶ࡿ࣏ࣆ࣮ࣗࣛ࡞ᶆ❶ࢆࠊࡑࡢ࠿ࡽ࡛࠶ࡾࠊࡑࡋ࡚ࠊࡑࡢ೧ᴗࡢ㐩ᡂࡣࠊࢡࣛࣈࡢດຊ࡜ᨭฟ࡟ࡼࡿ⤖ᯝᶆ❶ࢆ᭷ྡ࡟ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿၟရ࡜ࡣูࡢၟရ࡟௜ࡍࡇ࡜ࡀࡋࡤࡋࡤ⾜ࢃࢀࡿ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆᙉㄪࡋࡓࠋ᭱㧗⿢ࡣࠊ➇ྜ㛵ಀ࡟࡞࠸ၟရࡸࢧ࣮ࣅࢫ࡟ࡘ

㸫౛࠼ࡤࠊ㹒ࢩࣕࢶ࡟ࣇ࢙࣮ࣛࣜࡢᶆ❶ࢆ௜ࡍࡀዴࡃ࡛࠶ࡿࠋၟရ໬ᶒࡣࠊ

࠸࡚ࡶࠊྠᵝࡢດຊᨭฟ㐩ᡂࡢ⌮ㄽࢆ୍㈏ࡋ࡚㐺⏝ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

Ⓩ㘓ࡉࢀࡓᶆ❶ཪࡣⓏ㘓ࡉࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸ᩘከࡃࡢᶆ❶࡟㛵ࡋ࡚୺ᙇࡉࢀᚓ

ࡿ㸫౛࠼ࡤࠊᫎ⏬ࡸࢸࣞࣅ␒⤌ࠊࣅࢹ࢜ࢤ࣮࣒ࡢࢱ࢖ࢺࣝࡀዴࡃ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ ࡋ࠿ࡋࠊ☜❧ࡉࢀࡓྡኌࢆᣢࡘᶆ❶࡟ᙉຊ࡞ಖㆤࢆ୚࠼࡚࠸ࡿ኱㝣ἲࡢࡑࡢ௚࡟ࡶࠊ㐠ື㑅ᡭࠊⱁ⬟ேࠊࡑࡢ௚ࡢⴭྡேࡢ⫝̸ീࡸྡ๓ࡀ࠶ࡾࠊᯫ

ᅜࠎ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡶࠊ౛እࡀᏑᅾࡍࡿࠋᖺࠊࢻ࢖ࢶࡢ㐃㑥㏻ᖖ⿢ุᡤ

✵ࡢே≀ࡢྡ๓ࡸ⫝̸ീࡢሙྜࡶ࠶ࡿࠋᗄࡘ࠿ࡢ஦౛࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊ↓チㅙࡢ

㸦Bundesgerichtshof㸧ࡣࠊ⿕࿌ࡀࠊࢢࣜࣝ㒊࡟࢜࣌ࣝ㸦Opel㸧ࡢࣟࢦ㸦Ⓩ㘓

ၟရ໬࡟࠾࠸࡚ⴭసᶒࡢ࠶ࡿ⏬㸦౛࠼ࡤࠊ࣑ࢵ࣮࣐࢟࢘ࢫࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᯫ✵ࡢၟᶆ࡛࠶ࡿ㸧ࢆ௜ࡋࡓ࣭࢜࣌ࣝ࢔ࢫࢺࣛࡢࣜࣔࢥࣥ⮬ື㌴ࢆ㈍኎ࡋࡓ஦౛

࢟ࣕࣛࢡࢱ࣮ࡢ⏬ࢆ⏝࠸ࡓሙྜ㸧ࡀၥ㢟࡟࡞ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࠶ࡾࠊࡑࡢࡼ࠺࡞ሙ

࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊࠕ୙ṇ࡞฼┈ࠖࡢྲྀᚓཪࡣΰྠࡢྍ⬟ᛶࡢ࠸ࡎࢀ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡶㄆ

ྜ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊⴭసᶒ࡜ၟᶆᶒࡢ཮᪉ࡀၥ㢟࡜࡞ࡾᚓࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊࡇࡇ࡛

ࡵࡽࢀ࡞࠸࡜ࡋࡓࠋࡍ࡞ࢃࡕࠊ㐃㑥㏻ᖖ⿢ุᡤࡣࠊࢻ࢖ࢶ࡟࠾࠸࡚ୡ

ࡣࠊ↓チㅙࡢၟရ໬࡟ࡼࡾ⏕ࡌࡿၟᶆᶒ㸦Ⓩ㘓ࡉࢀཪࡣⓏ㘓ࡉࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸

⣖ᮎ࠿ࡽࣞࣉࣜ࢝⮬ື㌴ࡢᕷሙࡀᏑᅾࡋࡓࡇ࡜ࢆ⪃៖ࡋࠊࡓ࡜࠼࢜࣌ࣝࡀ

ࡶࡢ㸧ࡢၥ㢟࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࡢࡳࠊ↔Ⅼࢆᙜ࡚ࡿࡇ࡜࡜ࡍࡿࠋ

⮬ື㌴࡜⋵ල࡟ࡘ࠸࡚Ⓩ㘓ၟᶆࢆ᭷ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡶࠊࢻ࢖ࢶࡢᾘ㈝⪅ࡣࠊᙜヱᶆ❶ࡣࠊ࣭࢜࣌ࣝ࢔ࢫࢺࣛࡢṇ☜࡞」〇ࢆࡍࡿࡓࡵ࡟ᚲせ࡞⿦㣭ࡢ୍ EU ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ኱㝣ἲࡢ࢔ࣉ࣮ࣟࢳࡢୗ࡛ࡣࠊၟᶆࠊⴭྡேࡸᯫ✵ࡢே≀㒊࡟㐣ࡂ࡞࠸࡜ㄆ㆑ࡍࡿ࡜⤖ㄽ௜ࡅࡓࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊ࠶ࡿ࣮ࣚࣟࢵࣃࡢุ౛ホࡢྡ๓ཪࡣ⫝̸ീࡢ↓チㅙࡢ౑⏝ࡣࠊࡓ࡜࠼ᾘ㈝⪅ࡀᙜヱ౑⏝࡟ࣛ࢖ࢭࣥࢫ

㔘࡛ࡣࠊࠕ㸦⋵ලࡢ㸧⮬ື㌴࡟㛵ࡍࡿぢ᪉ࡸࠊࠗᆅᇦࡢ࠘័⩦ࢆ⪃៖࡟ධࢀࡸࡑࡢ௚ࡢ⿬௜ࡅࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜ಙࡌࡿࡇ࡜ࡣ࡞࠸࡜ࡋ࡚ࡶࠊᶒ฼౵ᐖ࡜ࡋ࡚୺

ࡓሙྜࠖࠊ௚ࡢ኱㝣ἲࡢἲᇦ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊྠࡌ஦ᐇ㛵ಀ࡟࠾࠸ู࡚ࡢ⤖ㄽᙇࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀከ࠸ࠋ࡞ࡐ࡞ࡽ୙ṇ➇தἲࡢୗ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊ

ࡀୗࡉࢀᚓࡿࡇ࡜ࢆᣦ᦬ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

ࡇ࠺ࡋࡓ⾜Ⅽࡣᶆ❶ࡢಖ᭷⪅ࡸⴭྡேࡢホุ࡟ࣇ࣮ࣜࣛ࢖ࢻࡍࡿࡶࡢࡔ
࠿ࡽ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࣇࣛࣥࢫ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊࡓ࡜࠼୧ᙜ஦⪅㛫࡟➇ྜࡀᏑᅾࡋ࡞࠸
࡜ࡋ࡚ࡶࠊ↓チㅙࡢၟရ໬ࡣࠕᐤ⏕⾜Ⅽ㸦agissements parasitaires㸧ࠖࡢἲ⌮ࡢୗ࡛ฎ⌮ࡉࢀࡿࠋࢻ࢖ࢶ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊⓏ㘓ࡉࢀࡓᶆ❶࡜Ⓩ㘓ࡉࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸ᶆ❶ࡢ࠸ࡎࢀࡶࠊࡑࢀࡽࡀඃ㉺ⓗ࡞౯್ࢆ᭷ࡍࡿሙྜ࡟ࡣࠊࡑࡢホุ
Christian Schertz & Susanne Bergmann, Germany, in Ruisenaars, supra note 78, at

136-37.
Reinhard Schanda, Austria, in Ruisenaars, supra note 78, at 23 (discussing OGH

17.9.1996 – Football Association – OB1 1997, 83).


Id. at 23-24 (collecting cases).

Adam Opel AG v. Autec AG, Case 48/05, 2007 ECJ EUR-Lex LEXIS 1972; 2007 ECRI-01017 (Jan. 25, 2007); Opel-Blitz II, Case 1 ZR 88/08, Bundesgerichtshof (Jan. 14, 2010).

Patrick Martowicz, France, in Heijo Ruisenaars, Character Merchandising in Europe

121 (2003).

Birgit Clark, Bundesgerichtshof decides in the Opel/Autec car case, 5 J. Intell. Prop. L.

 ▱ⓗ㈈⏘ἲᨻ⟇Ꮫ◊✲ 9RO  ▱ⓗ㈈⏘ἲᨻ⟇Ꮫ◊✲ 9RO   

ᕳ㢌ㄽᩥ


 ᗄࡘ࠿ࡢ኱㝣ἲ⣔ࡢᅜࠎ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊ↓チㅙࡢၟရ໬ࡢ஦౛඲࡚࡟୙ṇブ⛠㏻⏝ ࣃࢵࢩࣥࢢ࢜ࣇ ࡜୙ṇ➇த 㻸㼍㻲㼞㼍㼚㼏㼑 ࡗࡓࠋࡲࡓࢫࣃ࢖ࢫ࣮࢞ࣝࢬ㸦the Spice Girls㸧ࡶࠊ⿕࿌ࡀᙼዪࡓࡕࡢ⫝̸➇தἲࢆཬࡰࡍࡶࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋ࡞ࡐ࡞ࡽࠊἲᚊୖࠊᙜ஦⪅㛫ࡢ➇த㛵ಀࡀീࢆࣇ࢕࣮ࢳ࣮ࣕࡋࡓࢫࢸࢵ࣮࢝ࢆ〇㐀ࡋࡓࡇ࡜ࢆࣃࢵࢩࣥࢢ࢜ࣇ࡟ၥ

せồࡉࢀࡓࡾࠊཪࡣࢭ࢝ࣥࢲ࣮࣑࣮ࣜࢽࣥࢢ㸦secondary meaning㸧ࡢせ௳࠺ࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁ࡞࠿ࡗࡓࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊ࠶ࡿⴭྡ࡞࣮ࣞࢩࣥࢢ࣮࢝ࡢࢻࣛ࢖ࣂ

ࡀㄢࡉࢀࡓࡾࡍࡿ࠿ࡽ࡛࠶ࡿࠋᅜ㝿▱ⓗ㈈⏘ಖㆤ༠఍㸦AIPPI㸧ࡣࠊࡇࢀ࣮ࡣࠊ࠶ࡿࣛࢪ࢜ᒁࡀࠊࡑࡢᗈ࿌࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡑࡢࢻࣛ࢖ࣂ࣮ࡢ⫝̸ീࢆ⏝࠸ࠊࡽࡢせ௳ࡢ⦡ࡾࢆゎࡃࡓࡵࠊࡇࢀࡽࡢᅜࠎ࡟ᑐࡋࠊ୙ṇ➇தἲࡢつᚊ⠊ᅖᙼࡀࡑࡢࣛࢪ࢜ᒁࢆᨭᣢࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ᬯ࡟♧ࡋࡓሙྜ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊࣃࢵࢩࣥࢢ

ࢆᣑ኱ࡍࡿࡼ࠺ᙉࡃാࡁ࠿ࡅ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

࢜ࣇࡢ㈐௵ࢆၥ࠺ࡇ࡜࡟ᡂຌࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ⿢ุᡤࡣࠊᾘ㈝⪅ࡀࠊࡑࡢࢻࣛ࢖

ࣂ࣮ࡀᙜヱᨺ㏦ᒁࢆᨭᣢࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ᐇ㝿࡟ಙࡌࡿ࡛࠶ࢁ࠺࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊࣃࢵࢩ ⱥᅜࡢࣃࢵࢩࣥࢢ࢜ࣇࡢἲ⌮࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊၟᶆࡣࠊࡑࢀࡀၟရཪࡣࢧ࣮

ࣥࢢ࢜ࣇࡢ୍✀࡛࠶ࡿ⹫ഇಖドࡢ⌮ㄽࢆ⏝࠸ࡓࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࢀࡽࡢࢣ࣮

ࣅࢫࡢฟᡤࢆഇࡿࡓࡵ࡟⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡓࡢ࡛࡞࠸㝈ࡾࠊ౵ᐖࡉࢀࡓࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡽ

ࢫࡀ♧ࡍࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ⹫ഇಖド࡜ࠕ༢࡞ࡿࠖၟᴗୖࡢ฼⏝࡜ࡢ㛫ࡢ⥺ᘬࡁࡣ㞴࡞࠸ࠋᖺ௦࡟࠾ࡅࡿ୍㐃ࡢุ౛ἲࡣࠊ↓チㅙࡢၟရ໬ࡣࠊᶆ❶ࡀၟရࡋ࠸ࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊ㏆᫬ࡢᖺࡢࢣ࣮ࢫ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊⱥᅜ⿢ุᡤࡣࠊⴭྡேࡢ

ฟᡤࢆ⾲ࢃࡍࡇ࡜࡞ࡋ࡟ᾘ㈝⪅ࢆᘬࡁ௜ࡅࡿሙྜ࡞ࡢ࡛ࠊࣃࢵࢩࣥࢢ࢜ࣇ

⫝̸ീࡢၟရ໬ᶒ࡟㛵ࡍࡿ୺ᙇ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ᣄ⤯ࢆ⥆ࡅ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

࡟࠶ࡓࡽ࡞࠸࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࢆ☜❧ࡋࡓࠋࡍ࡞ࢃࡕࠊࣃࢵࢩࣥࢢ࢜ࣇࡣࠊᙜヱᶆ❶ࢆチㅙࡋࡓᙜ஦⪅࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ရ㉁⟶⌮ࡀ࡞ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ᾘ㈝⪅ࡀ᥎ ୍⯡ⓗ࡟ゝࡗ࡚ࠊⱥᅜࡢ⿢ุᡤࡣࠊᯫ✵ࡢ࢟ࣕࣛࢡࢱ࣮ࡢၟရ໬ᶒࢆㄆ

ࡍࡿሙྜ࡛࡞࠸㝈ࡾᡂ❧ࡋ࡞࠸ࠋ⡿ᅜ࡜ࡣ␗࡞ࡾࠊⱥᅜ࡛ࡣࣃࣈࣜࢩࢸ

ࡵࡿࡓࡵ࡟ࣃࢵࢩࣥࢢ࢜ࣇࡢἲ⌮ࢆᣑᙇࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟ᾘᴟⓗ࡛࠶ࡿࠋⴭྡ࢕ࡢᶒ฼ࡣㄆࡵࡽࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࠋࡑࢀᨾ࡟ࠊⱥᅜࡢ⿢ุᡤࡣࠊⴭྡேࡢྡ๓

ேࡢྡ๓ࡸ⫝̸ീࢆ⏝࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡣࠊ࠶ࡿ〇ရࡢಖド࡟⤖ࡧ௜ࡃሙྜࡶ࠶ࢁ࠺

ࡸ⫝̸ീࡢ↓チㅙࡢၟᴗⓗ฼⏝࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊἲᚊୖࡢᶒ฼⾜౑ࢆ୍⯡ⓗ࡟ㄆࡵ

࡚࠾ࡽࡎࠊࡓ࡜࠼ཎ࿌ࡀࠕ⹫ഇಖド㸦false endorsement㸧ࠖࡢ୍✀࡛࠶ࡿ࠿

Lyngstad v. Anabas Prods., Ltd., [1977] RPC 275.



See Halliwell v. Panini (Lightman, J.) ( June 6, 1997) (unreported); BBC Worldwide Ltd.

ࡢࡼ࠺࡟⿦ࡗ࡚୺ᙇࡋࡓ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡶࠊᴫࡋ࡚ࡇࢀࢆㄆࡵ࡞࠸ࠋ౛࠼ࡤࠊ࢔࣮
ࢭࢼ࣭ࣝࣇࢵࢺ࣮࣎ࣝࢡࣛࣈࡢྡ⛠࡜࢚ࣥࣈ࣒ࣞࡣࠊᛅㄔࢆ♧ࡍࣂࢵࢪ࡜
ࡋ࡚⾰᭹࡟⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡓ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡶ౵ᐖࡉࢀ࡞࠸ࠋ⿢ุᡤࡣࠊᾘ㈝⪅ࡀၟရࡢv. Pally Screen Printing, [1998] FSR 665 ᙜヱࢫࢸࢵ࣮࢝࡟ࠕ↓チㅙࠖ࡜⾲グࡋ࡞࠿ࡗࡓࡇ࡜ࡣࠊチㅙࢆཷࡅࡓၟရ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ࡢ㯲♧ࡢ୙ᐇ⾲♧ࢆࡋࡓࡇ࡜࡟ࡣ࡞ࡽ࡞࠸
࡜ࡋࡓ .

〇㐀࡟ࡘ࠸࡚࢔࣮ࢭࢼࣝࡀ㈐௵ࢆ㈇࠺ࡶࡢ࡜ㄆ㆑ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡣ࡞࠸࡜ᤊ࠼

࡚࠸ࡿࠋྠᵝࡢ⌮⏤࡛ࠊ㡢ᴦࢢ࣮ࣝࣉࡢ࢔ࣂ㸦Abba㸧ࡣࠊᙼࡽࡢ࢖࣓࣮

mouth, Eddie, Are You OK? Product Endorsement and Passing Off, [2002] IPQ 306.

ࢪࡀ㹒ࢩࣕࢶࡸࡑࡢ௚ࡢ〇ရ࡟౑ࢃࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ㜵Ṇࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁ࡞࠿

Irvine v. Talksport, Ltd., [2002] FSR 60, aff’d, [2003] EWCA Civ. 423; see M. LearElvis Presley Enters., Inc. v. Sid Shaw Elvisly Yours, [1999] RPC 567, 597-98.㤶ࡢ⿢ุᡤࡣࠊLau Tak Andy v. Hang Seng Bank Ltd., [2000] 1 HKC 280 ࡟࠾࠸࡚㢮ఝࡢࣝ

࣮ࣝ࡟ᚑࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡢࢣ࣮ࢫ࡛ࡣࠊࢡࣞࢪࢵࢺ࣮࢝ࢻୖ࡟ⴭྡேࡢ࢖࣓࣮ࢪࢆ⏝& Prac. 213-214 (2010).࠸ࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢᕪṆࡵࡀㄆࡵࡽࢀ࡞࠿ࡗࡓࠋࡑࡢ⌮⏤࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊࡇࡢሙྜࡣࠊᙜ

Ruijsenaars, supra note 78, at 8.

ヱⴭྡேࡀࡑࡢ࣮࢝ࢻࢆᨭᣢࡋཪࡣࣛ࢖ࢭࣥࢫࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆබ⾗࡟ᥦ♧ࡋࡓࡇ

Id. at 9.

࡜࡟࡞ࡽ࡞࠸࠿ࡽ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋTaverner Rutledge v. Trexpalm, [1977] RPC 275; Lyngstad v. Anabas, [1977] FSR 62;ከࡃࡢ஦౛୰ࣃࢵࢩࣥࢢ࢜ࣇࡢᡂ❧ࢆྰᐃࡋࡓࡶࡢ࡜ࡋ࡚௨ୗࡀ࠶ࡿ: McCul-

Wombles Ltd. v. Sombles Skips Ltd., [1977] RPC 99.loch v. May [1948] 65 RPC 58 (radio character); Conan Doyle v. London Mystery Maga-$rsenal Football Club v. Reed, [2000] RPC 46; see also BBC Worldwide v. Pally Screen

zine, Ltd. [1949] 66 RPC 312 (Sherlock Holmes); Wombles v. Womble Skip [1977] RPC

Printing, [1998] FSR 665, 674 㹒ࢩࣕࢶ࡟ࢸࣞࢱࣅ࣮ࢬ Teletubbies ࡢ࢖࣓࣮ࢪࢆ

99 (Wombles of Wimbledon); Lygnstad v. Anabas, [1977] FSR 62 (ABBA group); BBC௜ࡋࡓ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡶࠊᾘ㈝⪅ࡣฟᡤࡢ⾲♧ࡸಖド࡜ཷࡅྲྀࡿࡇ࡜ࡣ࡞࠸࡜ㄆᐃ .

Worldwide v. Pally Screen Printing, [1998] FSR 665 (Teletubbies).

