ᕳ㢌ㄽᩥ ᚴᆅᡫဇᲢȑȃǷȳǰǪȕᲣƱɧദᇤʗᲴ ᇤʗඥƴƓƚǔݣᇌƱdzȳȐȸǸǧȳǹ Mary LAFRANCE ▮㔝 ᩄᶞヂ ࡣࡌࡵ㻌 Ⓩ㘓ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿၟᶆⓏ㘓ࡉࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸ၟᶆࡢ᪉㛵ࡋ࡚ࠊἲไᗘ㛫 ࡢ᫂☜࡞ᩥⓗ┦㐪ࡀᏑᅾࡍࡿࠋࡍ࡞ࢃࡕࠊ୍᪉ࡢἲไᗘࡣᾘ㈝⪅ᑐࡍ ࡿブḭࢆ㜵Ṇࡍࡿࡓࡵࡢ᪉⟇୍ḟⓗ࡞౯್ࢆぢฟࡍࠋ᪉ࡢἲไᗘࡣᾘ ㈝⪅ブḭࡢ㜵Ṇࢆ➇தつไ࠸࠺ࠊࡼࡾᗈ࠸┠ⓗࡢ୰ໟᦤࡉࢀࡿࡶࡢ ᤊ࠼ࡿࠋࢥ࣮ࣔࣥࣟࡢᅜࠎ࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊࢇࡢሙྜࠊࡼࡾ⊃࠸┠ᶆ࡛ ࠶ࡿᾘ㈝⪅ಖㆤࡀඃࢆ༨ࡵࡿࠋ᪉ࠊ㝣ἲࡢᅜࠎࡣࠊṇ➇த࠸ ࠺ᗈ࠸ᴫᛕࢆ㔜どࡋ࡚⪃࠼࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡓࡔࠊ➇தつไᑐࡍࡿࣉ࣮ࣟࢳࡢ ᕪࡣࠊ㏙ࡓ┦㐪ࡼࡾࡶࠊࡶࡗᚤጁ࡞ࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋୖグࡢศ㢮ࡣࠊ IGT Professor of Intellectual Property Law, William S. Boyd School of Law, University of Nevada, Las Vegas. ࡇࡢㄽᩥࡣࠊᖺ ᭶᪥ࡽ᪥ࡅ࡚ᾏ㐨Ꮫἲ Ꮫ◊✲⛉࠾࠸࡚㛤ദࡉࢀࡓ Conference on Law and Multi-Agential Governance: An Impact of Law on Market, Competition and/or Innovation ࠾ࡅࡿⓎ⾲ࢆඖࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ ➹⪅ࡣࠊࡇࡢྜཧຍࡋࡓ࡚ࡢฟᖍ⪅ᑐࡋࠊᐶ࡞ࡈពぢࢆ㈷ࡗࡓࡇឤ ㅰࡍࡿࠋࡾࢃࡅࠊ⏣ᮧၿஅᩍᤵࠊBranislav HazuchaࠊAdi AyalࠊAntonina Bakardjieva Engelbrektࠊᯘ⚽ᘺࠊᑠᓥ❧ࠊMatthias LeistnerࠊᮌⰋᏊࠊ㕥ᮌᑘᩥࠊᰗᕝ⠊அࡢ ྛẶឤㅰࡢពࢆ⾲ࡋࡓ࠸ࠋ ࡇࡇ࡛⏝࠸࡚࠸ࡿࠕṇ➇தࠖࡢㄒࡣࠊ㝣ἲ࠾ࡅࡿᗈ࠸ᴫᛕࢆᣦࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ 㝣ἲ࠾ࡅࡿṇ➇தࡢᴫᛕࡣࠊࡓ࠼ᾘ㈝⪅ࡼࡿΰྠࡀ⏕ࡌ࡞࠸ࡋ࡚ࡶつ ไᑐ㇟ࡍࡿࠋࡋࡋ⡿ᅜ࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊࠕṇ➇தࠖࡢㄒࡣࣃࢵࢩࣥࢢ࢜ࣇྠ⩏ ࡛⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿࡢࡀ㏻࡛࠶ࡿࠋ ▱ⓗ㈈⏘ἲᨻ⟇Ꮫ◊✲ 9RO ᕳ㢌ㄽᩥ ブ⛠㏻⏝ࣃࢵࢩࣥࢢ࢜ࣇṇ➇த㻸㼍㻲㼞㼍㼚㼏㼑 ᩥⓗ࡞ᑐ❧ࢆ༢⣧ࡋ㐣ࡂࡿࡁࡽ࠸ࡀ࠶ࡿࠋࢥ࣮ࣔࣥࣟ㝣ἲࡢศ㔝 ࡋ࡞ࡅࢀࡤ࡞ࡽ࡞࠸⌮⏤ࡀ࠶ࡿࡣ⚾ࡣᛮ࠼࡞࠸ࠋࡑࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࡇ ࠾࠸࡚ᵝࠎ࡞ࣉ࣮ࣟࢳࡢ᪉ࡀ࠶ࡾࠊᗄࡘࡢࢥ࣮ࣔࣥࣟࡢἲᇦ࠾ ࡣ➇தࢆ㜼ᐖࡍࡿࡔࡅ࡛࠶ࢁ࠺ࠋࠖ ࠸࡚ࡣࠊṇ➇தἲࡢ⪃࠼᪉ࡢ࡚ࢆྲྀࡾ㎸ࡴࡲ࡛࠸࡞࠸ࡶࡢࡢࠊࢥ ࣮ࣔࣥࣟ࠾ࡅࡿࣃࢵࢩࣥࢢ࢜ࣇࡢ⪃࠼᪉ࢆࡼࡾᗈࡃゎ㔘ࡋ࡚ࡁ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ ࣃࢵࢩࣥࢢ࢜ࣇṇ➇தࡢᩥⓗ⾪✺ࡣࠊ᭱ࡶ㏆࠾࠸࡚ࡣ୍㐃ࡢ ẚ㍑ᗈ࿌㛵ࡍࡿ௳⌧ࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊࡑ࠺ࡋࡓ⾪✺ࡣࠊ࢟ࣕࣛࢡࢱ࣮ࡸ ୍⯡ⓗゝࡗ࡚ࠊ㝣ἲࡢᅜࠎࡢࣉ࣮ࣟࢳ࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊ➇தࡼࡾࡶබ ⴭྡேࡢၟရࢆࡵࡄࡗ࡚ࡶぢࡿࡇࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋఝࡓࡼ࠺࡞⾪✺ࡣ࣮࢟࣡ ṇࡉ㸦ࣇ࢙ࢿࢫ㸧ࡀ┠ᣦࡍࡶࡢ㔜ࡁࢆ⨨ࡃࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࠊࡑࢀᨾ㝣ἲ ࣮ࢻᗈ࿌ࡢᩥ⬦࠾࠸࡚ࡶ⌧ࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡼ࠺ぢཷࡅࡽࢀࡿࠋࡇࢀࡽࡢ ࡣ➇தⓗ࡛࠶ࡿࡢᢈุࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࢀᑐࡋࠊࢥ࣮ࣔࣥࣟࡢ ぢࡽࢀࡿࣃࢵࢩࣥࢢ࢜ࣇṇ➇தἲࡢࣉ࣮ࣟࢳࡢ┦㐪ࡣࠊ⡿ᅜࡸࡑࡢ ࣉ࣮ࣟࢳࡣ➇தࢆ☜ಖࡍࡿࡇ║ࢆ⨨ࡁࠊබṇࡉࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠊ➇த⪅ ࡢᆅᇦ࠾࠸࡚ࠊၟရࡸࢧ࣮ࣅࢫࡢᅜቃࢆ㉺࠼ࡓྲྀᘬ㛵ࡋࡓ࠸⪃ ࡢ⾜Ⅽࡀ≉ᴟ➃࡛࠶ࡿㄆࡵࡽࢀࡿሙྜ㝈ࡾ⪃៖ࡉࢀࡿࡶࡢࡋ࡚ ࠼࡚࠸ࡿ࡚ࡢၟᶆᶒ⪅ࡀ⪃៖ධࢀ࡞ࡅࢀࡤ࡞ࡽ࡞࠸࡛࠶ࡿࠋ ࠸ࡿࠋࡑ࠺ࡋࡓᴟ➃࡞⾜Ⅽ࡛࠶ࡿㄆࡵࡽࢀࡿሙྜࡣࠊ࠼ࡤࠊ➇த⪅ ࡢࡗࡓ⾜ືࡼࡗ࡚ᾘ㈝⪅ࡀၟရࡢᛶ㉁ࡸฟᡤࡘ࠸࡚ㄗㄆཪࡣΰྠ ࣃࢵࢩࣥࢢ࢜ࣇṇ➇தἲࡢ㔜࡞ᕪ␗ࡣṧࡗࡓࡲࡲ࡛࠶ࡿࡶࡢࡢࠊ ࡍࡿྍ⬟ᛶࡀ࠶ࡿሙྜ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡑ࠺ࡋࡓᴟ➃࡞⾜ືࡀ࡞࠸ሙྜࠊࢥࣔࣥࣟ ୧⪅ࡢࢠࣕࢵࣉࡣ⊃ࡲࡗ࡚ࡁ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࢥ࣮ࣔࣥࣟࡢᅜࠎ࠾ࡅࡿุἲࡣࠊ ࣮ࡢࣉ ࣮ࣟ ࢳࡣࠊᕷሙ ࠾ࡅࡿ⾜ ືࡀ ᙜヱᶆ❶ࡢࠕࢢࢵࢻ࢘ࣝ ᣑࢆ⥆ࡅࡿၟྲྀᘬάື㐺⏝ࡍࡿࡓࡵࠊࣃࢵࢩࣥࢢ࢜ࣇࡢᴫᛕࢆᑡࡋ 㸦goodwill㸧ࠖ㸫㛵㐃ࡅࡽࢀࡓၟရࡸࢧ࣮ࣅࢫᾘ㈝⪅ࢆᘬࡁࡅࡿᶆ❶ ࡎࡘᗈࡆ࡚ࡁ࡚࠸ࡿࠋḢᕞ㐃ྜ㸦EU㸧ෆ࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊࡇࢀࡽࡢἲཎ๎ࡢ 䝁䞁䝞䞊䝆䜵䞁䝇 ࡢຊࢆᣦࡍ㸫ࢆᦆ࡞࠺࠾ࡑࢀࡀ࠶ࡿሙྜ࠾࠸࡚ࡢࡳࠊἲⓗᩆ῭ࢆ࠼ࡿࠋ ᑐ❧ගࡀᙜ࡚ࡽࢀࠊḢᕞྖἲุᡤ㸦ECJ㸧ࡢุỴࢆ㏻ࡌ࡚ࡑࡢ ᮰ ࡀᛴࡀࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡍ࡞ࢃࡕࠊࡇࢀࡽࡢุỴ࠾࠸࡚ࠊECJ ࡣᗄࡘࡢḢᕞ ࢥ࣮ࣔࣥࣟཬࡧ㝣ἲ࠸ࡎࢀࡢࣉ࣮ࣟࢳࡶᾘ㈝⪅ཬࡧ➇த⪅ࡢ┈ 