快速地（不認真地）把美國的Louis Vuitton v. My Other Bag判決掃過一次，該判決就LV以下三個主張，大概是如此的結論：
1. Trademark Infringement：無混淆誤認之虞
2. Dilution Infringement：構成parody合理使用。
3. Copyright Infringement：構成parody使用。
2. Dilution Infringement：構成parody合理使用。
3. Copyright Infringement：構成parody使用。
為什麼構成parody戲謔仿作？
到底梗在哪裡？不是米國人真的很難get the joke。
故事要從米國有一種貼在車子上的貼紙(bumper sticker)說起。
開著普通汽車的米國人，會在車子上貼一種貼紙，寫著 “My Other Car is a Porsche (等名車)”，傳達出「雖然我現在開的這台車很普通，但是我有另外一台貴的Porsche，只是沒開出來。 」這樣幽默的意味。
因此，米國法官認為：
1. 被告在包包上一面寫著“My Other Bag”，一面用近似LV的包包圖案，傳達出一種 「雖然我現在揹的這只包很普通，但是我有另外一只貴的LV，只是沒揹出來。」這樣幽默的意味。
2. 而且被告既然已經在包包上寫了 My Other Bag才是LV，表示 #被告已經說他不是LV，所以消費者不會混淆誤認。
3. 米國法官真的覺得My Other Bag的設計很幽默，而且只要是米國人都會懂這個梗，甚至認為 #LV應該要有點幽默感而不是興訟。
BUT!
台灣的消費者能看出梗在哪裡？笑點在哪裡嗎？恐怕不能，所以應該要認為 #在米國構成parody不一定會在台灣構成parody（就是換位置一定要換腦袋XD）。
正因為這個案子涉及的對象是「包包」，包包上一面寫著「我的另一個包」，一面畫著LV的包，而讓米國人可以聯想到My Other Car is Porsche的梗。
但如果包包上寫的不是「我的另一個包」，而是寫「Coco」或「Mary」，另外一面畫著LV的包，恐怕在米國也不構成parody，因為笑點消失惹。
又如果現在賣的是「粉餅」，粉餅上寫著「我的另一個包」，再畫上LV的包，跟粉餅一定關係也沒有，偏離笑點又更多，米國人不懂，台灣人更是不懂，恐怕更不能構成parody。而且LV沒有生產粉餅，被告說「我的另外一個粉餅是LV」，笑點更是不存在。
這也是為什麼 #臺灣臺北地方法院106年度聲判字第285號刑事裁定(2018.03.31)認為MyOtherBag的粉餅在台灣構成parody而沒有侵害LV的商標，我個人覺得沒有什麼道理的原因。
可惜這個刑事案件已經final，無法再繼續救濟（不然上訴理由已經寫好惹在上面XD）。希望有民事訴訟存在，讓我們來看看智慧財產法院怎麼從商標法、公平交易法甚至是著作權的角度，來好好的論斷智慧財產權法上的重要爭點之一：parody。
摘錄一些米國判決的重點（沒時間翻譯，請自己閱讀XD）。法院判決理由寫了很多，但LV會敗訴的主因，看來看去就是因為米國法官覺得MyOtherBag的設計真的很幽默（只是我們法國人真的不這麼認為XD）：
MOB's totes are just as obviously a joke, and one does not necessarily need to be familiar with the "my other car" trope to get the joke or to get the fact that the totes are meant to be taken in jest.
The name "My Other Bag" was inspired by novelty bumper stickers, which can sometimes be seen on inexpensive cars claiming that the driver's "other car" is an expensive, luxury car, such as a Mercedes.
The whole point is to play on the well-known "my other car..." joke by playfully suggesting that the carrier's "other bag"-that is, not the bag that he or she is carrying- is a Louis Vuitton bag. That joke...builds significant distance between MOB's inexpensive workhorse totes and the expensive handbags they are meant to evoke, and invites an amusing comparison between MOB and the luxury statuss of Louis Vuitton.
Louis Vuitton is, by its own description, and active and aggressive enforcer of its trademark rights. In some cases, however, it is better to "accept the
implied compliment in a parody" and to smile or laugh that it is to sue.
implied compliment in a parody" and to smile or laugh that it is to sue.
MOB's use of Louis Vuitton's marks in service of that is #AnObviousAttemptAtHumor is not likely to cause confusion of the blurring of the distinctiveness of Louis Vuitton's marks.
A parody must covey two simultaneous -and contradictory- messages: that it is the original, but also that it is not the original and is instead a parody. MOB's bags do precisely that.
At the same time that they mimic LV's designs and handbags in a way that is recognizable, they do so as a drawing on a product that is such a conscious departure form LV's image of luxury- in combination withe the slogan " #MyOtherBag"- as to convey that MOB's tote bags are not LV handbags.
A trademark parody reminds us that we are #FreeToLaugh at the images and associations linked with the mark or provides entertainment conveyed by juxtaposing the irreverent representation of the trademark with the idealized image created by the mark's owner.
沒有留言:
張貼留言