 ▱ⓗ㈈⏘ἲᨻ⟇Ꮫ◊✲ 9RO  ▱ⓗ㈈⏘ἲᨻ⟇Ꮫ◊✲ 9RO   ᕳ㢌ㄽᩥブ⛠㏻⏝ ࣃࢵࢩࣥࢢ࢜ࣇ ࡜୙ṇ➇த 㻸㼍㻲㼞㼍㼚㼏㼑 ࡀࠊࡑ࠺ࡋࡓ㆟ㄽࡣࠊᯫ✵ࡢ࢟ࣕࣛࢡࢱ࣮ࡢྡ๓ࡸ⫝̸ീࡀ⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡓሙྜ ⡿ᅜ࡟࠾࠸࡚㏻⏝ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠊࡼࡾࣜ࣋ࣛࣝ࡞ࣃࢵࢩࣥࢢ࢜ࣇࡢ⪃࠼᪉ࡣࠊ࡟ࡣࠊࡼࡾ㞴ࡋࡃ࡞ࡿࠋ࡞ࡐ࡞ࡽࠊࡑ࠺ࡋࡓ࢟ࣕࣛࢡࢱ࣮ࡣᯫ✵ࡢᏑᅾ࡛↓チㅙࡢၟရ໬⾜Ⅽ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊࡓ࡜࠼ᾘ㈝⪅ࡀ⿕࿌ၟရࡢᐇ㝿ࡢฟᡤࡣၟ

࠶ࡾࠊᯫ✵࡛࠶ࡿࡀᨾ࡟ࠊ〇ရࢆᩥᏐ࡝࠾ࡾ࡟ࠕಖドࠖࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡣ୙ྍ⬟ᶆᶒ⪅㸦ཪࡣⴭྡே㸧࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ಙࡌࡿྍ⬟ᛶࡀ࡞࠸࡜ࡋ࡚ࡶࠊ⹫ഇಖドࡢࡔ࠿ࡽ࡛࠶ࡿ ࠋ㛗࠸㛫ࠊⱥᅜࡢ⿢ุᡤࡣࠊཎ࿌࡜⿕࿌ࡀࠕඹ㏻ࡢάືࡢ

⌮ㄽࡢୗ࡛ἲᚊୖࡢ୺ᙇࢆࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀࠊ୍⯡ⓗ࡟ྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ࡍࡿࠋࡇ࠺

ሙࠖࢆ᭷ࡋ࡚࠸࡞࠸࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊ࢟ࣕࣛࢡࢱ࣮ࡢၟရ໬࡟㛵ࡍࡿᶒ฼୺ᙇࢆᣄ

ࡋࡓ᭱ࡶᗈ⠊࡞ࣃࢵࢩࣥࢢ࢜ࣇࡢ㐺⏝ࢆㄆࡵࡓࡢࡣࠊ኱Ꮫࡀ↓チㅙࡢၟရ⤯ࡋ࡚ࡁࡓࠋࡼࡾ᭱㏆࡟࡞ࡾࠊⱥᅜࡢ⿢ุᡤࡣࠕඹ㏻ࡢάືࡢሙࠖࡢつ࡟࠾࠸࡚≉ᐃࡢⰍᙬཬࡧグ❶ࢆ⏝࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ⚗ࡌࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿ࡜ࡋࡓ

ไࢆ⦆ࡵ࡚ࡁ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊ⿕࿌ࡀࠊ౛࠼ࡤᙜヱၟရࡣࠕබᘧࠖ࡞ၟရ➨  ᕠᅇ༊᥍ッ⿢ุᡤ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ⿢ุᡤࡣࠊᾘ㈝⪅ࡀࠊ㉎ධࡋࡓᙜヱၟရࡀ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜⾲♧ࡍࡿ࡞࡝ࡢ᪉ἲ࡛࢟ࣕࣛࢡࢱ࣮฼⏝࡟ࡘ࠸࡚チㅙࢆཷࡅ࡚

බᘧ࡟኱Ꮫ࠿ࡽࣛ࢖ࢭࣥࢫࢆཷࡅ࡚࠸ࡿ࠿࡝࠺࠿Ẽ࡟࠿ࡅ࡞࠸࡛࠶ࢁ࠺

࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ✚ᴟⓗ࡟⾲♧ࡋ࡞࠸㝈ࡾࠊ⿢ุᡤࡣ࡞࠾୙ᐇ⾲♧ࡢ୺ᙇࢆ㏥ࡅ

ࡇ࡜ࢆㄆࡵ࡞ࡀࡽࡶࠊᾘ㈝⪅ࡀᙜヱၟရࡣࣛ࢖ࢭࣥࢫࢆཷࡅ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜⌧࡟࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊࡇ࠺ࡋࡓែᗘࡶኚ໬ࢆぢࡏࡘࡘ࠶ࡿࠋᖺࡢ Mirageಙࡌࡿ࡛࠶ࢁ࠺࡜ࡋࡓࠋ⿢ุᡤࡀࠕࡓࡔ஌ࡾ㸦free riding㸧ࠖ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ゝཬ

Studios v. Counter-Feat Clothing Co., Ltd. ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊⱥᅜ⿢ุᡤࡣࠊࢸ࢕࣮ࣥ

ࡋࡓࡇ࡜ࡣࠊࣃࢵࢩࣥࢢ࢜ࣇ࡟㛵ࡍࡿᗈ࠸ほᛕࡀࠊ୙ṇ➇தࡢᴫᛕࡢᙳ㡪࢚࢖ࢪ࣭࣑࣮ࣗࢱࣥࢺ࣭ࢽࣥࢪ࣭ࣕࢱ࣮ࢺࣝࢬ㸦the Teenage Mutant Ninjaࢆᙉࡃཷࡅ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ♧၀ࡍࡿࠋ

Turtles㸧ࢆ⾰᭹࡟↓チㅙ࡛⏝࠸ࡓሙྜ࡟ࠊࣃࢵࢩࣥࢢ࢜ࣇࡀᡂ❧ࡍࡿ࡜ุ᩿ࡋࡓࠋ⿢ุᡤࡣࠊබ⾗ࡢ኱㒊ศࡣࠊ࢟ࣕࣛࢡࢱ࣮ၟရࡢ⏕⏘࡟ࡣ୍⯡ⓗࠕ⿕࿌ࡀᙜヱ኱Ꮫࡢ࣮࢝ࣛ࡜グ❶ࢆ౑⏝ࡋࡓ⾜Ⅽࡣࠊ኱Ꮫ࡜㛵ಀࡀ࠶࡟ࣛ࢖ࢭࣥࢫ㛵ಀࡀᏑᅾࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࢆㄆ㆑ࡋ࡚࠾ࡾࠊࡑࢀᨾ࡟ࠊࡓ࡜࠼ᙜ᫬

ࡿ࠿ࡢࡼ࠺࡞㘒ぬࢆ⏕ࡌࡉࡏࡿࡓࡵࡢࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࠊࡑ࠺ࡋࡓ

࢟ࣕࣛࢡࢱ࣮ࡢᶒ฼⪅ࡀⱥᅜ࡛ࣛ࢖ࢭࣥࢫάືࢆ⾜ࡗ࡚࠸࡞࠿ࡗࡓ࡜ࡋ

⾜Ⅽࡣࠊ኱Ꮫࣇࢵࢺ࣮࣎ࣝࢳ࣮࣒࡬ࡢᨭᣢࡸࢳ࣮࣒࡜ࡢ㛵ಀᛶࢆ♧ࡋ࡚ࡶࠊ⿕࿌ၟရࡣࣛ࢖ࢭࣥࢫࢆཷࡅ࡚࠸ࡿࡶࡢ࡜බ⾗ࡀಙࡌࡿྍ⬟ᛶࡀ࠶ࡓ࠸࡜ᮃࢇ࡛࠸ࡿࣇ࢓ࣥ࡟࠾࠸࡚ΰྠࢆ⏕ࡌࡉࡏࠊࡘࡲࡿ࡜ࡇࢁࠊࡑ

ࡿࠊ࡜ࡋࡓࠋุ౛ホ㔘࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊ࢟ࣕࣛࢡࢱ࣮ࢆฟᡤ⾲♧࡜ࡋ࡚⏝࠸ࡢΰྠ࡟ࡓࡔ஌ࡾࡋ࡚฼┈ࢆᚓࡿࡶࡢ࡜ゝ࠼ࡿࠋᾘ㈝⪅ࡢ㢌ࡢ୰࡛ࠊ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜࡜ࠊ࢟ࣕࣛࢡࢱ࣮ࢆ༢࡞ࡿ〇ရࡢ⿦㣭࡜ࡋ࡚⏝࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡢ༊ู

㹒ࢩࣕࢶ࡜኱Ꮫ࡜ࡢ㛫࡟㛵㐃௜ࡅࢆࡉࡏࠊࡑࡇ࠿ࡽ┤᥋࡟฼┈ࢆᚓࡼࡀᅔ㞴࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀᣦ᦬ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ ࠋࡇࢀࡣ๓グࡢ⹫ഇಖド࡜ⴭྡேࡢ

࠺࡜ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡣࠊࠗ␲࠸ࡼ࠺ࡢ࡞࠸ḭ▇ࡢ࣮࢜ࣛ࠘ࡀᏑᅾࡋࠊΰྠ

⫝̸ീࡢ༢࡞ࡿၟᴗୖࡢ฼⏝࡜ࡢ㛫ࡢ༊ูࡀᅔ㞴࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜࡜ྠᵝ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ

ࡢྍ⬟ᛶࢆᖐ⤖ࡍࡿ㹿㺁





See Carty, supra note 4, at 291.

ࡓ࡜࠼㠀㢮ఝࡢၟရ࡛࠶ࡗ࡚ࡶⓏ㘓ࡉࢀࡓᶆ❶ࡢ౑⏝ࢆ⚗ࡌࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿ࡜ࡋ



See id. at 294-95 (collecting cases).

࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡑࡢせ௳ࡣࠊ  ᙜヱᶆ❶ࡀ♫఍ⓗホ౯ࢆ᭷ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࠊཬࡧ  ᙜヱElvis Presley Trade Marks, [1997] RPC 543, 558 (Laddie, J.); Wilkie v. McCulloch,ᶆ❶ࡢ౑⏝ࡀࠕ୙ṇ࡞฼ࢆᚓࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡾࠊཪࡣၟᶆࡢྡኌࡸ≉᭷ࡢᛶ㉁࡟ᦆᐖࢆ

[1823] 2 S. 413; Arsenal FC plc v. Reed, [2001] RPC 922 (Laddie, J.) ⿕࿌ࡣࡑࡢၟရࡀ

୚࠼ࡿࠖࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࠊ࡛࠶ࡿࠋCarty, supra note 4, at 292.ࡋ࠿ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽࠊࡇࡢ

࢔࣮ࢭࢼࣝࡢ࢜ࣇ࢕ࢩࣕࣝࢢࢵࢬ࡛࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࢆ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡋ࡚࠸ࡓࡢ࡛ࠊࣃࢵࢩࣥࢢ

ᩥゝࡣࠊຍ┕ᅜ࡟ࡑ࠺ࡋࡓᢅ࠸ࡢ⩏ົࢆ㈇ࢃࡏࡿࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊࡑ࠺ࡋࡓᢅ࠸ࢆチᐜ࢜ࣇࡣᡂ❧ࡋ࡞࠸ ; see Hector MacQueen, Charlotte Waelde, Graeme Laurie, Contem-

ࡍࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡾࠊࡲࡓࠊⓏ㘓ࡉࢀࡓᶆ❶࡟ࡢࡳ㐺⏝ࡉࢀࡿ࡜࠸࠺Ⅼ࡟ὀពࡍ

porary Intellectual Property: Law and Policy 779 (2011).࡭ࡁ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ

Mirage Studios v. Counter-Feat Clothing Co., Ltd., [1991] FSR 145.



Carty, supra note 4, at 293.

ᅇࡋࡣࠊྠ⿢ุᡤ࡟࠾࠸࡚ඛࡔࡗุ࡚᩿ࡉࢀࡓ୍⠇࡜ྠᵝ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡑࡢඛ౛࡜ࡣࠊ

ⱥᅜࡣࠊEU ၟᶆᣦ௧ࡢ➨  ᮲  ࢆ㑂Ᏺࡍࡿࡓࡵ࡟ࠊၟရ໬ᶒࡢಖㆤࢆᗈࡆ࡞ࡅ

Boston Professional Hockey Ass'n v. Dallas Cap & Emblem Mfg., 510 F.2d 1004 (5th Cir.