㓄៖ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊࢥ࣮ࣔࣥࣟࡢࣉ࣮ࣟࢳ࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊᴫࡋ ᣦ௧ࢆᗈ⠊࡞ᴫᛕ࡛࠶ࡿṇ➇தྜ⮴ࡍࡿ᪉ἲ࡛ゎ㔘ࡋࠊⱥᅜᑐࡋࠊ ࠕࣃࢵࢩࣥࢢ࢜ࣇࠖࡘ࠸࡚ࠊඖࡢពࡣࡅ㞳ࢀࡓゎ㔘ࢆࡿࡼ࠺ᅽ ࡚ࠊᾘ㈝⪅ࡢ┈ࡀ᭱ࡶ㔜どࡉࢀ࡚ࡁ࡚࠸ࡿࠋᑐ↷ⓗࠊ㝣ἲ࠾ࡅࡿ ຊࢆࡅ࡚࠸ࡿࠋEU ࡢᨻ⟇ᣊ᮰ࡉࢀ࡞࠸ࢥ࣮ࣔࣥࣟࡢᅜࠎ࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊ ṇ➇தࡢ㆟ㄽ࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊᾘ㈝⪅ࡢ┈ࡘ࠸࡚ࢥ࣮ࣔࣥࣟ㔜ど ၟᶆᶒ⪅ࡓࡕࡣࠊ❧ἲ⪅ᑐࡋࠊఏ⤫ⓗ࡞ࣃࢵࢩࣥࢢ࢜ࣇࡢᙇࡢせ௳࡛ ࡉࢀࡎࠊᕷሙ࠾ࡅࡿ➇த⪅ࡢࠕබṇୟࡘㄔᐇ࡞ࠖ⾜Ⅽ࠸࠺ࠊᴫࡋ࡚ ࠶ࡿᾘ㈝⪅ᑐࡍࡿḭ▇⾜Ⅽࡢせ௳ࡢ㐺⏝ࢆ✵ᩥࡋࠊၟᶆ㸦Ⓩ㘓ၟᶆཬ ᫂☜࡞ᴫᛕ↔Ⅼࢆᙜ࡚ࡿഴྥࡀ࠶ࡿࠋᗄࡘࡢ࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊṇ➇த ࡧⓏ㘓ࡉࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸ၟᶆ᪉ࡢ㸧ಖㆤࡢ⠊ᅖࢆᣑࡋ⥆ࡅࡿࡓࡵᙳ㡪ຊ ἲࡢᗈ⠊࡞ゎ㔘ࡀࠊၟᶆࡢಖㆤࢆཌࡃࡋࠊⴭస⪅ே᱁ᶒ㏆࠸ࡼ࠺࡞ᶒ ࢆ⾜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࠊࡑ࠺ࡋࡓάືࡣࠊᕼ㔘㸦dilutionࡸࢧࣂ࣮ ࡋ࡚ᢅ࠺ሙྜࢆ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋⱥᅜࡢ Laddie ุࡣࠊṇ➇தࡢᗈ⠊࡞ ࢫࢡ࣡ࢵࢸࣥࢢ㛵ࡍࡿ❧ἲⓗᑐᛂ⤖ࡧ࠸࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡑ࠺ࡋࡓ❧ἲ ἲཎ๎ࢥ࣮ࣔࣥࣟୖࡢἲ⾜Ⅽ࡛࠶ࡿࣃࢵࢩࣥࢢ࢜ࣇࡢ㛫ࡢ⥭ᙇ㛵 ࡢ㐺⏝ࡀ࡞࠸ሙྜ࡛ࡶࠊၟᶆᶒ⪅ࡓࡕࡣࠊࣃࢵࢩࣥࢢ࢜ࣇࡢᴫᛕࡢ⠊ᅖࢆ ಀࡘࡁࠊHodgkinson & Corby Ltd. v. Wards Mobility Services Ltd. ࠾࠸࡚ ḟࡢࡼ࠺㏙࡚࠸ࡿࠋ ࠕࡇࡢἲ⾜Ⅽࡣḭ▇⾜Ⅽࡢྲྀ⥾ࡾࡢ⠊ᅖࢆഹ࡛ࡶ㉺࠼ࡓࡇࡣ࡞ ࠸ࠋࡶࡋࡑ࠺࡞ࢀࡤㄔᐇ࡞➇தࡢ☜ಖ࠸࠺㡿ᇦධࡿࡇ࡞ࡾࠊ ブḭ⾜Ⅽ௨እࡢఱࡽࡢ⌮⏤࡛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⛠㏻⏝ࣃࢵࢩࣥࢢ࢜ࣇṇ➇த㻸㼍㻲㼞㼍㼚㼏㼑 ᣑࡋ⥆ࡅࡿࡼ࠺ุᡤࢆㄝᚓࡍࡿࡇࡋࡤࡋࡤᡂຌࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ ࡋࡋࠊูࡢࢥ࣮ࣔࣥࣟࡢἲᇦ࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊఏ⤫ⓗἲ⾜Ⅽ࡛࠶ࡿࣃࢵ ࢩࣥࢢ࢜ࣇࢆከᵝ࡞᪉ἲ࡛ᣑᙇࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࢀࡽᣑᙇࡉࢀࡓࣃࢵࢩࣥࢢ࢜ ࡇ࠺ࡋࡓഴྥࡀ⥆ࡅࡤࠊࣃࢵࢩࣥࢢ࢜ࣇṇ➇தไᗘࡢ㛫ࡢከࡃࡢ ࣇࡣࠊṇ➇த㛵ࡍࡿ୍⯡ἲゝ࠺ࡇࡣ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ࡶࡢࡢࠊᗄࡘࡢ ┦㐪Ⅼࡣࠊ᭱⤊ⓗࡣᾘ࠼ཤࡿࡇ࡞ࡿ࡛࠶ࢁ࠺ࠋ ࠾࠸࡚ࠊᙜᚓࡸࡓࡔࡾ㸦ࣇ࣮ࣜࣛࢹࣥࢢ㸧ࡢࡼ࠺࡞㢮ఝࡢ ἲཎ⌮ࡢᙳ㡪ࢆཷࡅ࡚࠸ࡿࡼ࠺ぢཷࡅࡽࢀࡿࠋ Ϩ㸬ࣃࢵࢩࣥࢢ࢜ࣇ㛵ࡍࡿఏ⤫ⓗ࡞ほᛕᣑࡉࢀࡓほᛕ㻌 ⱥᅜ࠾࠸࡚ࠊࠕᣑᙇࡉࢀࡓࣃࢵࢩࣥࢢ࢜ࣇࠖࡢᴫᛕࡣࠊၟရࡢ≉ᛶࡸ ࣃࢵࢩࣥࢢ࢜ࣇࡢᴫᛕࡣࠊࢥ࣮ࣔࣥࣟࡢᅜࠎ࠾ࡅࡿၟᶆಖㆤࢩࢫࢸ࣒ ရ㉁㛵ࡍࡿᐇ⾲♧ᑐࡋ࡚㐺⏝ࡉࢀࡿࠋࡑࡇ࡛ࡣࠊࣃࢵࢩࣥࢢ࢜ࣇ ࡢ୰᰾⨨ࡍࡿࠋࡑࡢ㉳※ࡣࠊࢥ࣮ࣔࣥࣟ࠾ࡅࡿブḭ⾜Ⅽࡢつไ࠶ ࡢᴫᛕࡣࠊ≉ᐃࡢၟேࡢၟရࢆಖㆤࡍࡿ࠸࠺ࡇࢆ㉺࠼࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡑࡢ௦ ࡿࠋᮏ᮶ࠊḭ⨕ࡢពᅗࡢ࠶ࡿࡇࡀἲᚊୖࡢせ௳࡛࠶ࡗࡓࡀࠊࣃࢵࢩࣥࢢ ࢃࡾࠊࣃࢵࢩࣥࢢ࢜ࣇࡣࠊ≉ᐃࡢ࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜᒓࡍࡿၟရࢆ≉ᐃࡍࡿゝ ࢜ࣇࡀᾘ㈝⪅࠼ࡿᙳ㡪↔Ⅼࢆྜࢃࡏࡿࡼ࠺࡞ࡗࡓࡓࡵࠊࡇࡢせ௳ ⴥࡸゝ࠸ᅇࡋࢆࠊ⿕࿌ࡀㄗゎࢆᣍࡃࡼ࠺࡞⏝࠸᪉ࢆࡋࡓሙྜ࠾࠸࡚ࠊࡑ ࡣࡶࡣࡸᚲせࡉࢀ࡞࠸ࠋࡇࡢἲ⾜Ⅽࡢᡂ❧⠊ᅖࡀࢆ⤒࡚ᣑࡉࢀࠊ ࡢ≉ᐃࡢ࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜࡢၟရࢆ⏕⏘ࡍࡿ࡚ࡢၟேࢆಖㆤࡍࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡑ ࡑࡢࠕኚᗁ⮬ᅾ࡞ᛶ㉁ ࠖࡀᣦࡉࢀࡿ୍᪉ࠊࡑࢀࡣ࣮ࣚࣟࢵࣃ㝣࠾ ࢀᨾࠊΰྠࡢྍ⬟ᛶࡣࡇࡇ࡛ࡶ࡞࠾ᚲせࡉࢀࡿࠋࡋࡋ࡞ࡀࡽࠊၥ㢟 ࡅࡿṇ➇தἲࡢᴫᛕࡲ࡛ᮍࡔ㏆࠸࡚ࡣ࠸࡞࠸ࠋ࡞ࡐ࡞ࡽࠊࣃࢵࢩࣥ ࡉࢀࡿࢢࢵࢻ࢘ࣝࡣࠊၟᶆ⤖ࡧ࠸࡚࠸ࡿࡶࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊ༢୍ࡢၟ ࢢ࢜ࣇࡣࠊᶆ❶ࡢ↓ᙧࡢ౯್㛵ࡍࡿṇ┠ⓗ⏝㸦misappropriation㸧 ேᒓࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡶࡢ࡛ࡶ࡞࠸ࠋࢢࢵࢻ࢘ࣝࡣࠊࡑࡢ࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜ≉᭷ࡢ ᑐࡍࡿ୍⯡ⓗ࡞ἲⓗࢡࢩ࡛ࣙࣥࡣ࡞࠸ࡽ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ ရ㉁ࢆ᭷ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿၟရࢆ㈍ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡚ࡢၟே㸦㞟ᅋⓗ㸧ᒓࡋ࡚࠸ ࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢᙧᘧࡢࣃࢵࢩࣥࢢ࢜ࣇࡣࠊᑡᩘࡢ࠾࠸࡚ࡢࡳᢅࢃ ఏ⤫ⓗ࡞ࣃࢵࢩࣥࢢ࢜ࣇࡢᙇ࠾ࡅࡿᮏ㉁ⓗせ௳ࡣ௨ୗࡢ࠾ࡾ࡛ ࠕࢩࣕࣥࣃࣥ㸦champagneࠖ ࠊ ࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊ ࠕࢻ࣮࣎࢝ࢺ㸦advocaatࠖࠊ ࠶ࡿ㸦ࡋࡤࡋࡤࠕྂⓗ࡞୕✀ࡢ⚄ჾ㸦classic trinity㸧 ࠖࡤࢀࡿ㸧ࠋ ࠕࢫࢥࢵࢳ࢘ࢫ࣮࢟㸦Scotch whiskyࠖࠊ ࠕࣁࣜ ࠕࢩ࢙࣮ࣜ㸦sherryࠖࠊ ࢢࢵࢻ࢘ࣝ㸦ᶆ❶ࡢ⤖ࡧࡁࡼࡗ࡚ၟရࢆ㉎ධࡋࡼ࠺ࡍࡿᾘ㈝⪅ ࠊ ࠕࢫࢫࢳࣙࢥ࣮ࣞࢺ㸦Swiss chocolateࠖࠊ ࢫࢶ࣮ࢻ㸦Harris tweedࠖ ࡢḧồࡘ࠸࡚㏙ࡿ᫂☜࡞⏝ㄒ࡛࠶ࡿ㸧ࠊ ฟᡤ㛵ࡍࡿᐇ⾲♧ࠊ ᐇ⾲♧ࡢ⤖ᯝࡋ࡚ࢢࢵࢻ࢘ࣝࡀᦆᐖࢆཷࡅࡿྍ⬟ᛶࠊ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ ྂⓗ࡞ᯟ⤌ࡳ࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊࣃࢵࢩࣥࢢ࢜ࣇࡣࠊၟேࡀࠊ➇த⪅ࡢ㢳ᐈࢆ 㦄ࡋཪࡣΰࡉࡏࠊბࡢࣛ࣋ࣝࡀࡉࢀࡓၟရࢆ㉎ධࡉࡏࡿࡓࡵࠊ➇ᴗ ⪅ࡢၟᶆࢆၟရࡸࢧ࣮ࣅࢫࡍሙྜ࠾࠸࡚ᡂ❧ࡍࡿࡇ࡞ࡿࠋ ࡇࡢᴫᛕࡣ࢝ࢼࢲ࡛ࡶㄆࡵࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋSee John McKeown, Vodka, Champagne and Passing 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㸧ࠖࡢྡࢆࢫࣃ࣮ࢡࣜࣥࢢ࣭࣡ࣥ⏝࠸ࡿࡇࡣ࡛ࡁ࡞ ࠸ࠋ࡞ࡐ࡞ࡽࠊࡑࡢࡼ࠺࡞ྡ⛠ࡣࠊᾘ㈝⪅ࢆࡋ࡚ࡑࢀࡀࣇࣛࣥࢫࡢࢩࣕࣥࣃ࣮ࢽࣗ ᆅ᪉࡛⏕⏘ࡉࢀࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿㄗゎࡉࡏࡿࡽ࡛࠶ࡿࠊࡋࡓ. 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⛠㏻⏝ࣃࢵࢩࣥࢢ࢜ࣇṇ➇த㻸㼍㻲㼞㼍㼚㼏㼑 ࠸ࡗࡓㄒࡢᐇ⾲♧ࡢࡘ࠸࡚ཎ࿌ഃࡣࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ㏆ࠊࣦ࢛ ࣛࣥࣁ࣒ἲࡣࠕഇᗈ࿌㸦false advertising㸧ࠖ㛵ࡍࡿ᮲㡯ࡀ⨨ࢀ࡚࠾ ࢺ࢝㸦vodka㸧ࡢ〇㐀⪅ࡀࠊࠕVODOKATࠖ㸦ࣝࢥ࣮ࣝ㣧ᩱࡔࡀࠊ࣮ࣚࣟ ࡾࠊࡑࡇ࡛ࡣࠊ➇த⪅ࡢഇࡢㄝ᫂㸦➇த⪅ࡢၟရ㛵ࡍࡿഇㄝ᫂ཬࡧ ࢵࣃἲࡢୗ࡛ࡣࣦ࢛ࢺ࢝ࡋ࡚㈍ࡍࡿἲᚊୖࡢᇶ‽ࢆ‶ࡓࡋ࡚࠸࡞࠸㸧 ᙜヱၟேࡢၟရ㛵ࡍࡿഇㄝ᫂᪉ࢆྵࡴ㸧ࡼࡾᦆᐖࢆ⿕ࡗࡓၟே ࡢ〇㐀⪅ᑐࡋࠊྠᵝࡢᙇࢆࡋ࡚ッࡋࡓ ࠋVODKAT ࡢㄒࡣࠊࣦ࢛ࢺ ᑐࡋࠊ㐃㑥ἲୖࡢᩆ῭ᥐ⨨ࡀᐃࡵࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡋࡋࠊࣛࣥࣁ࣒ἲ࠾ ࢝ࡢ≉ᐃࡢࣈࣛࣥࢻ࡛⏝ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿၟᶆ㢮ఝࡋ࡚࠸ࡓࢃࡅ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊ ࡅࡿഇᗈ࿌ࡢᙇࡣࠊ➇த⪅ࡢㄝ᫂ࡀᩥᏐ࠾ࡾഇ࡛࠶ࡿཪࡣᾘ㈝ ࡋࡓࡀࡗ࡚ࠊఏ⤫ⓗ࡞ࣃࢵࢩࣥࢢ࢜ࣇࡢ⌮ㄽࡼࡗ࡚ᑐᛂ࡛ࡁࡿ࡛ࡣ ⪅ࢆΰࡉࡏࠊ㦄ࡍࡇ࡞ࡿྍ⬟ᛶࡀ࠶ࡿሙྜ㝈ࡽࢀࡿࠋ௬➇த ࡞ࡗࡓࠋࡑࢀࡶࢃࡽࡎࠊࡑࡢ⾲♧ࡀ༢㯲♧ⓗ〇ရࡢရ㉁ࡘ ⪅ࡢ㏙࡚࠸ࡿࡇࡀഇ࡛࡞࠸ሙྜࠊཎ࿌ࡣᾘ㈝⪅ࡀ⌧ᐇㄗᑟࡉࢀࡓ ࠸࡚ᐇ⾲♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡓ࠸࠺⌮⏤࡛ࠊᣑᙇࡉࢀࡓ⌮ㄽࡢୗ࡛ἲⓗᑐᛂࡀྍ ࡇࢆド᫂ࡋ࡞ࡅࢀࡤ࡞ࡽ࡞࠸ࠋ ⬟࡞ࡶࡢࡉࢀࡓࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋVODKAT ௳ࡣࠊᣑᙇࡉࢀࡓࣃࢵࢩࣥࢢ࢜ ࡑࢀᨾࠊഇᗈ࿌㛵ࡍࡿつᐃࡣࠊ࢝ࣜࣇ࢛ࣝࢽ⏘ࡢࢫࣃ࣮ࢡࣜࣥ ࣇࡢ⌮ㄽࡀࠊ୍ὶရࡸ㧗⣭ရ㝈ࡗ࡚㐺⏝ࡉࢀࡿࡶࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࡇࢆ᫂ࡽ ࢢ࣡ࣥࢆࠕࢩࣕࣥࣃࣥࠖ㸦⡿ᅜࡢᾘ㈝⪅ࡣࡇࢀࢆ୍⯡ྡ⛠ㄆ㆑ࡋ࡚࠸ ࡋࡓ᭱ึࡢ௳ࡋ࡚≉➹್ࡍࡿࠋุᡤࡢぢゎࡼࢀࡤࠊࡓ࠼ ࡿ㸧ࡋ࡚ࡿࡇࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠊࡑࢀࡀࣇࣛࣥࢫ⏘࡛࠶ࡿ᫂♧ࡉࢀࠊཪ ࣦ࢛ࢺ࢝࠸ࡗࡓ୍⯡ྡ⛠࡛࠶ࡗ࡚ࡶࠊࢢࢵࢻ࢘ࣝࢆ⏕ࡌࡿࡢ༑ศ࡞ ࡣᙉࡃ♧၀ࡉࢀࡓ࠸࠺ࡢ࡛࡞࠸㝈ࡾࠊ㐺⏝ࡉࢀࡿࡶࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋྠᵝࠊ ಙ⏝ຊࢆ᭷ࡍࡿࠋRix ุ㸦Lord Justice Rix㸧ࡣࠊูグࡉࢀࡓពぢ࠾࠸ VODKAT ࣐࣮ࢡࡘ࠸࡚ࡶࠊࡑࡢྡ⛠ࡀ┦ᙜ࡞ᩘࡢᾘ㈝⪅ࢆࡋ࡚㸣ࡢ ࡚ࠊᣑᙇࡉࢀࡓࣃࢵࢩࣥࢢ࢜ࣇࡣࠊᚑ๓ࠊ୍ὶရ㸦ࢩࣕࣥࣃࣥ㸧ࠊ㧗ᗘ ࣦ࢛ࢺ࡛࢝࠶ࡿಙࡌࡉࡏࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿ❧ドࡉࢀࡿࡢ࡛࡞࠸㝈ࡾࠊഇ ≉Ṧࡋࡓ〇ရ㸦ࢻ࣮࣎࢝ࢺ㸧ࠊཪࡣ≉ูࡢᆅ⌮ⓗ࡞㉳※ࢆᣢࡘ〇ရ㸦ࢩ ᗈ࿌ࡋ࡚ἲⓗᥐ⨨ࢆࡿࡇࡣ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ࠋ ࣕࣥࣃࣥࡸࢫࢫࢳࣙࢥ࣮ࣞࢺ㸧㐺⏝ࡉࢀ࡚ࡁࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡾࠊࡇࢀࢆࣦ ࢛ࢺ࢝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞୍⯡ⓗ࡞〇ရ㐺⏝ࡍࡿࡇࡣࠊุᡤࡀ㐺ษࡇࡢἲ ࡶ࠺ ࡘࡢࣃࢵࢩࣥࢢ࢜ࣇࡽὴ⏕ࡋࡓἲ⌮㸫ഇಖド㸦false en- ཎ๎ࢆᣑࡋࡓࡇ࡞ࡿࡢᠱᛕࢆ⾲᫂ࡋࡓࠋRix ุࡢ⪃࠼ࡼࢀ dorsement㸧ࡋ࡚▱ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ㸫ࡣࠊ⡿ᅜࠊⱥᅜཬࡧ࣮࢜ࢫࢺ࡛ࣛࣜㄆ ࡤࠊࣃࢵࢩࣥࢢ࢜ࣇࡣࠕᣑᙇᣑᙇࢆ㔜ࡡࡿࡇ࡛ࠊᮏศ࡛࠶ࡿࢢࢵࢻ࢘ ▱ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋఏ⤫ⓗ࡞ࣃࢵࢩࣥࢢ࢜ࣇࡣࠊ⿕࿌ࡀ↓チㅙ࡛ฟᡤ⾲♧ࢆ ࣝࡢಖㆤ࠸࠺㡿ᇦࢆ㉺࠼࡚ࠊṇ➇த࠸࠺Ᏺഛ⠊ᅖእࡢ㡿ᇦ㋃ࡳ ⏝ࡍࡿࡇ࡛ࠊᾘ㈝⪅ࡀࠊ⿕࿌ࡀ㈍ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿၟရཪࡣࢧ࣮ࣅࢫࡢฟᡤࡀ ㎸ࡴࡁ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠖࠋࡢุࡢ୰ࡣࠊⱥᅜἲ࠾ࡅࡿࣃࢵࢩࣥࢢ࢜ࣇ ཎ࿌࡛࠶ࡿಙࡌࡿྍ⬟ᛶࡀ࠶ࡿሙྜᡂ❧ࡍࡿࠋࡇࢀᑐࡋࠊഇಖド ࡀࠊࡑࡢఏ⤫ⓗ࡞┠ⓗ࡛࠶ࡿᶆ❶ࢆฟᡤ⾲♧ࡋ࡚ಖㆤࡍࡿࡇࡽ㞳ࢀࠊ ࡣࠊཎ࿌ࡀ⿕࿌ࡢၟရཪࡣࢧ࣮ࣅࢫࢆಖドࡋࠊᢎㄆࡋཪࡣఱࡽࡢᥦᦠ㛵 ୍⯡ⓗ࡞ἲ࡛࠶ࡿṇ➇தࡢ㡿ᇦྥࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ࠸࠺ᩥⓗࢩࣇࢺࡀ ಀࢆ᭷ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿᾘ㈝⪅ࡀಙࡌࡿྍ⬟ᛶࡀ࠶ࡿሙྜᡂ❧ࡋᚓࡿࡶࡢ࡛ ㉳ࡁ࡚࠸ࡿࡇࡘ࠸࡚ᠱᛕࢆ⾲᫂ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ⪅ࡶ࠸ࡿࠋRix ุࡢ㛵ᚰ ࠶ࡿࠋ⡿ᅜ࡛ㄆࡵࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࣃࣈࣜࢩࢸᶒᑐࡍࡿⱥᅜࡢᣄ⤯ᛂࡶ ࡣࠊࡇ࠺ࡋࡓᠱᛕ㌶ࢆ୍ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ ࢃࡽࡎࠊⱥᅜ࡛ࡣࠊഇಖドࡢἲ⌮ࡣࠊ୍㒊ࡢⴭྡேࡀࡑࡢ⫝̸ീࡸྡ ๓ࡀ↓チㅙ࡛ၟᴗⓗ⏝ࡉࢀࡿࡇࢆ㜵Ṇࡍࡿࡓࡵ⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿࠋ⡿ 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⛠㏻⏝ࣃࢵࢩࣥࢢ࢜ࣇṇ➇த㻸㼍㻲㼞㼍㼚㼏㼑 ᅜ࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊഇಖドࡢᙇࡣࣃࣈࣜࢩࢸᶒࡢᐖ⤖ࡧࡅ࡚ᙇ ࣃࢵࢩࣥࢢ࢜ࣇࡣࠊཎ࿌ࡢၟရࡢရ㉁㛵ࡍࡿᐇ⾲♧ࡘ࠸࡚ࡶ㐺⏝ ࡉࢀᚓࡿࠋࡋࡋࠊഇಖドࡢᙇࡣࠊྡ⛠ࡸ⫝̸ീ௨እࡢฟᡤ⾲♧̿࠼ ࡀᣑᙇࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ࠼ࡤࠊⱥᅜࡢุᡤࡣࠊཎ࿌〇㐀⪅ࡀᇶ‽ࢆ‶ࡓࡋ ࡤ↓Ⓩ㘓ၟᶆ̿ࢆ⏝ࡋࡓ↓チㅙၟᴗάືࢆ㜵Ṇࡍࡿࡓࡵࡶ⏝࠸ࡽࢀ ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࡋ࡚ᤞ࡚ࡓၟရࢆࠊཎ࿌ࡢ᪂ࡓᨵⰋࡉࢀࡓ〇ရ࡛࠶ࡿ⛠ࡋ ᚓࡿࠋഇಖドࡢᴫᛕࡢၥ㢟Ⅼࡢ ࡘࡣࠊุᡤࡀࠊཎ࿌⿕࿌ࡢ㛫ࡢ ࡚⿕࿌ࡀ㈍ࡋ࡚࠸ࡓࡘ࠸࡚ࠊࣃࢵࢩࣥࢢ࢜ࣇࡢᡂ❧ࢆㄆࡵࡓࠋ 㛵ಀᛶࡘ࠸࡚ࡢᾘ㈝⪅ࡢㄆ㆑ࡣఱࠊ࠸࠺ࡇࢆᐃ⩏ࡅࡿࡇ ࡇࡢ࠾࠸࡚ࠊၟရࡢฟᡤࡀཎ࿌࡛࠶ࡿ࠸࠺⾲♧ࢆࡋࡓⅬ࠾࠸࡚ ᅔ㞴ࡀ࠶ࡿ࠸࠺Ⅼ࡛࠶ࡿ ࠋ࠼ࡤⱥᅜ࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊSir Michael Kerr ࡣࠊ ࡣ⿕࿌ഇࡣ࡞ࡗࡓࠋࡋࡋࠊ⿕࿌ࡢ⾲♧ࡣࠊᙜヱၟရࡀ୍⣭ࡢရ㉁ බ⾗ࡀࠊཎ࿌⿕࿌ࡢࣅࢪࢿࢫࢆఱࡽࡢᙧ࡛ΰྠࡍࡿࡇ࡛༑ศ࡛࠶ ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࡇࢆ㛤♧ࡋ࡚࠸࡞ࡗࡓ࠸࠺Ⅼ࡛ᐇ࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋࡇ࠺ࡋࡓࣃ ࡿ♧၀ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ ࠋࡇࢀᑐ↷ⓗࠊMillett ุ㸦Lord Justice Millett㸧 ࢵࢩࣥࢢ࢜ࣇࡢἲ⌮ࡢ㐺⏝ࡣࠊ⡿ᅜ࡛ࡶྠᵝཷࡅධࢀࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ⡿ ࡣࠊබ⾗ࡀࠊ⿕࿌ࡢၟရࡢရ㉁ࡘ࠸࡚ཎ࿌ࡀ㈐௵ࢆᣢࡘ࠸࠺ࡇࢆㄆ ᅜ࡛ࡣࠊࡇ࠺ࡋࡓࣃࢵࢩࣥࢢ࢜ࣇࡢ㐺⏝ࡣࠊࢢ࣭࣐࣮ࣞࢣࢵࢺၟရࡢ㍺ ㆑ࡋ࡞ࡅࢀࡤ࡞ࡽ࡞࠸࠸࠺ࡇࢆᥦ♧ࡋ࡚࠾ࡾࠊ⤒῭ⓗ࡞༠ຊ㛵ಀࡀㄆ ධࢆ㜵Ṇࡍࡿࡓࡵࡶ⏝࠸ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ ㆑ࡉࢀࡿࡔࡅ࡛ࡣ㊊ࡾ࡞࠸ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ ࠋ࣮࢜ࢫࢺࣛࣜࡢุᡤࡣࠊ Hogan v. Koala Dundee ཬࡧࡇࢀ⥆ࡃᗄࡘࡢ࠾࠸࡚ࠊྠᵝࡢၥ㢟 ఏ⤫ⓗ࡞ࣃࢵࢩࣥࢢ࢜ࣇࡢࡶ࠺ ࡘࡢᣑᙇࡋ࡚ࠊᗄࡘࡢࢥ࣮ࣔࣥࣟ Ⅼ㛵ࡋ᫂☜࡞ゎỴ⟇ࢆぢࡅࡽࢀ࡞࠸ࡲࡲࠊࡇࢀࢆゎỴࡋࡼ࠺ດຊࢆ ࡢἲᇦ࠾࠸࡚ㄆࡵࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡢࡀࠊࠕ㏫ࣃࢵࢩࣥࢢ࢜ࣇ㸦reverse passing 㔜ࡡ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡋࡋ࡞ࡀࡽࠊၟရཪࡣࢧ࣮ࣅࢫࡀ㢮ఝࡋ࡞࠸ሙྜ࠾࠸ off, inverse passing off, upside down passing off㸧ࠖ 㸧ࡋ࡚▱ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿᴫᛕ ࡚ࡶഇಖドࡢ㈐௵ࡀᡂ❧ࡍࡿࠊ࠸࠺Ⅼࡘ࠸࡚ࡣ᫂ࡽ࡛࠶ࡿ ࠋḟ ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢᴫᛕࡣࠊ⿕࿌ࡀࠊබ⾗ᑐࡋࠊཎ࿌ࡢၟရࢆ⿕࿌⊂⮬ࡢၟရ ➨ࠊุᡤࡣࠊබ⾗ࡀ㈍ಁ㐍άືぶࡋࢇ࡛࠸ࡿࡇࢆഇಖドࡼ ࡛࠶ࡿഇ⾲♧ࡋࠊཪࡣ⿕࿌ࡀࡑࡢၟရࡢရ㉁ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊཎ࿌ࡢၟရ ࡿΰྠࡢྍ⬟ᛶࡢㄆᐃࡢᨭ࠼ࡍࡿࡼ࠺࡞ࡗ࡚ࡁ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ࠼ࡤࠊ ࡢရ㉁㛵ࡍࡿㄝ᫂ࢆὶ⏝ࡍࡿሙྜ㸦࠼ࡤࠊཎ࿌ࡢၟရࡢ┿ࡸࢧࣥࣉ ᖺࠊⱥᅜࡢุᡤࡣࠊࣛࢭࣥࢫ࡞ࡋ࡛⿕࿌ࡀࢸ࣮࢚ࣥࢪ࣭࣑࣮ࣗࢱ ࣝࢆ⏝࠸ࠊཪࡣཎ࿌ࡢၟရ㛵ࡍࡿ㉎㈙⪅ࡢឤࢆ⿕࿌ၟရ㛵ࡋ࡚ᘬ⏝ ࣥࢺ࣭ࢽࣥࢪ࣭ࣕࢱ࣮ࢺࣝࢬ㸦Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles㸧ࡢ࣓࣮ࢪࢆ ࡍࡿሙྜ㸧ㄆࡵࡽࢀࡿࠋⱥᅜࡢุᡤࡣࠊࡇࡢἲ⾜Ⅽࢆㄆࡵࡿࡇ 㸦⾰᭹㸧↓᩿࡛⏝ࡋࡓ⾜Ⅽࣃࢵࢩࣥࢢ࢜ࣇࡢᡂ❧ࢆㄆࡵࡓࠋࡇࡢ ✚ᴟⓗ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊ⡿ᅜ࠾࠸࡚ࡼࡾ㢖⦾ࡇࡢἲ⾜Ⅽࡀ㐺⏝ࡉࢀ࡚ ࠾࠸࡚ࠊุᡤࡣࠊ࢟ࣕࣛࢡࢱ࣮ࢢࢵࢬࡢ⏕⏘ࡣ୍⯡ⓗࣛࢭࣥ ࠸ࡿࠋࡋࡋ࡞ࡀࡽࠊⱥᅜཬࡧ⡿ᅜ᪉࠾࠸࡚ࠊ᭱ࡶ୍⯡ⓗࡇࡢ ࢫࡀᚲせࡉࢀࡿࡇࢆබ⾗ࡢ┦ᙜᩘࡀ▱ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡇࡽࠊබ⾗ࡀࠊ⿕ ࿌ࡢࢢࢵࢬࡀࣛࢭࣥࢫࢆཷࡅ࡚࠸ࡿࡶࡢㄗಙࡍࡿྍ⬟ᛶࡀ࠶ࡿࠊࡋ 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ࡣഇᗈ࿌ࡀၥ㢟࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋSee Mary LaFrance, When You ⡿ᅜࡢከࡃࡢุᡤࡀࡇࡢἲ⌮ࢆ㐺⏝ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊ⣽᳨ウࡍࡿࠊࡇࢀࡽࡢ ▱ⓗ㈈⏘ἲᨻ⟇Ꮫ◊✲ 9RO ▱ⓗ㈈⏘ἲᨻ⟇Ꮫ◊✲ 9RO ᕳ㢌ㄽᩥ ブ⛠㏻⏝ࣃࢵࢩࣥࢢ࢜ࣇṇ➇த㻸㼍㻲㼞㼍㼚㼏㼑 