Source: http://nccuir.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/121044
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 06:53:30+00:00

Document:
The public order or morality clause is always a controversial issue in the field of intellectual property rights, and trademark law is no exception. With the “Examination Guidelines on Trademark being Contrary to Public Policy or Accepted Principles of Morality” issued by Taiwan Intellectual Property Office, it is no doubt that the guideline concretize the meaning of the clause in trademark law.
In 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court in Matal v. Tam ruled that disparage clause in 15 U.S.C. §1052(a) violated the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment because of viewpoint discrimination. This thesis claims that trademarks are marks that identify the source of goods or services in order to avoid confusion and misunderstanding by consumers, and to distinguish them from goods or services provided or sold by others. Although trademarks focus on public interest to safeguard the order of competition in commerce, it is undeniable that we can develop our own brands and attract consumers by designing innovative trademarks, and giving the greatest degree of respect.
Thus, this thesis attempts to start from Matal v. Tam, introducing offensive trademarks and related cases firstly. Then, by reviewing the interpretations about commercial speech of the Constitutional Court, Judicial Yuan, and observing the contradictions of refusing registration of offensive trademarks in Taiwan current practice, this thesis further discuss the possibility of deregulation of offensive trademarks.
1. Graeme B. Dinwoodie, Mark D. Janis, Trademarks and unfair competition : law and policy (2007).
1. John W. Sherman, Registration of Trademarks under State Law, AMERICAN BAR ASSOICATION JOURNAL (May 1973).
1. Canal Company v. Clark, 80 U.S. 311 (1871).
2. Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission of New York, 447 U.S. 557 (1980).
3. Davenport v. Washington Ed. Assn., 551 U.S. 177 (2007).
4. In re Brunetti, 877 F.3d 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
5. In re McGinley, 660 F.2d 481 (C.C.P.A. 1981).
6. In re Tam, 785 F.3d 567 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
7. In re Tam, 808 F.3d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
8. Matal v. Tam, 137 S.Ct. 1744 (2017).
9. National Endowment for Arts v. Finley, 524 U.S. 569 (1998).
10. Rust v. Sullivan, 500 U.S. 173 (1991).
11. Taylor v. Carpenter, 23 F.Cas. 742 (C.C.D. Mass. 1844).
12. Thomson v. Winchester, 36 Mass. (19 Pick.) 214 (1837).
13. Trade-Mark Cases, 100 U.S. 82 (1879).
14. Ysursa v. Pocatello Ed. Assn., 555 U.S. 353 (2009).
1. European Union, Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), https://europa.eu/european-union/about-eu/agencies/ohim_en, last visited March 13, 2018.
2. Supreme Court of the United States, No. 15-1293, https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docketfiles/15-1293.htm, last visited April 19, 2018.
3. The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), About Us, https://www.uspto.gov/about-us, last visited March 30, 2018.
4. Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure, 1203 Refusal on Basis of Immoral or Scandalous Matter; Deceptive Matter; Matter which May Disparage, Falsely Suggest a Connection, or Bring into Contempt or Disrepute, https://tmep.uspto.gov/RDMS/TMEP/current#/Apr2017/TMEP-1200d1e3042.html, last visited April 29, 2018.
5. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, IN RE: TAM [ORDER], http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/content/re-tam-order, last visited March 30, 2018.
6. USPTO, THIS OPINION IS A PRECEDENT OF THE T.T.A.B, http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=85472044&pty=EXA&eno=11, last visited March 30, 2018.
7. USPTO, USPTO TSDR Case Viewer, http://tsdr.uspto.gov/documentviewer?caseId=sn85472044&docId=OOA20120106141418#docIndex=19&page=1, last visited March 30, 2018.
8. USPTO, USPTO TSDR Case Viewer, http://tsdr.uspto.gov/caseviewer/pdf?caseId=77952263&docIndex=1&searchprefix=sn#docIndex=1, last visited March 30, 2018.
9. USPTO, USPTO TSDR Case Viewer, http://tsdr.uspto.gov/documentviewer?caseId=sn77952263&docId=SPE20100309081312#docIndex=10&page=1, last visited March 30, 2018.
10. USPTO, USPTO TSDR Case Viewer, http://tsdr.uspto.gov/documentviewer?caseId=sn85472044&docId=OOA20120106141418#docIndex=16&page=1, last visited March 30, 2018.
11. USPTO, USPTO TSDR Case Viewer, http://tsdr.uspto.gov/documentviewer?caseId=sn77952263&docId=SPE20100309081312#docIndex=12&page=1, last visited March 30, 2018.
12. Wikipedia, The Slants, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Slants, last visited March 30, 2018.
13. WIPO, Members of the Madrid Union, http://www.wipo.int/madrid/en/members/, last visited March 13, 2018.
14. WIPO, Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property, http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/text.jsp?file_id=288514, last visited March 13, 2018.
15. WIPO, WIPO-Administered Treaties, http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ShowResults.jsp?lang=en&treaty_id=2, last visited March 13, 2018.
16. WTO, Members and Observers, https://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/whatis_e/tif_e/org6_e.htm, last visited March 13, 2018.

References: v. 
 §1052
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.