ࢀࡤ࡞ࡽ࡞࠸ࡔࢁ࠺࡜ᣦ᦬ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡓࠋ➨  ᮲  ࡣࠊຍ┕ᅜࡣࠊ୍ᐃࡢሙྜ࡟ࠊ

1975) ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢ஦௳࡟࠾࠸࡚⿢ุᡤࡣࠊࣃࢵࢳ࡟௚⪅ࡢၟᶆࢆ௜ࡋ࡚㈍኎ࡍࡿ ▱ⓗ㈈⏘ἲᨻ⟇Ꮫ◊✲ 9RO  

Louisiana State Univ. v. Smack Apparel, 550 F.3d 465, 484-85 (5th Cir. 2008).ࡇࡢゝ࠸▱ⓗ㈈⏘ἲᨻ⟇Ꮫ◊✲ 9RO   ᕳ㢌ㄽᩥブ⛠㏻⏝ ࣃࢵࢩࣥࢢ࢜ࣇ ࡜୙ṇ➇த 㻸㼍㻲㼞㼍㼚㼏㼑  ࡋ࠿ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽࠊ㐃㑥⿢ุᡤࡢ㛫࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡶࠊᗄࡘ࠿ࡢゎ㔘ࡢ┦㐪ࡀ⏕ࡌࢆ᥇⏝ࡍࡿ࠿ᮍࡔỴࡵ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࠋ↓チㅙࡢၟရ໬࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠊᗄࡘ࠿ࡢ┦࡚࠸ࡿࠋከࡃࡢ⿢ุᡤ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊࡇࢀࡽࡢ஦௳࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊΰྠࡢྍ⬟ᛶ཯ࡍࡿุ౛ἲࡀᏑᅾࡍࡿࠋࡑࡢ࠺ࡕࡢᗄࡘ࠿ࡢ஦౛࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊ⿢ุᡤࡣ

ࢆ᥎ᐃࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊูࡢ⿢ุᡤ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊᾘ㈝⪅ࡀᙜヱᶆ❶ࢆ༢࡞ࡿ኱㝣ἲࡢ࢔ࣉ࣮ࣟࢳ࡟㏆࠸᪉ἲࢆ᥇⏝ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡍ࡞ࢃࡕࠊࡑࢀࡽࡢࢣ࣮

⿦㣭ࡸࢳ࣮࣒࡬ࡢᛅㄔࢆ⾲ࢃࡍࣂࢵࢪ࡜ࡋ࡚ㄆ㆑ࡍࡿ࡛࠶ࢁ࠺ሙྜ࡟ࡣࠊ

ࢫ࡛ࡣࠊࡓ࡜࠼ᾘ㈝⪅ࡀཎ࿌࡜⿕࿌࡜ࡢ㛫࡟ၟᴗୖࡢྲྀỴࡵࡀᏑᅾࡍࡿ࡜

౵ᐖ࡟ࡣ࡞ࡽ࡞࠸࡜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋᗄࡘ࠿ࡢ⿢ุᡤ࡛ࡣࠊᶆ❶ࡢࠕᶵ⬟ⓗࠖ౑ಙࡌࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡞࠸࡜ࡋ࡚ࡶࠊᾘ㈝⪅ࡀ⿕࿌ࡢၟရ࡜ᶆ❶ࡢಖ᭷⪅࡜ࡢ㛫࡟⏝ࡢ౛እࢆ㐺⏝ࡋ ࠊ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣฟᡤ࡞࠸ࡋᚋ᥼ྡ⩏ࡢΰྠࡢྍ⬟ᛶࡀ࡞࠸ఱࡽ࠿ࡢ㛵㐃௜ࡅࢆࡍࡿሙྜ࡟ࡣࠊᶒ฼⪅ࡀἲⓗᥐ⨨ࢆồࡵࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁ

ࡇ࡜ࢆㄆᐃࡋ࡚ࠊྠᵝࡢ⤖ㄽࢆᑟ࠸࡚࠸ࡿ ࠋࡿ࡜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ ࣮࢜ࢫࢺࣛࣜ࢔ࡣࠊࣃࢵࢩࣥࢢ࢜ࣇࡢཝ᱁࡞ゎ㔘࡜ᰂ㌾࡞ゎ㔘ࡢ࠸ࡎࢀ ࡋ࠿ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽࠊᾘ㈝⪅ࡀㄆ㆑ࡍ࡭ࡁ㛵㐃௜ࡅࡢᛶ㉁࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊ࣮࢜ࢫࢺ



ࣛࣜ࢔ࡢ⿢ุᡤ㛫࡛ពぢࡢ୍⮴ࡀᮍࡔぢࡽࢀ࡞࠸ࠋᖺࡢ஦௳࡛࠶ࡿ

ࡇ࡜ࡣࠊࡓ࡜࠼ᙜヱࣃࢵࢳࡀ௚ࡢၟရ࡟᪤࡟௜ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡶࡢ࡛࡞ࡃ࡜ࡶࠊၟᶆᶒ

Henderson v. Radio Corp. Pty. Ltd.࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊࢽ࣮ࣗࢧ࢘ࢫ࢙࣮࢘ࣝࢬ᭱㧗౵ᐖ࡜࡞ࡿ࡜ࡋࡓࠋ⿢ุᡤࡣࠊࣃࢵࢳ⮬యࡀ౵ᐖရ࡞ࡢ࡛࠶ࡾࠊࡼࡗ࡚ᾘ㈝⪅ࡀࣃࢵࢳࡢฟᡤ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ΰྠࡍࡿ࠿࡝࠺࠿ࡣࠕ↓㛵ಀ࡛ࠖ࠶ࡿ࡜ࡋࡓࠋࠕࢳ࣮࣒࡟⏤᮶ࡍࡿၟᶆࡀ࢚ࣥࣈ࣒ࣞࡢ㈍኎ࢆྍ⬟࡜ࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿሙྜ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊᾘ㈝⪅ࡢΰྠࡣ࢚ࣥࣈ࣒ࣞ⮬యࡢ〇㐀ඖ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚⏕ࡌࡿࡶࡢ࡛࡞ࡅࢀࡤ࡞ࡽ࡞࠸࡜ࡢ㆟ㄽࡣㄝ⿢ุᡤࡣࠊࣞࢥ࣮ࢻࢪࣕࢣࢵࢺ࡟  ேࡢࢲࣥࢧ࣮ࡢ࢖࣓࣮ࢪࢆ↓チㅙ࡛⏝࠸ࡓࡇ࡜࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠊᾘ㈝⪅ࡀࢲࣥࢧ࣮ࡓࡕࡀࣞࢥ࣮ࢹ࢕ࣥࢢ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ᢎ
ㄆࡋࠊཪࡣࡇࢀࢆᨭᣢࡋࡓ࡜ཷࡅྲྀࡿࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡿ࠿ࡽࠊࣃࢵࢩࣥࢢ࢜ࣇ࡜

ᚓຊࡀ࡞࠸ࠋࠖSmack Apparel, 510 F.2d at 1012. Accord, Boston Athletic Ass’n v. Sullivan,࡞ࡿ࡜ࡋࡓࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊࡇࡢ஦௳࡛⿢ุᡤࡣ᭦࡟ࡶ࠺୍Ṍ㐍ࡵࡓุ᩿ࢆࡋࡓࠋ

867 F.2d 22 (1st Cir. 1989).ࡍ࡞ࢃࡕࠊࢲࣥࢧ࣮ࡢホุࡀ୙ἲ࡟ὶ⏝ࡉࢀࡓ࡜ࡋࡓࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢࠕ୙



Smack Apparel, 550 F.3d at 484-85; Boston Athletic Ass'n v. Sullivan, 867 F.2d 22 (1stἲ࡞ὶ⏝ࡢἲ⌮ࠖࡣࠊ⡿ᅜ࡛ㄆࡵࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࣃࣈࣜࢩࢸ࢕ᶒ࡟┦ᙜࡍࡿࡶCir. 1989); University of Georgia Athletic Ass'n v. Laite, 756 F.2d 1535 (11th Cir. 1985);ࡢ࡛࠶ࡾࠊ᭦࡟୙ṇ➇தไᗘ࡟࠾ࡅࡿࠕ୙ᙜ฼ᚓࠖࡸࠕࣇ࣮ࣜࣛ࢖ࢹ࢕ࣥ

Boston Professional Hockey Ass'n v. Dallas Cap & Emblem Mfg., 510 F.2d 1004 (5th Cir.

ࢢࠖࡢἲ⌮ࢆᙸᙿ࡜ࡉࡏࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊࡇࢀࡼࡾᚋࡢ஦౛࡟࠾࠸

1975).
See, e.g., International Organization of Job's Daughters v. Lindenburg and Co., 633 F.2d

࡚ࡣࠊ↓チㅙࡢ࢟ࣕࣛࢡࢱ࣮ࡢ࢖࣓࣮ࢪࡸᫎ⏬ࡢ᭷ྡ࡞ࢩ࣮ࣥࢆ↓チㅙ࡛

912, 917-19 (9th Cir. 1980); University of Pittsburgh v. Champion Prods., Inc., 566 F. Supp.

ၟရ໬ࡋࡓሙྜ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊᾘ㈝⪅ࢆࡋ࡚ࣛ࢖ࢭࣥࢫྜពࡀᏑᅾࡍࡿ࡜ㄗಙ

711, 720-21 (C.D. Pa. 1983).➨  ᕠᅇ༊᥍ッ⿢ุᡤࡣࠊᙜึࠊJob’s Daughters ࡢศᯒࡉࡏࡿྍ⬟ᛶࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࠊࡼࡾ⊃࠸⹫ഇಖドࡢㄽ⌮ࡀ⏝࠸ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

ᡭἲࢆ⏝࠸࡚ࠊFleischer Studios, Inc. v. A.V.E.L.A., Inc., 636 F.3d 1115 (9 Cir. 2011)࡟



࠾ࡅࡿ “Betty Boop” ࡢ࢟ࣕࣛࢡࢱ࣮ࢆ⏝࠸ࡓၟရ໬ᶒ౵ᐖࡢ୺ᙇࢆ㏥ࡅ࡚࠸ࡓࠋࡋ



th

See Hogan v. Koala Dundee, 12 IPR 508 (1988) ᫎ⏬ࠕࢡࣟࢥࢲ࢖ࣝࢲࣥࢹ࢕࣮

࠿ࡋࠊᚋ࡟⌮⏤ࢆ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡋ࡞࠸ࡲࡲࡇࡢ㒊ศࡢពぢࢆ᧔ᅇࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋFleischer

Crocodile Dundee㸧࡛࣏࣮࣭࣮ࠖࣝ࣍࢞ࣥ Paul Hogan ࡀ₇ࡌࡓ࢟ࣕࣛࢡࢱ࣮࡟ᐦ

Studios, Inc. v. A.V.E.L.A., Inc., 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 17220 (Aug. 19, 2011). Fleischer᥋࡟㛵ಀࡋ࡚࠸ࡓ࢔࢖ࢸ࣒ࢆᶍೌࡋࡓᗑෆ⿦㣭㸦ࢺ࣮ࣞࢻࢻࣞࢫ㸧࡟ࡘ࠸࡚⹫ഇಖ

Studios ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ᧔ᅇࡉࢀࡓពぢࡣࠊࣃࣈࣜࢵࢡࢻ࣓࢖ࣥ࡟ᒓࡍࡿ࢟ࣕࣛࢡࢱ࣮ࡢ࢖

ドࡢᡂ❧ࢆㄆࡵࡓ; Pacific Dunlop v. Hogan, 87 ALR 14 (1987) ࢡࣟࢥࢲ࢖ࣝࢲࣥࢹ

࣓࣮ࢪࡢၟရ໬࡟ࡲ࡛ၟᶆࡢಖㆤࢆཬࡰࡍࡇ࡜ࡣࠊⴭసᶒಖㆤᮇ㛫࡟ࡼࡿಖㆤࡢ㝈࢕࣮ࡢࢩ࣮ࣥࢆ┿ఝࡓᗈ࿌࡟ࡘࡁࠊၟᴗୖࡢฟᡤࡢ୙ᐇ⾲♧ࡀᡂ❧ࡍࡿ࡜ࡋࡓ ;ᐃࢆᅇ㑊ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡿ࡛࠶ࢁ࠺࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡶ㆙࿌ࡋ࡚࠸ࡓࠋFleischer

Henderson v. Radio Corp. Pty., Ltd., [1960] SR (NSW) 576 ࣞࢥ࣮ࢻࡢࢪࣕࢣࢵࢺ࡟ࢲ

Studios, 636 F.3d at 1124.