ἲ⾜Ⅽࡢᡂ❧ࡀㄆࡵࡽࢀࡿࡢࡣࠊ⿕࿌ࡢྡࡢୗཎ࿌ၟရࡀ⌧ᐇ㈍ࡉ ࡇࢀࡲ࡛ࡢࡇࢁࠊࢇࡢ㝣ἲࡢἲᇦ࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊブḭ⾜Ⅽࢆྵࢇ ࢀ࡚࠸ࡿሙྜ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋࡑ࠺࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊᑀࢁ⿕࿌ࡢၟရࡢရ㉁ࢆഇࡿഇ ࡛࠸࡞࠸ከࡃࡢ⾜Ⅽࢆྵࡴࡼ࠺ṇ➇தࢆゎ㔘ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋḢᕞྖἲุ ᗈ࿌ࡢ୍✀ࡢሙྜ࡛࠶ࡿࡇࡀከ࠸ࠋࡇࡢሙྜ࠾࠸࡚ࠊཎ࿌ࡢࢢࢵࢻ࢘ ᡤ㸦ECJ㸧ࡼࢀࡤࠊEC ၟᶆᣦ௧㸦EC Trade Marks Directive㸧࡛⌧ࡉࢀ ࣝࡣࡃ⏝ࡉࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࠋ࡞ࡐ࡞ࡽࠊཎ࿌ࡢၟᶆࡸၟྕࡘ࠸࡚ఱࡽ ࡚࠸ࡿࠕᕤᴗୖཪࡣၟᴗୖࡢබṇ࡞័⩦ࠖࡢせ௳ࡣࠊ ࠕၟᶆᶒ⪅ࡢྜἲ ゝཬࡋ࡚࡞࠸ࡽ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ࠾ࡑࡽࡃࠊࡇࡢᙧែࡣࣃࢵࢩࣥࢢ࢜ࣇࡣࡃ ⓗ࡞┈㛵ࡋ࡚බṇ⾜ືࡍࡿ⩏ົࠖࢆྵពࡍࡿࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊከ ࠶࡚ࡣࡲࡽ࡞࠸ࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ㏫ࣃࢵࢩࣥࢢ࢜ࣇࡢᴫᛕࡣࠊṇ➇தࡢ ࡃࡢゎ㔘ࡢవᆅࢆṧࡋ࡚࠾ࡾࠊࡲࡓࠊࠕᚠ⎔ㄽἲ࡛࠶ࡿࠖᢈุࡉࢀ࡚࠸ ᙇࡼࡾ㏆࠸ᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋ࡞ࡐ࡞ࡽࠊ┐⏝ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡢࡣཎ࿌ࡢࢢࢵࢻ࢘ ࡿࠋ࡞࠾ ECJ ࡣࠊཎ࿌⿕࿌ࡢ㛫ࡢၟᴗⓗ⤖ࡧࡁࢆㄗㄆࡉࡏࡿࡼ࠺ ࡛ࣝࡣ࡞ࡃ㸦࡞ࡐ࡞ࡽ⿕࿌ࡣཎ࿌ࢆၟရࡢฟᡤࡋ࡚ཧ↷ࡍࡿࡇࡉ࠼ ࡞⏝ࡢሙྜࡔࡅࢆࠕබṇࠖㄆᐃࡍࡿࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋྠุᡤࡣࠊ〇ရ ࡋ࡚࠸࡞࠸㸧 ࠊཎ࿌ࡢ㧗ရ㉁ࡢၟရࢆ⏕ࡳฟࡍ㐀ᛶດຊࡔࡽ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ ࢆၟᶆᶒ⪅ࡢ〇ရࡢࠕᶍೌࡸࣞࣉ࡛ࣜ࢝ࠖ࠶ࡿࡋࡓࡾࠊᶆ❶ࡢಙ⏝ࢆ ࡇࢀࡣࠊࢥ࣮ࣔࣥࣟࡢἲไࡀᴫࡋ࡚࠶ࡲࡾㄆࡵࡓࡀࡽ࡞ࡗࡓṇ┠ⓗ യࡅࡓࡾ୰യࡍࡿሙྜࠊᶆ❶ࡢࠕ≉᭷ࡢᛶ㉁ࡸྡኌ㛵ࡍࡿබṇ࡞ ⏝㸦misappropriation㸧ࡢᙇ➼ࡋ࠸ࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿ ࠋ᪉ࠊᾘ㈝⪅ᑐࡍ ┈ࠖࢆᚓࡿࡼ࠺࡞⏝ࡢሙྜࡶࡲࡓࠕබṇ࡛ࠖ࠶ࡿࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ ࡿḭ▇⾜Ⅽࢆ㜵Ṇࡍࡿ࠸࠺Ⅼ࡛ࡣࠊ㏫ࣃࢵࢩࣥࢢ࢜ࣇࡢ⪃࠼᪉ࡣࠊࣃࢵ ࢩࣥࢢ࢜ࣇࡢ୍⯡ⓗ࡞┠ⓗྜ⮴ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ ࠕࣇ࣮ࣜࣛࢹࣥࢢ㸦free riding㸧 ࠖࡢㄒࡣࠊṇ➇தࢆᵓᡂࡋᚓࡿ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ࡣࠊࣇ࣮ࣜࣛࢹࣥࢢࢆࠕ➇த⪅ࡸࡑࡢࡢᕷሙཧຍ⪅ࡀࠊ ⪅ࡢᕤᴗୖཪࡣၟᴗୖࡢᡂᯝࢆࠊࡑࡢ࢜ࣜࢪࢼࣝࡢᡂᯝࡽࡁࡃእࢀࡿ ᕤᴗᡤ᭷ᶒࡢಖㆤ㛵ࡍࡿࣃࣜ᮲⣙➨᮲ࡢ ࡣࠊྠ┕ᅜṇ➇த ࡇ࡞ࡋࠊ⮬ࡽࡢࣅࢪࢿࢫୖࡢ┠ⓗࡢࡓࡵ┤᥋ⓗ⏝ࡍࡿ࡚ࡢ⾜ ᑐࡍࡿಖㆤࢆồࡵ࡚࠾ࡾࠊࡑࡇ࡛ࡣࠕᕤᴗୖཪࡣၟᴗୖࡢබṇ࡞័⩦ Ⅽࠖᐃ⩏ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ ࡍࡿࡍ࡚ࡢ➇த⾜Ⅽࠖࡀṇ➇த⾜Ⅽ࡛࠶ࡿᐃ⩏ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ ࠋྠ ᮲ࡢ ࡀ᫂☜♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ၏୍ࡢ⾜Ⅽࡣࠊ➇த⪅ࡢࣅࢪࢿࢫࡢΰྠࢆ⏕ 㝣ἲࡢἲᇦࡣࠊṇ➇தࡢἲ⌮ࢆ␗࡞ࡿ࣓࢝ࢽࢬ࣒࡛Ⓨ㐩ࡉࡏ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ ࡌࡉࡏࡿ⾜Ⅽࠊ➇த⪅ࡢࣅࢪࢿࢫࡢಙ⏝ࢆᐖࡍࡿ⾜Ⅽࠊ➇த⪅ࡢၟရࡢᛶ ᗄࡘࡢᅜࠎ࡛ࡣࠊẸἲࡢ୍⯡᮲㡯ࡢྖἲゎ㔘ࢆ㏻ࡌ࡚ṇ➇தἲࢆⓎᒎ ㉁ࡘ࠸࡚බ⾗ࢆㄗࡽࡏࡿ⾜Ⅽࠊ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࢀࡽ ࡘࡢ⾜Ⅽࡣࠊࢥࣔࣥࣟ ࡉࡏࡓ㸦࠼ࡤࠊࣇࣛࣥࢫࠊࢱࣜཬࡧ࢜ࣛࣥࢲࠋࡢᅜࠎ࡛ࡣࠊ ࣮ࡢἲᇦ࠾ࡅࡿࣃࢵࢩࣥࢢ࢜ࣇࡢᇶ♏࡞ࡿブḭ⾜Ⅽࢆྵࢇ࡛࠸ࡿ ࠋ ṇ➇தࡢἲ⌮ࡣ≉ูࡢ❧ἲᇶ࡙࠸࡚࠾ࡾ㸦࣮࢜ࢫࢺࣛࣜࠊ࣋ࣝࢠ࣮ࠊ 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࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊṇ┠ⓗ⏝ࡢἲ⾜Ⅽࡢᡂ❧ࡀㄆࡵࡽࢀࡿࡢࡣࠊInternational News Service v. Associated Press, 248 U.S. 215 (1918) ࡢᐇ㛵ಀᇶ࡙࠸࡚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⛠㏻⏝ࣃࢵࢩࣥࢢ࢜ࣇṇ➇த㻸㼍㻲㼞㼍㼚㼏㼑 ࢹ࣐࣮ࣥࢡࠊࣇࣥࣛࣥࢻࠊࢻࢶࠊ᪥ᮏࠊࣝࢡࢭࣥࣈࣝࢢࠊ࣮࣌ࣝࠊ㡑 ᣍࡃ࠺ࢃࡽࡎࠊṇ➇தࡋ࡚ἲⓗᥐ⨨ࢆࡿࡇࡀྍ⬟࡛ ᅜࠊࢫ࣌ࣥࠊࢫ࢙࣮࢘ࢹࣥཬࡧࢫࢫ㸧ࠊ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣᗈ⠊࡞❧ἲ୰ࡢ≉ᐃ ࠶ࡿࠋ࠼ࡤࠊࢻࢶ࡛ࡣࠊࣇࢵࢩࣙࣥࢹࢨࣥࡘ࠸࡚ࠊࡓ࠼ࡑ ࡢ᮲㡯ᇶ࡙࠸࡚࠸ࡿ㸦࣎ࣜࣅࠊࣈࣛࢪࣝࠊࣈࣝ࢞ࣜࠊ࢝ࢼࢲࠊࢥࣟ ࢀࡀ≉ᐃࡢ▱ⓗ㈈⏘ἲࡼࡗ࡚ಖㆤࡉࢀ࡞࠸ࡋ࡚ࡶࠊṇ➇தἲࡼࡗ ࣥࣅࠊࣁ࣮ࣥ࢞ࣜࠊ࣓࢟ࢩࢥࠊ࣮࣌ࣝࠊ࣮࣐ࣝࢽཬࡧ࣋ࢿࢬ࢚ࣛ ࠋ ࡚ࡇࢀࢆಖㆤࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇ࠺ࡋࡓࡢἲᚊ࡛ࡣಖㆤࡉࢀ࡞࠸ᶍೌࡘ࠸ ࡚ṇ➇தἲࢆ㐺⏝ࡍࡿ࠸࠺ࡇࡣࠊᶍೌ⪅ࡣ⪅ࡢ㐀ⓗ࡞ᢞ㈨ࡼ ࣇࣛࣥࢫ࡛ࡣࠊṇ➇தࡣࠊࣇࣛࣥࢫẸἲ᮲ࡢ୍⯡ἲ⾜Ⅽࡽὴ ࡿ┈ࢆ㐺ษ㸦㏻ᖖࡣ᭱ప㝈ࡢࢥࢫࢺ㈇ᢸࡸປຊ࡛㸧⏝ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ ⏕ࡋࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋḟࡢ ࡘࡢ࢝ࢸࢦ࣮ࣜࡢṇ➇தࡀㄆࡵࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ ࠸࠺ㄆ㆑ᇶ࡙࠸࡚࠸ࡿᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋࢫ࡛࣌ࣥࡣࠊᶍೌࡣࡑࢀࡀࠕࢩ ࡍ࡞ࢃࡕࠊ concurrence deloyale㸦බṇ➇த㸧ࠊཬࡧ concurrence ࢫࢸ࣐ࢳࢵࢡࠖ⾜ࢃࢀࠊࡲࡓࠕᕷሙ࠾ࡅࡿ㏻ᖖࡢᛂࠖࢆ㉸࠼࡚➇த parasitaire㸦ࣇ࣮ࣜࣛࢹࣥࢢ㸧࡛࠶ࡿࠋconcurrence deloyale㸦බṇ➇ ⪅ࢆ㜼ᐖࡍࡿሙྜࡣࠊ㐪ἲࡉࢀࡿࠋᙜ↛࡞ࡀࡽࠊྜἲ࡞ᶍೌ㐪ἲ த㸧ࡣ୍⯡ΰྠࡢせ௳ࢆᚲせࡍࡿࠋࡋࡋࠊ➇த㛵ಀ࠶ࡿࡇࡣᚲ ࡞ᶍೌࡢ㛫ࡢ⥺ᘬࡁࡣࠊࡋࡤࡋࡤᅔ㞴ࢆక࠺ࠋ せ࡛࡞࠸ࠋconcurrence parasitaire㸦ࣇ࣮ࣜࣛࢹࣥࢢ㸧࠾࠸࡚ࡣΰྠ ࡢせ௳ࡉ࠼ᚲせࡉࢀ࡞࠸ࠋ࠼ࡤࠊࣇࣛࣥࢫࡢุᡤࡣࠊ࠶ࡿ࢟ࣕࣥ Ϫ㸬ᑐ❧ࢥࣥࣂ࣮ࢪ࢙ࣥࢫ㸸㸱ࡘࡢࡢ◊✲㻌 ࢹ♫ࡀࠊᕷሙࡢࣃ࣮ࢭࣥࢺࢆࢩ࢙ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿཎ࿌ࡀ᪤⏝ࡋ࡚࠸ ࡿእほྠࡌࢢ࣒ࣛࣂ࣮ ࣃࢵࢡࡢ࢟ࣕࣥࢹࣂ࣮ࡢ㈍ࢆ㛤ጞࡋࡓ EU ෆ࡛ࡣࠊࢥ࣮ࣔࣥࣟ࠾ࡅࡿࡼࡾ⊃࠸ࣃࢵࢩࣥࢢ࢜ࣇࡢᴫᛕṇ ሙྜࠊබṇ➇தࡢᡂ❧ࢆㄆࡵࡿࠋࡇࡢሙྜࠊࣈࣛࣥࢻྡࡸࢺ࣮ࣞࢻࢻ ➇தἲ࠾ࡅࡿࡼࡾᗈ⠊࡞つไࡢ㛫࡛ᩥⓗ࡞⾪✺ࡀ㉳ࡁ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡢ ࣞࢫࡢ㢮ఝᛶࡼࡿΰྠࡢㄆᐃࢆࡍࡿࡇ࡞ࡋࠊุᡤࡣࠊᙜᚓࡢ ⾪✺ࡣࠊⱥᅜࡢ Jacob ุ㸦Lord Justice Jacob㸧ࢆࡋ࡚ࠕḢᕞࡢၟᶆἲࡣࡔ ἲ⌮౫ᣐࡋ࡚ࠊ⿕࿌ࡀබṇཎ࿌ࡢࠕᡂຌࡽ┈ࢆᚓ࡚࠸ࡿࠖࡍ ࢀࡶࡀ㐨㏞࠺ุἲࡢ᳃࡞ࡿ༴ᶵ㝗ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠖჃࡏ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ ࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ ᚋ㆟ㄽࡍࡿ࠾ࡾࠊ ࡘࡢッゴศ㔝ࡀࠊࣃࢵࢩࣥࢢ࢜ࣇไᗘṇ➇த ไᗘࡢ㛫ࡢᑐ❧ ᮰ ࡘ࠸࡚᭷┈࡞᳨ウࡢሙࢆᥦ౪ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ㸫ࡑࢀ 䝁䞁䝞䞊䝆䜵䞁䝇 ࣇࣛࣥࢫࡢุࡀ♧ࡍࡼ࠺ࠊࡢ㝣ἲࡢἲไࡢୗ࡛ࡣࠊṇ➇ ࡽࡣ ᶍೌရ㸦copycat products㸧ẚ㍑ᗈ࿌㸦comparative advertising㸧 ࠊ தࡢᙇࢆࡍࡿࡓࡵブḭࡢせ௳ࡸΰྠࡢせ௳ࡣᚲせࡉࢀ࡞࠸ࠋᐇ㝿ࠊ ၟရ㸦merchandising㸧ࠊཬࡧ ࣮࣮࢟࣡ࢻᗈ࿌㸦keyword advertising㸧 ࠊ ᗄࡘࡢ㝣ἲࡢἲᇦ࡛ࡣࠊ〇ရࡢ≉ᚩࡢࠕ࡞ᶍೌ㸦slavish imitation㸧 ࠖ ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ ࡣࠊࡑࢀࡀ▱ⓗ㈈⏘ἲ࡛ಖㆤࡉࢀࡿ࠺ࠊཪࡣᶍೌࡀᾘ㈝⪅ࡢΰྠࢆ Id.ࣇࣛࣥࢫ࡛ࡢἲᚊࡣ Art. 1382 of the Civil Code ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࢱ࡛ࣜࡣ 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࠾ࡅࡿᶍೌࡢᑐฎࡢ᪉ࡘ 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⊩ࡋ࡚A.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⛠㏻⏝ࣃࢵࢩࣥࢢ࢜ࣇṇ➇த㻸㼍㻲㼞㼍㼚㼏㼑 㸿ᶍೌရẚ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㸧ࣥࣁࢨ࣮ࣈࢵࢩࣗ㸦Anheuser-Busch㸧ࡣࠊࡋࡤࡋࡤ ࠾࠸࡚ᗈࡃ⏝࠸ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࣉ࣮ࣟࢳࡢ᪉ࠊⱥ⡿ἲࡢࣉ࣮ࣟࢳࡢ ᙼࡽࡢ➇த⪅ࡢ〇ရ㸦ࡣ➇த⪅ࡢ㢳ᐈ㸧ࢆლ➗ࡋࡓࠋ㛗ᮇ㛫ᨺᫎࡉࢀ ┦㐪ࢆ↷ࡽࡋฟࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࣃࢵࢩࣥࢢ࢜ࣇࡢไᗘࡣࠊㄗᑟࡢሙྜࢆ㝖࠸࡚ࠊ ࡚࠸ࡿ࣏ࣆ࣮ࣗࣛ࡞㐃⥆ࢸࣞࣅᗈ࿌࠾࠸࡚ࠊࢵࣉࣝࢥࣥࣆ࣮ࣗࢱࡣࠊ ྜ⮬⏤࡞ẚ㍑ᗈ࿌ࢆㄆࡵࡿഴྥ࠶ࡿࠋࡲࡓࣃࢵࢩࣥࢢ࢜ࣇไᗘࡣࠊ ࣐ࢡࣟࢯࣇࢺࡢ〇ရ㸦ཬࡧᬯࡑࡢᛅᐇ࡞㢳ᐈ㸧ࢆྂ⮯ࡃࠊ㔜㐣ࡂࠊᖹ ⪅〇ရࡢᶍೌࡘ࠸࡚ࡶࠊࡑࢀࡀㄗᑟࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡛࡞ࡃ㸦࠼ࡤࠊၟရࡢ ซ࡛ࡘࡲࡽ࡞࠸ࡶࡢࢫࢸࣞ࢜ࢱࣉࡋࡓࠋ ฟᡤࡘ࠸࡚ᾘ㈝⪅ࢆㄗࡽࡏࡿࡼ࠺࡞᪉ἲ࡛ࡢ➇த⪅ࡢࢺ࣮ࣞࢻࢻࣞࢫ ࡢᶍೌ࡛࡞ࡃ㸧ࠊࡲࡓⴭసᶒἲࡸ≉チἲ࡛ಖㆤࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ⪅ࡢᶒࢆ ᶍೌ㸦ࢥࣆ࣮࢟ࣕࢵࢺ㸧〇ရࡣࠊࡑࢀࡀ▱ⓗ㈈⏘ᶒ㸦≉チᶒࠊⴭసᶒࠊ ᐖࡍࡿࡢ࡛࡞࠸㝈ࡾࠊࡇࢀ࠸ࡗࡓつไࢆࡋ࡞࠸ࠋ ࢺ࣮ࣞࢻࢻࣞࢫࠊࢺ࣮ࣞࢻࢩ࣮ࢡࣞࢵࢺ㸧ࢆᐖࡋ࡞࠸㝈ࡾࠊ⡿ᅜ࡛ࡣチ ᐜࡉࢀࡿࠋ࠶ࡿᴗ⪅ࡀࠊ᭷ྡࣈࣛࣥࢻࡢ〇ရ⎩ࡘ࡛࠶ࡿࡀ▱ⓗ㈈⏘ᶒ ⡿ᅜ࠾࠸࡚ࠊẚ㍑ᗈ࿌ࡣࠊၟᴗⓗゝㄽࡢ⮬⏤ࡢ୍㢮ᆺࡋ࡚㧗࠸౯್ ࢆᐖࡋ࡞࠸〇ရࢆ㈍ࡋࡓሙྜ࠾࠸࡚ࠊࡑࡢ᭷ྡࣈࣛࣥࢻࢆၟᶆࡼ ࢆ᭷ࡍࡿࡶࡢࡉࢀࡿࠋಖㆤࢆཷࡅࡿࡓࡵࡢ၏୍ࡢせ௳ࡣࠊᗈ࿌ෆᐜࡀ┿ ࡗ࡚≉ᐃࡋࠊࡑࡢࣈࣛࣥࢻရࡢ㢮ఝရ࡛࠶ࡿᗈ࿌ࡍࡿࡇࡣチࡉࢀࡿࠋ ᐇ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ㸫࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣࠊᑡ࡞ࡃࡶᐇࡢᙇ᫂ࡽ࡞ഇࡀྵࡲࢀ ࡑࢀᨾࠊ࠼ࡤࠊࢪ࢙ࢿࣜࢵࢡཪࡣࠕࣁ࢘ࢫࣈࣛࣥࢻ㸦house brand㸧ࠖ ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࡇ㸫࡛࠶ࡿࠋ ࠕᗈ࿌㸦puffery㸧ࠖ㸫≉ẁࡢᐇࡢࡅࢆక ࡢ་⸆ရ࠾࠸࡚ࠊࡑࡢ་⸆ရࡀࣈࣛࣥࢻ་⸆ࢆ㈍ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ➇த⪅ࡢ〇 