ࣥࢧ࣮ࡢ⫝̸ീࡀ⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡓ஦౛࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊ⹫ഇಖドࡢᡂ❧ࢆㄆࡵࡓ .

Board of Governors of Univ. of North Carolina v. Helpingstine, 714 F. Supp. 167, 173[1960] SR (NSW) 576 㺀ඹ㏻ࡢάືࡢሙࠖࡢせ௳ࢆྰᐃ .

(M.D.N.C. 1989); University of Pittsburgh v. Champion Prods., Inc., 566 F. Supp. 711,

See, e.g., Children’s Television Workshop Inc. v. Woolworths (NSW) Ltd. [1981] 1

719-20 (C.D. Pa. 1983).

NSWLR 273 㺀ࢭࢧ࣑ࢫࢺ࣮ࣜࢺ Sesame Street㸧ࠖࡢ࢟ࣕࣛࢡࢱ࣮ࢆ↓チㅙ࡛⋵ල ▱ⓗ㈈⏘ἲᨻ⟇Ꮫ◊✲ 9RO  ▱ⓗ㈈⏘ἲᨻ⟇Ꮫ◊✲ 9RO   ᕳ㢌ㄽᩥブ⛠㏻⏝ ࣃࢵࢩࣥࢢ࢜ࣇ ࡜୙ṇ➇த 㻸㼍㻲㼞㼍㼚㼏㼑 ᫎ⏬ࠕࢡࣟࢥࢲ࢖ࣝࢲࣥࢹ࢕࣮㸦Crocodile Dundee㸧ࠖࡢၟရ໬ᶒ࡟㛵ࡍࡿࡓࢸࣞࣅᗈ࿌࡟㛵ࡋ࡚ࣃࢵࢩࣥࢢ࢜ࣇࡀၥ㢟࡜࡞ࡗࡓ஦౛࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊྠࡌ

ᖺࡢ⿢ุ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊ࣮࢜ࢫࢺࣛࣜ࢔㐃㑥⿢ุᡤࡣࠊ⹫ഇಖドࡢἲ⌮ࢆ⿢ุᡤ࡟࠾࠸࡚῝࠸ពぢࡢ┦㐪ࢆぢࡿࡇ࡜࡜࡞ࡗࡓࠋSheppard ุ஦ࡣࠊどࠕᢏᕦⓗ࡛ࠖ࠶ࡿ࡜ࡋ࡚ᢈุࡋࠊࡲࡓၟရ໬࡟㛵ࡍࡿἲ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚බ⾗ࡢㄆ⫈⪅ࡣࠕ࣮࣍࢞ࣥẶࡀࡑࡢᗈ࿌࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ᢎㅙࡋཪࡣチㅙࡋࡓ࡜ࡣྜ⌮ⓗ࡟㆑㸦ཪࡣㄗࡗࡓㄆ㆑㸧࡟㐣ᗘ࡟౫Ꮡࡍࡿ≧ἣ࡟⨨ࡃࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ࡋࡓ ࠋ⤖ㄽࡋ࡞࠸ࠖ࠿ࡽࠊࣃࢵࢩࣥࢢ࢜ࣇࡢ୺ᙇࡣㄆࡵࡽࢀ࡞࠸࡜ࡋࡓࠋ௚ࡢ

 ྡࡢ⿢ุᐁࡣࠊ஦ᐇᑂ⿢ุᡤࡀࣃࢵࢩࣥࢢ࢜ࣇࡢᡂ❧ࢆㄆࡵࡓࡇ࡜ࢆᨭ
ࠕ㸦࢟ࣕࣛࢡࢱ࣮ཬࡧⴭྡேࡢၟရ໬ࢆࡵࡄࡿ㸧୙ἲ࡞⾜Ⅽࡢᮏ㉁ⓗ㒊ᣢࡋࡓࡀࠊ␗࡞ࡿㄽ⌮௜ࡅࢆ⏝࠸ࡓࠋBeaumont ุ஦ࡣࠊୗ⣭ᑂࡀࠊ┦ᙜศࡣ͐ཎ࿌࡜⿕࿌࡜ࡢ㛫࡟ࣛ࢖ࢭࣥࢫࡸࢫ࣏ࣥࢧ࣮ྜពࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜ࡢከᩘࡢど⫈⪅ࡀࠕ➨୍⿕࿌࡜ཎ࿌࡜ࡢ㛫࡛ࠊ➨୍⿕࿌ࡀᗈ࿌࡟ྠពࡋ࡚࠸

୙ᐇ⾲♧࡟࠶ࡿࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋᮏ㉁ࡣࠊHenderson ஦௳࡟࠾࠸࡚㏙࡭ࡽ

ࡓ࡜ࡢၟᴗୖࡢྜពᙧᡂࡀ࡛ࡁ࡚࠸ࡓࠖ࡜ಙࡌࡿ࡛࠶ࢁ࠺࡜⤖ㄽ௜ࡅࡓࡇ

ࢀࡓ➨஧ࡢẁ㝵࡟࠶ࡿࠋࡍ࡞ࢃࡕࠊࡑࡢᮏ㉁ࡣࠊྡኌࡢ୙ἲ࡞ὶ⏝࡛࡜࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣྜ⌮ᛶࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡿ࡜ࡋࡓࠋࡇࢀ࡜ᑐ↷ⓗ࡟ࠊBurchett ุ࠶ࡾࠊཪࡣࠊࡼࡾᗈࡃᤊ࠼࡚ࠊཎ࿌࡟ṇᙜ࡟ᖐᒓࡍࡿ࢖࣓࣮ࢪ࡜ၟရ

஦ࡣࠊ୙ṇ➇தࡢ⪃࠼᪉࡟㏆࠸ᗈ࠸ㄽ⌮ࢆ㐺⏝ࡋࡓࠋྠุ஦ࡣࠊ
ࠕㄽⅬࡣࠊ



࡜ࡢ㛫ࡢ୙ἲ࡞㛵㐃௜ࡅࢆࡋࡓ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿ㹿㺁 ࣓ࢵࢭ࣮ࢪࡢ᭕᫕ࡉࡀࣃࢵࢩࣥࢢ࢜ࣇࡢἲ⌮ࡢ㐺⏝ࢆጉࡆࡿ࠿࡝࠺࠿࡜

࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠖ࡜ࡋࡓࠋᙼࡢぢゎ࡟ࡼࢀࡤࠊど⫈⪅ࡀᙜ஦⪅㛫࡛ၟᴗࣛࠕ㛵㐃௜ࡅࠖࡢᙉㄪࡣࠊ
ࠕ
ࠗရ㉁ཪࡣಖド࠘௨እࡢ㛵㐃ᛶࠖࢆᑟࡁᚓࡿࠋ

࢖ࢭࣥࢫࡢྜពࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜ಙࡌࡓ࠿ྰ࠿࡟࠿࠿ࢃࡽࡎࠊࣃࢵࢩࣥࢢ࢜ࣇࡣᡂ

⿢ุᡤࡣࠊ⿕࿌ࡀ౑⏝ࡋࡓྡ๓ࡸ࢖࣓࣮ࢪࡣࠕ➨୍⿕࿌ཪࡣྠ⿕࿌ࡀ㈍኎

❧ࡍࡿࠋࡍࡿၟရࡣࠊᫎ⏬ࠗࢡࣟࢥࢲ࢖ࣝࢲࣥࢹ࢕࣮࠘ཪࡣ๻୰࡛ཎ࿌࣏࣮࣭ࣝ࣍



࣮࢞ࣥࡀ₇ࡌࡓ࢟ࣕࣛࢡࢱ࣮࡜㛵㐃ࡋࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜බ⾗ࡀಙࡌࡿࡼ࠺

ࠕ⚾ࡢ⪃࠼࡛ࡣࠊᮏ௳࡟࠾ࡅࡿ♧၀ࡀ᭕᫕࡛࠶ࡿ࠿ࡽ࡜ゝࡗ࡚ࠊ㈐௵௙⤌ࡲࢀࡓࠖࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊࡑࢀࡽࡢ౑⏝ࡢᕪṆࡵࢆ࿨ࡌࡓ ࠋࡑࡢࢆࡲࡠࡀࢀࡿࡶࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋ࠶ࡿၟ኎ேࡀ࠶࠿ࡽࡉࡲࡢ୙ᐇ⾲♧ࢆ⾜ഹ࠿  ᖺᚋࠊࠕࢡࣟࢥࢲ࢖ࣝࢲࣥࢹ࢕࣮ࠖࡢ᭷ྡ࡞ࢼ࢖ࣇࡢࢩ࣮ࣥࢆ┿ఝࡗࡓሙྜ࡟ࡔࡅἲࡀ㐺⏝ࡉࢀࠊ᏶඲࡞ḭ▇ࢆᡂຌࡉࡏࡿࠊࡼࡾὙ⦎ࡉ
ࢀࡓ♧၀ࡢ᪉ἲࢆ⏝࠸ࡓ⪅ࡀ኱ᡭࢆ᣺ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡢࡣ୙ྜ⌮࡛࠶ࡿࠋ⚾

ࡣࠊ⹫ഇ࡛࠶ࡿ୍ᐃࡢ᥎

࡟⏝࠸ࡓሙྜࠊᾘ㈝⪅ࢆࡋ࡚ࣛ࢖ࢭࣥࢫྜពࡀᏑᅾࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡜ㄗಙࡉࡏࡿྍ⬟ᛶࡀࢆᇶ♏࡟ࡋ࡚ࠊၟ኎ேࡸࡑࡢ〇ရ࡟᭷฼࡞

ࡼ࠺࡟ぢ㎸ࡳᐈ࡟ᙳ㡪ࢆ୚࠼ࡿࡼ࠺ࢹࢨ࢖ࣥࡉࢀࡓㄝᚓࡢᡭἲࡢᑟ

࠶ࡿ࡜ࡋࡓ ; see also Moorgate Tobacco Co. Ltd. v. Philip Morris Ltd., 156 CLR 414(1984) ၟရ࡟㛵ࡍࡿࠕ㛵㐃ᛶࠊရ㉁ཪࡣಖドࠖࢆ♧၀ࡍࡿ⾲♧ࡢ↓チㅙ౑⏝࡟ࡘධࡣࠊㄗᑟⓗ࡛ࠊḭ▇ⓗ࡛࠶ࡾࠊࡲࡓ᮲࡟ᐃࡵࡿㄗᑟཪࡣḭ▇ࡢྍ࠸࡚ࠊ୙ṇ➇த࡟㛵ࡍࡿ୍⯡୙ἲ⾜Ⅽࡀᡂ❧ࡋ࡞࠸࡜ࡋ࡚ࡶࠊࣃࢵࢩࣥࢢ࢜ࣇࡢᡂ

⬟ᛶࡀ࠶ࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡗ࡚ࠊࣃࢵࢩࣥࢢ࢜ࣇࡀᡂ❧ࡋᚓࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡿ㹿㺁❧ࢆጉࡆࡿࡶࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ .


Hogan v. Koala Dundee Pty Ltd., 83 ALR 187 (Federal Court of Australia 1988).

Christopher Wadlow ࡣࠊ࣮࢜ࢫࢺࣛࣜ࢔ࡢၟရ໬࡟㛵ࡍࡿἲࡢ≧ែࡣ௨ୗࡢ࡜࠾ࡾ
࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࠕ୙ᐇ⾲♧ࡢᏑᅾࡀ♧ࡉࢀ࡞ࡅࢀࡤ࡞ࡽ࡞࠸ࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࠊ୙ᐇ⾲♧ࡣࠊබ⾗ࡀࠊཎ࿌࡜⿕࿌࡜ࡢ㛫࡟ࠊࡣࡗࡁࡾࡋ࡞࠸ࡀఱࡽ࠿ࡢၟᴗୖࡢྜពࡀᏑ
ᅾࡍࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡿሙྜ࡟ㄆࡵࡽࢀࡿࠋࠖChristopher Wadlow, The Law of Passing Off ࡇࢀࡽࡢࢣ࣮ࢫ࠿ࡽࢃ࠿ࡿࡇ࡜ࡣࠊ࣮࢜ࢫࢺࣛࣜ࢔ࡣࠊ⡿ᅜ࡛Ⓨᒎࢆぢࡏ࡚࠸ࡿ⌮ㄽ࡜ྠᵝࡢࠊၟရ໬ᶒࢆಖㆤࡍࡿࡓࡵࡢࣜ࣋ࣛࣝ࡞ࣃࢵࢩࣥࢢ
࢜ࣇࡢἲ⌮ࡢ㐺⏝࡟࠾ࡑࡽࡃྥ࠿ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࠊࡑ
ࢀᨾ࡟ࠊḭ▇⾜Ⅽࢆ࣮࣋ࢫ࡜ࡍࡿಖㆤ࡜ࠊ୙ṇ➇தࡢἲไࡢୗ࡛Ⓨᒎࡋࡓ

298-99 (2d ed. 1995).



Hogan, 83 ALR 187.



Hogan v. Pacific Dunlop Ltd., 14 IPR 398 (Federal Court of Australia 1989).



Id. (citing Moorgate Tobacco, 156 CLR 414).



Id.



Id.



Id.

 ▱ⓗ㈈⏘ἲᨻ⟇Ꮫ◊✲ 9RO  ▱ⓗ㈈⏘ἲᨻ⟇Ꮫ◊✲ 9RO   ᕳ㢌ㄽᩥブ⛠㏻⏝ ࣃࢵࢩࣥࢢ࢜ࣇ ࡜୙ṇ➇த 㻸㼍㻲㼞㼍㼚㼏㼑 ཯ࣇ࣮ࣜࣛ࢖ࢹ࢕ࣥࢢࡢᴫᛕ࡜ࡢ㛫ࡢቃ⏺⥺ࡀ᭕᫕࡟࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ ᖺ  ᭶ࠊECJ ࡣࠊᗈ࿌୺࡟ࡼࡿ࢔ࢻ࣮࣡ࢬࡢ౑⏝ࡣၟᶆⓗ౑⏝࡟࠶ࡓࡿ㸦ࡑࢀᨾ࡟ᙜヱ౑⏝ࡀΰྠࢆᘬࡁ㉳ࡇࡍྍ⬟ᛶࡀ࠶ࡿሙྜ࡟ࡣ౵ᐖ࡜

㹁㸬ᑗ᮶ࡢㄽதࡢሙ㸽࣮࣮࢟࣡ࢻᗈ࿌

࡞ࡿྍ⬟ᛶࡀ࠶ࡿ㸧࡜ࡢពぢࢆබ⾲ࡋࡓࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊࢢ࣮ࢢࣝ࡟ࡼࡿ࢔ࢻ࣡ ࣮ࣚࣟࢵࣃ࡟࠾ࡅࡿࣃࢵࢩࣥࢢ࢜ࣇ࡜୙ṇ➇தࡢἲไᗘࡢ㛫ࡢ୙ㄪ࿴࣮ࢬࡢ౑⏝ࡣၟᶆⓗ౑⏝࡛ࡣ࡞࠸࡜ࡋࡓࠋࡓࡔࡋࠊECJ ࡟௜クࡉࢀࡓ㸦ࣇࡣࠊ࣮࣮࢟࣡ࢻᗈ࿌ࡢᩥ⬦࡟࠾࠸࡚෌ࡧ⬮ගࢆᾎࡧࡓࠋࣇࣛࣥࢫࡢୗ⣭⿢ࣛࣥࢫࠊ࣮࢜ࢫࢺࣜ࢔ཬࡧࢻ࢖ࢶ࠿ࡽ௜ク㸧ࡇࢀࡽࡢࢣ࣮ࢫࡣࠊ୙ṇ➇தุᡤࡣࠊ㸦  ࡘࡢ౛እࢆ㝖࠸࡚㸧ᗈ࿌୺࡜ࢢ࣮ࢢࣝࡣࠊၟᶆࢆ↓チㅙ࡛࢟࡟㛵ࡍࡿ᱌௳࡛ࡣ࡞࠿ࡗࡓࠋECJ ࡟௜クࡉࢀࡓ  ࡘ┠ࡢࢣ࣮ࢫࡣࠊ࢜ࣛࣥ

࣮࣮࣡ࢻ࡜ࡋ࡚⏝࠸ࡿࡇ࡜㸦adwords, ࢔ࢻ࣮࣡ࢬ㸧࡟ࡘ࠸࡚㈐௵ࢆ㈇࠺ࠊ

ࢲࡢ Hoge Raad ࡀࠊࠕᙜヱၟᶆࡢಙ⏝ᛶࡸ㆑ูᛶࢆᐖࡋࠊཪࡣ୙ṇ࡟฼ࢆ࡜ࡋࡓ ࠋୖグࡢ౛እࡢ᱌௳࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊࢫࢺࣛࢫࣈ࣮ࣝ⿢ุᡤࡣၟᶆᶒ౵

ᚓࡿ࣮࣮ࠖ࢟࣡ࢻᗈ࿌ࢆᕞࡀ⚗Ṇࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿ࠿࡝࠺࠿࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊᬻ

ᐖࢆㄆࡵ࡞࠿ࡗࡓࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊྠ⿢ุᡤࡣࠊ࢔ࢻ࣮࣡ࢬࡢ౑⏝ࡣ᮲ࡢ୙

ᐃⓗ࡞ุ᩿ࢆồࡵࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊᖺ  ᭶ࠊECJ ࡣࠊ௚ࡢத

ṇ➇தࢆᵓᡂࡍࡿ࡜ࡋࡓ ࠋ

Ⅼ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ୗࡋࡓฎศ࡟↷ࡽࡋࠊᙜヱதⅬ࡟ࡘ࠸ุ࡚᩿ࡍࡿᚲせࡣ࡞࠸࡜ ࡇࢀ࡜ᑐ↷ⓗ࡟ࠊࢻ࢖ࢶࡢ BGH ࡣࠊᗈ࿌୺ࡀ➇த⪅ࡢ௻ᴗྡࢆ࢔ࢻ࣡

ࡋࡓࠋ࣮ࢻ࡜ࡋ࡚౑⏝ࡋࡓࡇ࡜࡟㛵ࡍࡿၟᶆᶒ౵ᐖ࡜୙ṇ➇தࡢ୺ᙇࢆㄆࡵ࡞࠿ࡗࡓ ࠋ⿢ุᡤࡀฟᡤ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢΰྠࡢྍ⬟ᛶࡀ࡞࠸࡜ࡋࡓࡓࡵࠊၟᶆ ࣮࣮࢟࣡ࢻᗈ࿌࡟ᑐࡋ୙ṇ➇தࡢἲ⌮ࢆ⏝࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡢྍ⬟ᛶࡣࠊⱥᅜࡢ

ᶒ౵ᐖࡢ୺ᙇࡣ㏻ࡽ࡞࠿ࡗࡓࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ୙ṇ➇தࡢ୺ᙇࡣࠊ ࡘࡢ୺ᙇ࡟

஦௳࡛࠶ࡿ Interflora, Inc. v. Marks & Spencer ࡟࠾࠸࡚෌ᗘၥ㢟࡜ࡉࢀࡓᇶ♏ࢆ⨨࠸࡚࠸ࡓࠋࡍ࡞ࢃࡕࠊ  ⿕࿌ࡀᙜヱᶆ❶ࡢಙ⏝ຊࢆ୙ṇ࡟฼⏝㸦⌧ᅾࠊECJ ࡟ಀᒓ୰࡛࠶ࡿ㸧ࠋᖺ  ᭶௨᮶ࠊ᳨⣴࢚ࣥࢪࣥࡢࢢ࣮ࢢࣝ

ࡋࡓࡇ࡜ࠊ᭦࡟  ⿕࿌ࡢᶆ❶౑⏝࡟ࡼࡾཎ࿌ࡢ㢳ᐈࡀᘬࡁ௜ࡅࡽࢀࡓࡇ

ࡣࠊⱥᅜཬࡧ࢔࢖ࣝࣛࣥࢻ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ࣮࣮࢟࣡ࢻᗈ࿌࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊ࣮ࣚࣟࢵࣃ

࡜ࠊ࡛࠶ࡿࠋBGH ࡣ࠸ࡎࢀࡢ୺ᙇࡶྰᐃࡋࡓࠋࡍ࡞ࢃࡕ⿢ุᡤࡣࠊ  ࢖኱㝣࡟࠾ࡅࡿࡼࡾࡶ✚ᴟⓗ࡞࣏ࣜࢩ࣮ࢆ᥇⏝ࡋ࡚ࡁࡓࠋࡇࢀࡣࠊ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟

ࣥࢱ࣮ࢿࢵࢺ࣮ࣘࢨ࣮ࡀࠊ࢔ࢻ࣮࣡ࢻ࡟㛵㐃௜ࡅࡽࢀࢧ࣮ࢳᑐ㇟࡜ࡋ࡚࠸

ၟᶆಖㆤ࡟㛵ࡍࡿࢥ࣮ࣔࣥࣟ࡜኱㝣ἲࡢ࢔ࣉ࣮ࣟࢳࡢᕪ␗࡟ᇶ࡙ࡃࡶࡢ

ࡿࡶࡢࡢࢡ࢜ࣜࢸ࢕ࢆࠊ⿕࿌ᗈ࿌୺ࡀᥦ౪ࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡛௦᭰ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡣ⪃࠼㞴࠸ࡇ࡜ࠊ  ཎ࿌ࡣ㢳ᐈᇶ┙ࢆ⥔ᣢࡍࡿࡓࡵࡢಖㆤ࡟್ࡍࡿᶒ฼ࢆ᭷ࡋ




Google Fr. SARL v. Louis Vuitton Malletier SA (23 March 2010), http://eurlex.europa.

࡚࠸ࡿࢃࡅ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࠊࢆᣦ᦬ࡋࡓࠋ࢔ࢻ࣮࣡ࢬࡀ㛵ಀࡍࡿ௚ࡢ᱌௳ࡣ

eu/Lex UriServ/LexUri Serv.do?uri=CELEX:62008J0236:EN:HTML, 2010 ECJ EUR-Lex

ECJ࡟௜クࡉࢀࡓࡀࠊࡑࡢ᱌௳ࡣၟᶆᶒ౵ᐖࡔࡅࡀதⅬ࡜ࡉࢀ࡚࠾ࡾࠊ୙LEXIS 119 (joined cases C-236/08 to C-238/08) (referred by the French Court of Cassa-ṇ➇தࡣதⅬ࡛ࡣ࡞࠿ࡗࡓࠋ
tion); Die BergSpechte Outdoor Reisen und Alpinschule Edi Koblmüller GmbH v. Günter



do?uri=CELEX:62008J0278:EN:HTML, 2010 ECJ EUR-Lex LEXIS 124 (referred byGuni (25 March 2010), Case C-278/08, http://eurlex.europa.eu/ LexUriServ/LexUriServ.

See AdWords Lawsuits in France – Trademarks as Keywords Illegal?, http://www.

Austria’s Oberster Gerichtshof); Eis.de GmbH v. BBY Vertriebsgesellschaft mbH (26linksandlaw.com/adwords-google-keyword-lawsuit-France.htm (collecting cases); Google’s

March 2010), CaseC-91/09, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=

Ad Words Lawsuits Worldwide, http://www.linksandlaw.com/adwords-pendinglawsuits.htm.

CELEX:62009O0091:FR:HTM, 2010 ECJ EUR-Lex LEXIS 490 (referred by German



BGH). For a detailed discussion of these rulings, see Tyson Smith, Googling a Trademark:Atrya v. Google and K par K/Techni Feneres (Trib. de Grand Instance de Strasbourg,

1ere Ch. Civile, July 20, 2007).

A Comparative Look at Keyword Use in Internet Advertising, 46 Texas Int. L.J. 232, 238-42

The Beta Layout case, Bundesgerichtshof, Case 1 ZR 30/07 (Jan. 22, 2009).

(2010).Eis.de GmbH v. BBY Vertriebsgesellschaft mbH (the “Bananabay” case), Bun-desgerichtshof, Case 1 ZR 125/07 (Jan. 22, 2009). ▱ⓗ㈈⏘ἲᨻ⟇Ꮫ◊✲ 9RO  

Portakabin Ltd. v. Primakabin (8 July 2010), http://curia.europa.eu/jurisp/cgi-bin/gettext.pl? lang=en&num=79899291C19080558&doc=T&ouvert=T&seance=ARRET.

▱ⓗ㈈⏘ἲᨻ⟇Ꮫ◊✲ 9RO   ᕳ㢌ㄽᩥブ⛠㏻⏝ ࣃࢵࢩࣥࢢ࢜ࣇ ࡜୙ṇ➇த 㻸㼍㻲㼞㼍㼚㼏㼑 ࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋⱥᅜࡢ⿢ุᡤࡣࠊᖺ࡟ࠊࡇࡢ㆟ㄽࢆ ECJ ࡟௜クࡋࡓࠋEU

ϫ㸬⤖ ㄽ㻌ἲົᐁ㸦Advocate General of the EU㸧ࡣࠊᖺ࡟ணഛⓗពぢࢆᥦฟࡋࠊ

࢔ࢻ࣮࣡ࢬ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊ௬࡟ࢫ࣏ࣥࢧ࣮ࣜࣥࢡࡀၟᶆ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ゝཬࡋ࡚࠸ࡓ ⱥᅜࡢࢥ࣮ࣔࣥࣟࡣࠊḭ▇⾜Ⅽ࡟ᇶ♏ࢆ⨨ࡃࣃࢵࢩࣥࢢ࢜ࣇࡢᴫᛕࢆᨺ

ሙྜࠊḟ࡞ࡿၥ㢟ࡣࠕࣇ࣮ࣜࣛ࢖ࢹ࢕ࣥࢢ࡟㛵ࡍࡿㄽⅬ࡜ࡣࠊࡑࢀࡀྜἲ

Რࡋࠊᗈ⠊࡞ᴫᛕ࡛࠶ࡿ୙ṇ➇தࡢἲ⌮ࢆ㔜どࡏࡼࠊ࡜ࡢ኱ࡁ࡞ᅽຊࡢୗ

ⓗ࡞ẚ㍑ᗈ࿌࡞ࡢ࠿ࠊཪࡣࡇࢀ࡜ࡣ㏫࡟ၟᶆࡢಖ᭷⪅ࡢಙ⏝࡟ࡓࡔ஌ࡾࡋ

࡟࠶ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊⱥᅜࡢ⿢ุᡤࡣࠊ࣮ࣚࣟࢵࣃࡢ኱㝣ἲࡢୗ࡛ᬑཬࡋ࡚࠸

࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࠿ࠊ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠖ࡜ࡋࡓ ࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࠊၟᶆಖ᭷⪅ࡣࠊ௨ୗࡿᗈ⠊࡞୙ṇ➇தࡢᴫᛕࢆ඲㠃ⓗ࡟ᨭᣢࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠊែᗘࢆៅ㔜ࡢሙྜ࡟ࢫ࣏ࣥࢧ࣮ࣜࣥࢡ࡟࠾ࡅࡿၟᶆ౑⏝ࢆᕪࡋṆࡵࡿᶒ฼ࢆ᭷ࡍࡿ

࡟␃ಖࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ⾲᫂ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡑࡢ୺ࡓࡿ⌮⏤ࡣࠊࠕබṇ㸦ࣇ࢙࢔ࢿࢫ㸧ࠖࡶࡢ࡜ࡋࡓࠋࡍ࡞ࢃࡕࠊ  ᙜヱᶆ❶ࡀᙜヱၟရཪࡣࢧ࣮ࣅࢫࢆ⾲ࢃࡍ୍

ࡢ㏣ồࡀࠊࠕ➇த㸦ࢥࣥ࣌ࢸ࢕ࢩࣙࣥ㸧ࠖࡀ┠ᣦࡍࡶࡢࢆ⬣࠿ࡍ࠿ࡽ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ

⯡⏝ㄒ㸦generic term㸧࡜ࡋ࡚⏝࠸ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࠿ࠊཪࡣ  ᗈ࿌୺ࡀࠊᙜヱⱥᅜࡢ⿢ุᡤࡀ♧ࡍࡇ࠺ࡋࡓᠱᛕࡀࠊEUࡢ௚ࡢᅜࠎࡢ⪃࠼᪉࡟ᙳ㡪ࡍࡿᶆ❶ࡢᣢࡘ㨩ຊࠊಙ⏝ຊࡸྡኌ࠿ࡽ฼┈ࢆᚓࡓࡾࠊၟᶆಖ᭷⪅ࡀᨭฟࡋࡓ

࠿࡝࠺࠿࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠊ௒ᚋࡢほᐹࡀᚲせ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ

ᕷሙ㛤Ⓨࡢດຊࢆᦢྲྀࡋࡼ࠺࡜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿሙྜࠊ࡛࠶ࡿ ࠋࡋࡓࡀࡗ࡚ࠊࡇ

ࡢἲົᐁࡢ Interflora ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ࢔ࣉ࣮ࣟࢳࡢୗ࡛ࡣࠊ୙ṇ➇தࡢἲ⌮ࡣࠊ EU ࡢᨻ⟇࡜୍⮴ࡍࡿࡇࢀࡽࡢᅽຊ࠿ࡽ⮬⏤࡛࠶ࡿ⡿ᅜ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊ㧗EU ࡟࠾ࡅࡿᑗ᮶ࡢ࢔ࢻ࣮࣡ࢬ࡟㛵ࡍࡿ᱌௳ࡢ⤖ㄽ࡟ᙳ㡪ࢆཬࡰࡍྍ⬟ᛶᗘ࡟つไࡉࢀࡓᕷሙࡸࠊබṇࡉࡸࠕࣇ࣮ࣜࣛ࢖ࢹ࢕ࣥࢢࠖ࡜࠸࠺᭕᫕࡞ᴫ

ࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜ゝ࠼ࡿࠋ

ᛕࡼࡾࡶࠊ⮬⏤➇தࡢ☜ಖࡀ㔜どࡉࢀ⥆ࡅ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࠊࡑࢀᨾ࡟ࣃࢵ

ࢩࣥࢢ࢜ࣇࡢไᗘࡀ௒ᚋࡶᨭᣢࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡃ࡛࠶ࢁ࠺ࠋࡋ࠿ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽࠊ⡿ᅜ ⡿ᅜࡢ㐃㑥⿢ุᡤ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊ࣮࣮࢟࣡ࢻᗈ࿌ࡀࠕၟᶆⓗ౑⏝ࠖ࡟࠶ࡓ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡉ࠼ࠊၟᶆᶒ⪅ࡢ✚ᴟⓗ࡞ッゴάື࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊⓏ㘓ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿၟ

ࡿ࠿࡝࠺࠿࡟ࡘ࠸࡚඲ࡃࢥࣥࢭࣥࢧࢫࡀᚓࡽࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸ ࠋࡲࡓࠊၟᶆࡀ

ᶆ࡜Ⓩ㘓ࡉࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࡶࡢࡢ཮᪉࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊࣃࢵࢩࣥࢢ࢜ࣇࡢἲ⌮ࡢ࠿࡞༢࡟ᗈ࿌ࢆᑟࡃࡓࡵ࡟⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡓ࠿ࠊཪࡣၟᶆࡀ᳨⣴⤖ᯝᗈ࿌࡟⌧ᐇ࡟⾲ࡾࡢᣑᙇࡀᑟ࠿ࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࠊ௒᪥ࠊࠕ⹫ഇಖドࠖࡢᴫᛕࡣࠊ୙ṇ┠♧ࡉࢀࡓ࠿ࡀ㛵㐃ࡍࡿࡢ࠿࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡶࠊࢥࣥࢭࣥࢧࢫࢆぢ࡚࠸࡞࠸ ࠋⓗ౑⏝㸦misappropriation㸧࡜࡯࡜ࢇ࡝ྠ⩏ࡢࡶࡢ࡜ࡋ࡚ᗈࡃゎ㔘ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ࣮࢜ࢫࢺࣛࣜ࢔ࡣࠊ⡿ᅜࡢࡇ࠺ࡋࡓゎ㔘࡜ྠࡌ㐨ࢆࡓ࡝ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡼ࠺

࡟ぢ࠼ࡿࠋ

Interflora, Inc. v. Marks & Spencer PLC Flowers Direct Online Limited, [2009] EWHC

1095 (Ch).


Case C-323/09, Opinion of Advocate General Jaaskinen (Mar. 24, 2011).



Id.



ࡋ࠿ࡋࠊࢺࣞࣥࢻ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊ࣮࣮࢟࣡ࢻᗈ࿌ࢆၟᶆ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢ౑⏝࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ㄆࡵ

ࡿഴྥ࡟࠶ࡿࠋSee Network Automation, Inc. v. Advanced System Concepts, 638 F.3d
1137, 1145 (9th Cir. 2011); Rescuecom Corp. v. Google, Inc., 562 F.3d 123, 128-29 (2d Cir.
2009).
See Hamzik v. Zale Corp./Delaware, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28981, at *3 (N.D.N.Y. Apr.

 ᗄࡘ࠿ࡢࢥ࣮ࣔࣥࣟࡢᅜࠎ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊ❧ἲ࡟ࡼࡾࠊၟᶆἲ࡟࠾ࡅࡿఏ
⤫ⓗ࡞ḭ▇ࡸΰྠࡢせ௳ࡀᾐ㣗ࡉࢀ࡚ࡶ࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡢഃ㠃࡟࠾ࡅࡿ᭱ࡶ㔜せ࡞❧ἲୖࡢ㐍ᒎࡣࠊၟᶆࡢᕼ㔘໬㸦dilution㸧࡛࠶ࡿࠋᕼ㔘໬ࡣࠊ≉ᐃࡢ≧ἣୗ࡟࠾ࡅࡿΰྠࡢせ௳ࢆ୙せ࡜ࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ⡿ᅜ࡛ࡣࠊࣛࣥࣁ࣒ἲ
ࠕⴭྡ࡞ࠖၟ
ࡢ᮲ F ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊΰྠࡀ㛵ಀࡋ࡞࠸  ✀㢮ࡢ౵ᐖ࡟ᑐࡋࠊ
ᶆࡔࡅࢆಖㆤࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ୙㩭᫂໬㸦blurring㸧࡜ởᦆ㸦tarnishment ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
ⱥᅜ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊᖺၟᶆἲ㸦Ⓩ㘓ࡉࢀࡓၟᶆࡔࡅ࡟㐺⏝ࡉࢀࡿ㸧ࡢ

19, 2007) ࢫ࣏ࣥࢧ࣮ࣜࣥࢡࡀၟᶆⓗ౑⏝࡛࡞࠸࡜ࡋ࡚ࡶࠊᶆ❶ࢆ⾲♧ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ
ၟᶆ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢ౑⏝࡜ㄆࡵࡽࢀࡿྍ⬟ᛶࢆ♧၀ ; see also Tiffany, Inc. v. eBay, Inc., 576



F. Supp. 2d 463 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) Hamzik ஦௳ุ♧࡬ࡢ㈶ྠࢆ♧၀  ▱ⓗ㈈⏘ἲᨻ⟇Ꮫ◊✲ 9RO  

15 U.S.C. § 1125 (c).

▱ⓗ㈈⏘ἲᨻ⟇Ꮫ◊✲ 9RO   ᕳ㢌ㄽᩥブ⛠㏻⏝ ࣃࢵࢩࣥࢢ࢜ࣇ ࡜୙ṇ➇த 㻸㼍㻲㼞㼍㼚㼏㼑 ᮲  ࡀࠊࠕಙ⏝ຊࡢ࠶ࡿࠖᶆ❶࡟ࡘࡁࠊࠕྜ⌮ⓗ࡞⌮⏤࡞ࡃࡋ࡚ࠊ୙ἲ

࡚ࡣࠊ௚ࡢ EU ຍ┕ᅜ࡟ᑐࡋࠊࡼࡾ⦆ࡸ࠿࡞つไୗࡢ➇த⎔ቃࡀጇᙜ࡛࠶

࡟୙ᙜ࡞฼┈ࢆᚓࠊཪࡣᙜヱᶆ❶ࡢྡኌࡸ≉ᚩ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ᐖࢆ୚࠼ࡿࠖ࠸࠿

ࡿ࡜ㄝᚓࡋ࡞࠸㝈ࡾࠊ᢬ᢠࢆ⥆ࡅࡿࡇ࡜ࡣ㞴ࡋ࠸ࠋ⡿ᅜ࡟࠾ࡅࡿၟရ໬ᶒ

࡞ࡿ౑⏝࠿ࡽࡶಖㆤࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋಙ⏝ຊࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜ゝ࠼ࡿࡓࡵ࡟ࡣࠊᙜヱၟᶆࡢ୍ぢࡋࡓ࡜ࡇࢁṆࡴࡇ࡜ࡢ࡞࠸ᡂ㛗ࡣࠊⱥᅜ࡟࠾ࡅࡿࡑ࠺ࡋࡓᶒ฼ࢆㄆ

ࡀࠊၥ㢟࡜࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿၟရࡸࢧ࣮ࣅࢫࡢࢱ࢖ࣉ࡟⤖ࡧ௜ࡅࡽࢀ࡚ࠊᾘ㈝⪅ࡵࡿࡇ࡜࡬ࡢᣄ⤯࡜㠀ᖖ࡟ᑐ↷ⓗ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊⱥᅜࡢࡑ࠺ࡋࡓ᢬ᢠ࡟

ࡢ┦ᙜᩘ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚▱ࡽࢀ࡚࠸࡞ࡅࢀࡤ࡞ࡽ࡞࠸ࠋᕼ㔘໬࡟㛵ࡍࡿἲᚊࡣࠊ

ࡣࠊࡓ࡜࠼ EU ࠿ࡽࡢᅽຊࡀ࡞࠸࡜ࡋ࡚ࡶࠊኚ໬ࡀぢࡽࢀࡿࠋࡍ࡞ࢃࡕࠊ

ၟᶆᶒ⪅ࡀࠊΰྠࢆ⏕ࡌࡉࡏ࡞࠸ᶆ❶౑⏝࡟ᑐࡋࠊ┦ᙜ⛬ᗘᗈࡃࢥࣥࢺࣟ⹫ഇಖド࡜ࣇ࣮ࣜࣛ࢖ࢹ࢕ࣥࢢ࡜ࡢ㛫ࡢ༊ูࡀḟ➨࡟୙᫂░࡜࡞ࡗ࡚࠸

࣮ࣝࢆཬࡰࡍࡇ࡜ࢆྍ⬟࡟ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡓ࡜࠼ࡑ࠺ࡋࡓἲᚊࡀ୍㒊ࡢᶆ❶࡟ࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡑ࠺ࡋࡓኚ໬ࡣࠊ࣮࢜ࢫࢺࣛࣜ࢔࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡶ᫂ࡽ࠿࡛࠶ࡿࠋ

ࡋ࠿㐺⏝ࡉࢀ࡞࠸࡜ࡋ࡚ࡶࠊࡇࢀࡽࡢἲࡣࠊࢥ࣮ࣔࣥࣟࡢἲไᗘ࡟ᗈ⠊࡞ၟᶆಖㆤ࡟㛵ࡍࡿ࢔ࣉ࣮ࣟࢳࡢ┦㐪ࡣࠊἲไᗘࡢᩥ໬ⓗ࡞኱ࡁ࡞┦㐪㸦ࡍ୙ṇ➇தࡢᴫᛕࢆᣢࡕ㎸ࡴຠᯝࢆ᭷ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡣ᫂ⓑ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊᕼ㔘࡞ࢃࡕࠊࣈࣛࣥࢻಖ᭷⪅ࡢᢞ㈨ಖㆤࢆඃඛࡍࡿἲไᗘ࡜ᾘ㈝⪅ಖㆤ࡟୺║໬ἲ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡶࠊ୍⯡ⓗ࡟ࠊᙜヱᶆ❶ࡢࢢࢵࢻ࢘࢖ࣝࡸ♫఍ⓗಙ⏝࡟ᦆᐖࢆ⨨ࡃἲไᗘࡢ┦㐪㸧ࢆ௒ᚋࡶ཯ᫎࡋ࡚࠸ࡃࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡑࡢ୍᪉࡛ࠊἲ

ࢆ୚࠼ࡿࡇ࡜㸦ཪࡣᦆᐖࢆ୚࠼ࡿྍ⬟ᛶ㸧࡟㛵ࡍࡿ୍ᐃࡢドᣐ࡟ࡼࡿ⿬௜

⌮ୖࡢ཰ᩡ࡟ྥࡅࡓືࡁࢆཷࡅ࡚ࠊၟᶆᶒ⪅ࡣࠊᅜቃ࡟㛵ಀ࡞ࡃࠊࡲࡍࡲࡅࢆせㄳࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡑࢀᨾ࡟ࠊ༢࡞ࡿࠕࣇ࣮ࣜࣛ࢖ࢹ࢕ࣥࢢࠖࡀ࠶ࡗࡓࡔ

ࡍ✚ᴟⓗ࡟ࡑࡢࣈࣛࣥࢻࡢ࢔࢖ࢹࣥࢸ࢕ࢸ࢕ࢆᣑ኱ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࢆồࡵࡿືࡅ࡛ࡣ༑ศ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ ࠋࡁࢆぢࡏࡿࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࢁ࠺ࠋ
 ࢥ࣮ࣔࣥࣟࡢἲไᗘࡢୗ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊࣃࢵࢩࣥࢢ࢜ࣇࡣࠊḭ▇⾜Ⅽ࡟㛵ࡍࡿつไ࠿ࡽࡲࡍࡲࡍ㞳ࢀ࡚ࡁ࡚࠸ࡿࠋάⓎ࡞➇த࡟㧗࠸౯್ࢆ⨨ࡃᅜࠎࡣࠊࡇ࠺ࡋࡓഴྥ࡟ᑐࡋࠊࣃࢵࢩࣥࢢ࢜ࣇࡢ୺ᙇ࡟ᑐࡍࡿㄆᐜࡢᗘྜ࠸ࢆ
ᵝࠎ࡟ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛᢬ᢠࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࢥࣆ࣮࢟ࣕࢵࢺ〇ရཬࡧẚ㍑ᗈ࿌ࡢᩥ⬦࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊࡑ࠺ࡋࡓᅜࠎࡢ᢬ᢠࡣ≉࡟ᙉ࠸ࠋࡋ࠿ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽࠊⱥᅜ࡟࠾࠸

§ 10 (3), Trade Marks Act of 1994.

General Motors v. Yplon, [1999] All ER (EC) 865; see Alkin, supra note 39, at 52.࢝

ࢼࢲ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊᕼ㔘໬࠿ࡽࡢಖㆤࡣⓏ㘓ၟᶆ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢࡳㄆࡵࡽࢀࡿࠋSee
Trademarks Act, § 22 Ⓩ㘓ࡉࢀࡓၟᶆ࡟ࡘࡁࠊ
ࠕ໬యࡉࢀࡓࢢࢵࢻ࢘࢖ࣝࡢ౯್ࢆᦆ
࡞࠺࠸࠿࡞ࡿ౑⏝ࡶ⚗ࡌࡽࢀࡿ㺁 . ຍ࠼࡚ࠊ࢝ࢼࢲࡢ᭱㧗⿢ุᡤࡣiࢆ⊃ࡃゎ㔘ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋSee Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin, Maison Fondee en 1772 v. Boutiques Cliquot
Ltee, [2006] 1 RCS 824, 2006 CSC 23.

See Intel v. CPM, Case C-252/07, [2009] ETMR 13, ¶¶ 29, 68, 77; see also Darren

Meale and Joel Smith, Enforcing a Trade Mark When Nobody’s Confused: Where the Law
Stands After L’Oreal and Intel, 5 J. Intell. L. & Prac. 101-102 (2010); Mary LaFrance,
Identical Cousins? On the Road with Dilution and the Right of Publicity, 24 Santa Clara
Computer & High Tech. L.J. 669-671 (2007-08) ࢝ࢼࢲࡢᕼ㔘໬ἲ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚㆟ㄽࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ .

 ▱ⓗ㈈⏘ἲᨻ⟇Ꮫ◊✲ 9RO  ▱ⓗ㈈⏘ἲᨻ⟇Ꮫ◊✲ 9RO   