ࢃ࡞࠸࡛ࠊ࠶ࡿ〇ရࡀࡼࡾඃࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ₍↛ᙇࡍࡿࡇ㸫ᑐࡍࡿ ရྠࡌ᭷ຠᡂศࢆྵࢇ࡛࠸ࡿሙྜࠊࡇࢀࢆࠊࡑࡢࡼ࠺࡞〇ရ࡛࠶ࡿࡋ 㧗࠸ᐶᐜࡀᏑᅾࡍࡿࠋከࡃࡢሙྜ࠾࠸࡚ࠊ⪅〇ရࢆࡅ࡞ࡍࡇࡣチࡉ ࡚ᗈ࿌ࡍࡿࡇࡣチࡉࢀࡿࠋࡇࡢ⪃࠼᪉ࡣࠕࢥࣆ࣮࢟ࣕࢵࢺࠖ㤶Ỉࡘ࠸ ࢀࡿࠋࡓࡔࡋࠊࡇࡢሙྜࡶ᫂ⓑ࡞ഇᐇࡢᙇࡀ࡞࠸ࡇࡀ᮲௳࡛࠶ ࡚ࡶྠᵝ㐺⏝ࡉࢀࡿࠋࡋࡓࡀࡗ࡚ࠊࢥࣆ࣮࢟ࣕࢵࢺ㤶Ỉࢆ㈍ࡍࡿሙྜ ࡿࠋ┿ᐇᇶ࡙ࡃẚ㍑ᗈ࿌࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊ➇த⪅ࡢࡇࢆၟᶆࡼࡗ࡚≉ ࠊࡑࡢᗈ࿌ཪࡣࡢ㈍ಁ㐍㈨ᩱࡸࣛ࣋ࣝ࠾࠸࡚ࠊᶍೌࡢᑐ㇟࡛࠶ࡿ ᐃࡍࡿࡇࡀチࡉࢀࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇ࠺ࡋࡓ⪃࠼᪉ࡣࠊࡑࡢᗈ࿌࠾ࡅࡿ ᭷ྡ࡞㤶Ỉࢆ≉ᐃࡍࡿࡇࡣྜἲ࡞ࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡋࡋࠊẚ㍑ᗈ࿌ࢆ⾜࠺ᶒ ᙇࡀࠊ࠶ࡿ⪅ࡢၟရࡀࡢ〇ရࡼࡾඃࢀ࡚࠸ࡿᙇࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠊ ࡣࠊၟᶆᶒᐖ㛵ࡍࡿἲࡢ⫼ᚋ࠶ࡿࣃࢵࢩࣥࢢ࢜ࣇࡢᴫᛕࡼࡗ࡚ ࡲࡓ〇ရࡀ㢮ఝࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿᙇࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࢆၥࢃࡎࠊ୍㈏ࡋ ไ㝈ࡉࢀࡿࠋࡍ࡞ࢃࡕࠊ᭷ྡ࡞〇㐀ᴗ⪅ࡢၟᶆࢆࠊᾘ㈝⪅ࢆࡋ࡚ࢥࣆ࣮࢟ ࡚㐺⏝ࡉࢀࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊᐇࡘ࠸࡚ࡢᐇࡢ⾲♧ࡀ࡞࠸㝈ࡾ࠾࠸࡚ࠊ➇ ࣕࢵࢺ〇ရࡢฟᡤࢆㄗㄆࡉࡏࡿࡼ࠺࡞᪉ἲ࡛⏝࠸࡚ࡣ࡞ࡽ࡞࠸ࠋࡶࡋ᭷ྡ த⪅ࡢ〇ရࢆ㈘ࡵࡓࡾࠊហᘝࡋࡓࡾࡍࡿࡇࡶチࡉࢀࡿࠋࢫ࣮ࣃ࣮࣎࢘ࣝ ࡞ࠕࢩࣕࢿࣝࢼࣥࣂ࣮ࣇࣈ㸦Chanel No.5㸧ࠖࡢၟᶆࡀࠊࢥࣆ࣮࢟ࣕࢵ Deere & Co. v. MTD Products, 41 F.3d 39 (2d Cir. 1994)ࡣࠊ࠾ࡑࡽࡃࡇࡢ࣮ࣝࣝ 㛵ࡍࡿእⓗ࡞࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢ௳ࡣࠊ⿕࿌ࡢᗈ࿌ࡀཎ࿌ࡢၟᶆࡢ㌍ືࡍࡿ㮵 㸦running deer㸧ࢆ㈘ࡵ࡚⾲⌧ࡋࡓ㸦➇த⪅ࡢ〇ရ࠼ࡓᛧࡀࡾࡢࢺࢼ࢝ࡋࡓ㸧 ࢺ㤶Ỉࡢ࣎ࢺࣝవࡾ┠❧ࡘࡼ࠺࡞ែᵝ࡛⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡓሙྜࠊࡇࢀࡣᾘ㈝ ⪅ࡢ୍㒊ࢆࡋ࡚ࠊᶍೌࡉࢀࡓ〇ရᮏ≀ࡢࢩࣕࢿࣝࢼࣥࣂ࣮ࣇࣈࡀྠ ࡌ〇㐀ᴗ⪅ࡽ㈍ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿㄗಙࡉࡏࡿࡇࡀ࠶ࡾᚓࡿࠋᨾࠊࡇ࠺ ࡋࡓሙྜࡣࠊྂⓗ࡞ࣃࢵࢩࣥࢢ࢜ࣇヱᙜࡍࡿࡇ࡞ࡿࠋ ࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊ➨ᕠᅇ༊᥍ッุᡤࡣࠊᕼ㔘㸦ࢲ࣮ࣜࣗࢩࣙࣥ㸧ࡢᙇࢆㄆ ࡵࡓࠋุᡤࡢุ᩿ࡣࠊ୍⯡ⓗ࡞ṇ➇தࡸࣃࢵࢩࣥࢢ࢜ࣇࡢἲ⌮࠸࠺ࡼࡾࡶࢲ 㝣ἲࡢἲไᗘ࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊẚ㍑ᗈ࿌ᑐࡋ࡚Ṕྐⓗ㧗࠸つᚊࡀຍ࠼ ࣮ࣜࣗࢩࣙࣥࡢἲ⌮ᇶ࡙ࡃࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋࡇࡢุᡤࡢุ᩿ࡣ⃭ࡋ࠸ᢈุࢆᾎ ࡧࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡾࠊ⡿ᅜ࠾ࡅࡿ୍⯡ⓗ࡞ࢲ࣮ࣜࣗࢩࣙࣥࡢᛮ⪃᪉ἲࢆ♧ࡍࡶࡢ࡛ ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋ ▱ⓗ㈈⏘ἲᨻ⟇Ꮫ◊✲ 9RO ▱ⓗ㈈⏘ἲᨻ⟇Ꮫ◊✲ 9RO ᕳ㢌ㄽᩥ ブ⛠㏻⏝ࣃࢵࢩࣥࢢ࢜ࣇṇ➇த㻸㼍㻲㼞㼍㼚㼏㼑 ࡽࢀ࡚࠾ࡾࠊ⚗Ṇࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ࠼ࡤࠊࢻࢶࡣࠊఏ⤫ⓗ F ၟရࡸࢧ࣮ࣅࢫࡢࠊ ࡘཪࡣࡑࢀ௨ୖࡢࠊ㔜せ࡛ࠊ㛵㐃ᛶࡀ࠶ࡾࠊ ド᫂ྍ⬟࡛ࠊୟࡘ௦⾲ⓗ࡞ᛶ㉁ࢆᐈほⓗẚ㍑ࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ ࠕᐇ㉁ⓗࠊ࡚ࡢᙧែࡢẚ㍑ᗈ࿌ࡣࠊࡓ࠼ࡑࢀࡀ┿ᐇࢆ⾲ࢃࡍࡶࡢ࡛ 㸹 ࠶ࡗ࡚ࡶࠊṇ➇தヱᙜࡍࡿ㸫⪃࠼᪉ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊ᪂つཧධ⪅ࡣࠊ⪅ࡢ ☜❧ࡉࢀࡓྡኌ౽ࡋ࡚ࡣ࡞ࡽ࡞࠸ࠊ࠸࠺ࡇ࡛࠶ࡿ㸫ࠖࡢ❧ሙ G ➇த⪅ࡢၟᶆࠊၟྕࠊࡑࡢࡢ㆑ู࣐࣮ࢡࠊၟရࠊࢧ࣮ࣅࢫࠊ ❧ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࣇࣛࣥࢫ࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊᐇ༶ࡋࡓẚ㍑ᗈ࿌ࡣࠊࡑࢀࡀࠊ άືཪࡣᴗົୖࡢࢆㄦㅫཪࡣ୰യࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡛࡞࠸ࡇ㸹 ᙜヱ〇ရࡢ௦⾲ⓗ࡞≉ᚩࡘ࠸࡚ࠊᚲせୟࡘ㐺ษࠊ❧ドྍ⬟࡞⠊ᅖ࡛ᐈ ͐ ほⓗẚ㍑ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿሙྜ㝈ࡾࠊチᐜࡉࢀࡿࠋࡍ࡞ࢃࡕࠊ⿕࿌ࡢᗈ࿌ I ➇த⪅ࡢၟᶆࠊၟྕཪࡣࡑࡢࡢ㆑ู࣐࣮ࢡཪࡣ➇ྜ〇ရࡢฟ ࡀࠊࡓ࠼┿ᐇ࡛࠶ࡗࡓࡋ࡚ࡶࠊࡑࢀࡀཎ࿌ᑐࡍࡿほⓗ࡞ᨷᧁࢆຍ ᡤ⾲♧ࡀ᭷ࡍࡿホุࡽṇࢆᚓࡿࡶࡢ࡛࡞࠸ࡇ㸹>ཬࡧ@ ࠼ࠊ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣࡇࢀࢆぢୗࡍࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡗࡓሙྜࡣࠊṇ➇தࡢᙇࢆཷࡅ J ၟရཪࡣࢧ࣮ࣅࢫࡀࠊಖㆤࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿၟᶆࡸၟྕࢆࡋࡓၟရ ࡿࡇࡀ࠶ࡾᚓࡿࠋ ཪࡣࢧ࣮ࣅࢫࡢᶍೌရࡸ」〇ရࡋ࡚⾲♧ࡉࢀࡿࡶࡢ࡛࡞࠸ࡇ 㹿 ࡋࡋ࡞ࡀࡽࠊ᭱㏆ࡢ EU ࡢࢺࣞࣥࢻࡣࠊ⮬⏤ྥࡗ࡚ࡁ࡚࠸ࡿ ࠋ ࡇࡢࢺࣞࣥࢻࡣࠊᖺࡢẚ㍑ᗈ࿌ᣦ௧㸦Comparative Advertising Directive, ᭱㏆ࡲ࡛ࠊⱥᅜࡣࠊẚ㍑ᗈ࿌ࡘ࠸࡚⡿ᅜྠᵝࡢࣉ࣮ࣟࢳࢆࡗ࡚ CAD㸧࠾࠸࡚᭱㧗₻㐩ࡋࡓࠋࡇࡢᣦ௧ࡣࠊຍ┕ᅜᑐࡋࠊ≉ᐃࡢ᮲௳ ࠸ࡓࠋࡍ࡞ࢃࡕࠊࡑ࠺ࡋࡓᗈ࿌ࢆᇶᮏⓗࡣ➇தࢆಁ㐍ࡍࡿࡶࡢࡋ࡚ዡ ࡢୗ࡛ẚ㍑ᗈ࿌ࢆチྍࡍࡿࡼ࠺ࡌ࡚࠸ࡿ ࠋࡇࢀࡽ᮲௳ࡢᗄࡘࡣࠊၟ ບࡋ࡚࠸ࡓࠋࡑ࠺ࡋࡓࣉ࣮ࣟࢳࡣࠊL’Oreal SA v. Bellure NV ࡢ๓ࡲ࡛ ရཪࡣࢧ࣮ࣅࢫࡢᛶ㉁ࡸฟᡤ㛵ࡍࡿᾘ㈝⪅ࡢΰྠࢆ㜵ࡄ࠸࠺ࡼࡾ⊃ ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡓࠋࡇࡢ௳࠾ࡅࡿㄽⅬࡣࠊࢥࣆ࣮࢟ࣕࢵࢺ㤶Ỉࡢ〇㐀⪅ࡀࠊ ࠸┠ⓗྥࡅࡽࢀ࡚࠾ࡾࠊࡑࢀᨾࣃࢵࢩࣥࢢ࢜ࣇࡢἲไᗘྜ⮴ ࡢ⿕࿌〇ရࡀⴭྡ࡞㤶Ỉᑐᛂࡍࡿ〇ရ࡛࠶ࡿࢆᾘ㈝⪅ㄝ᫂ࡍࡿ ࡍࡿࠋࡋࡋࠊࡢ᮲௳ࡣࠊୖグࡢᾘ㈝⪅ࡢΰྠࢆ㜵Ṇࡍࡿ࠸࠺┠ⓗ ࡓࡵࡢẚ㍑ࣜࢫࢺ࠾࠸࡚ࠊᶍೌࡢᑐ㇟࡛࠶ࡿⴭྡ࡞㤶Ỉࡢྡ⛠ࢆୖࡆࡿ ࢆ᭦㉺࠼ࡓࡶࡢ࡛ࠊṇ➇தἲࡢ౯್ほࢆᫎࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ≉➹ࡍࡁࡣࠊ ࡇࡀ࡛ࡁࡿ࠸࠺ࡇ࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋࣥࢢࣛࣥࢻ࣭࢙࣮࢘ࣝࢬ᥍ッ㝔ࡣࠊ CAD ➨ ᮲ࡀ௨ୗࡢ᮲௳࡛ẚ㍑ᗈ࿌ࢆチᐜࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ EC ࡢၟᶆᣦ௧㸦ࡇࡢᣦ௧࡛ࡣࠊၟᶆࢆ୰യࡋཪࡣࡑࡢ♫ⓗಙ⏝ࡽࠕ ṇࢆᚓࡿࠖ⪅ᑐࡍࡿᗈ⠊࡞ၟᶆಖㆤࢆㄆࡵ࡚࠸ࡿ㸧 CAD ࡢ㛫 See 2-31 The Law of Advertising § 31.04 (2011). ࡢ⢭☜࡞㛵ಀ㛵ࡍࡿᗄࡘࡢၥⅬࡘ࠸࡚ࠊḢᕞྖἲุᡤ㸦ECJ㸧 O2 Holdings Ltd. v. Hutchison 3G UK Ltd., [2006] EWCA Civ. 1656, [2007] RPC 407, クࡋࡓࠋࡲࡓࠊᾘ㈝⪅ࡢΰྠࡀ⏕ࡌࡿྍ⬟ᛶࡣ࡞࠸ࡓࡵࠊࣃࢵࢩࣥ ¶ 41 (Jacob, L.J.). 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 ࢢ࢜ࣇࡣᡂ❧ࡋ࡞࠸ࡋࡓࠋ 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).ᖺᣦ௧ࡣࠊᖺ 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㈝⪅ࡣហ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋᾘ㈝⪅ࡣᏳ≀ࡢࢥࣆ࣮ၟရࡀࠊ࢜ࣜࢪࢼࣝྠࡌရ㉁ ᐃࡵࡣᖺ∧ࡢᣦ௧࡛ࡶṧࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ ࢆ᭷ࡍࡿࡣᤊ࠼࡞࠸ࠋᾘ㈝⪅ࡣࢥࣆ࣮ၟရࡣࢥࣆ࣮ၟရࡋ࡚ㄆ㆑ࡋࠊࡑࢀ௨ୖ ࡢ≀ࡣ⪃࠼࡞࠸ࠋ ࠖ CAD, Art. 4 (a), (h). ▱ⓗ㈈⏘ἲᨻ⟇Ꮫ◊✲ 9RO ▱ⓗ㈈⏘ἲᨻ⟇Ꮫ◊✲ 9RO ᕳ㢌ㄽᩥ ブ⛠㏻⏝ࣃࢵࢩࣥࢢ࢜ࣇṇ➇த㻸㼍㻲㼞㼍㼚㼏㼑 ࠸ࡘ࠸࡚᫂☜࡞‽๎ࢆ♧ࡋ࡚࠸࡞࠸࠸࠺Ⅼ࡛ၥ㢟ࡀ࠶ࡿ㹿㺁 ࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊཪࡣΰྠࢆ⏕ࡌࡉࡏࡿྍ⬟ᛶࡀ࡞࠸ࡋ࡚ࡶࠊࡑࡢᮏ ㉁ୖࠊ➇த⪅ࡢၟᶆࡘ࠸࡚ࠕṇ࡞ࠖࢆᚓࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࡽࠊഇ㐀ရ ࡢሙྜࡔࡅ࡛࡞ࡃࠊࠕ࠸࡞ࡿᶍೌࠊ」〇ࠖࡢሙྜ࡛࠶ࡗ࡚ࡶチࡉࢀ࡞࠸ ᭱ᚋࠊᙼࡣࠊECJ ࡀࠊฟᡤ⾲♧ᶵ⬟ࡣ᫂ࡽ␗࡞ࡿᶆ❶ࡢࠕࢥ࣑ ࡋࡓ ࠋุᡤࡣࠊEU ၟᶆἲࡢ⪃࠼᪉ࡣࠊၟᶆࡀᣢࡘ࡚ࡢᶵ⬟ࢆಖㆤ ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥࠊᢞ㈨ཪࡣᗈ࿌ࠖᶵ⬟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊἲࡼࡾಖㆤࡍࡁ࡛࠶ ࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿᣦࡋࡓ㸫ࡑࡢᶵ⬟ࡣࠊฟᡤ⾲♧ᶵ⬟ཬࡧၟရࡢရ㉁ ࡿࡢぢゎࢆ♧ࡋࡓࡇࡘ࠸࡚ၥࢆ࿊ࡋࡓࠋJacob ุࡣࠊࡇࢀࡽࡢ ಖドᶵ⬟ࡔࡅ࡛࡞ࡃࠊࠕࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢣ࣮ࢩࣙࣥࠊᢞ㈨ࡸᗈ࿌ࡋ࡚ࡢࠖᶵ⬟ ᶵ⬟ಖㆤ㛵ࡍࡿ❧ἲୖࡢᇶ♏ࡣぢᙜࡓࡽ࡞࠸ࡋࠊࠕ᭕࡛᫂☜࡛࠶ ࢆྵࡴࠋ ࡿࠖࡋࡓࠋᙼࡣࡲࡓࠊẚ㍑ᗈ࿌ᣦ௧࠾࠸࡚ࠊྜἲⓗ࡞」〇ရࢆഇ㐀 ရྠᵝᢅ࠺ࡁ࡛࠶ࡿࡋࡓ ECJ ࡢุ᪨ࡣࠕఱࡽྜ⌮ⓗ᰿ᣐࡀ࡞ ࡇࡢ ECJ ࡢุ᩿ࡣࠊⱥᅜ࠾࠸࡚ዲពⓗཷࡅṆࡵࡽࢀ࡞ࡗࡓࠋJacob ࠸ࠖࡶࡋࡓࠋ ุ㸦Lord Justice Jacob㸧ࡣࠊECJ ࡢุ᩿ࡣྜἲ࡞➇த⾜Ⅽࢆ㜼ᐖࡋࠊࡲ ࡓ⿕࿌ࡢゝㄽࡢ⮬⏤ࢆᐖࡋࠊᾘ㈝⪅ࡀ➇ྜၟရࡘ࠸࡚ࡢሗࢆཷࡅྲྀ ECJ ࡢุ᩿ࡣࠊ࣐ࢵࢡࢫ࣭ࣉࣛࣥࢡ◊✲ᡤࡢ◊✲⪅ࡼࡾ༶ᗙࡢᢈุࢆ ࡿᶒࢆᦆ࡞࠺ࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿᙇࡋࡓࠋ᭦ྠุࡣࠊECJ ࡢ⪃࠼᪉ࡣ ཷࡅࡓࠋࡑࡢ◊✲⪅ࡣࠕࣇࣛࣥࢫࡢุᡤࡣุ♧㦫࡞࠸࡛࠶ࢁ࠺ࡀࠊ ➇தⓗ࡛࠶ࡿホ౯ࡋࡓࠋ≉ࠊᙼࡣࠕ➇தἲᑐࡍࡿ࡞ែᗘࢆ ⱥᅜࡢุᐁࡗ࡚ࡣ⣡ᚓࡋ㞴࠸ෆᐜ࡛࠶ࡿࠖࡋ࡚ࠊุᡤࡼࡿ┿ ࡿ⡿ᅜࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᅜ࡛ࡣࠊ┿ᐇ༶ࡋࡓᗈ࿌ࢆᢚᅽࡍࡿࡓࡵၟᶆἲࢆ⏝ ᐇࡢၟᴗⓗゝㄽࡢつไࡘ࠸࡚ᢈุࡋࡓࠋ࠶ࡿ࣐ࢵࢡࢫ࣭ࣉࣛࣥࢡ◊ ࠸ࡿࡇࡣ࡞ࡃࠊࡲࡓྜἲ࡞〇ရࢆᕷሙࡽ㝖ࡍࡿࡼ࠺࡞ࡇࡣ ✲ᡤࡢ◊✲⪅ࡣࠊCAD ➨ ᮲JࡢᗫṆࢆᙇࡋࡓࠋJacob ุࡀᣦࡋ ࡞࠸ࠖࡋࡓࠋᙼࡣࠊECJ ࡀࠕṇ࡞ࠖࢆᚓࡿࡣఱ࠸࠺ࡇࢆ ࡓ࠾ࡾࠊECJ ࡢἲᘐពぢࡣࡢ᪉㠃࡛ࡶྠᵝཝࡋࡃᢈุࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ ᫂ࡽࡏࡎࠊุᡤࡢ⿕࿌ࡢࣅࢪࢿࢫᑐࡍࡿឤࢆุ᩿ᙳ㡪ࡉࡏࡓ ࡇࢆ㠀㞴ࡋࡓࠋ 㹀ၟရᶒ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࠾࠸࡚ࠊṇ➇தࡢᗈ࠸ᴫᛕࣃ ࠕ⚾ࡣࠊᮏ௳࠾࠸࡚ࠊECJ ࡀ࠸ࢃࡺࡿࠗேẼ౽࠘ࡍࡿࡇࡢ ➇தⓗഃ㠃ࡘ࠸࡚ㄽࡌ࡞ࡗࡓࡇࢆṧᛕᛮ࠺ࠋࡇ࠺ࡋࡓ㠀㞴ࡵ ࠸ࡓẚ႘ⓗ࡞⾲⌧㸦ࠕࡓࡔࡾࠖࡢ⾲⌧ࡶࡲࡓࡑ࠺࡛࠶ࡿ㸧ࡣࠊ⿕ Id. at ¶ 17. Id. at ¶¶ 29-30. ࿌ࡢྲྀᘬ⾜Ⅽࡘ࠸࡚᫂ⓑ࡞ឤࢆྵࢇ࡛࠸ࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊࡑ࠺ࡋ Id. at ¶ 39. ࡓ⾲⌧ࡣྲྀᘬ⪅ᑐࡋࠊఱࢆࡍࡿࡇࡀ࡛ࡁࠊఱࢆࡍࡿࡇࡀ࡛ࡁ࡞ 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⛠㏻⏝ࣃࢵࢩࣥࢢ࢜ࣇṇ➇த㻸㼍㻲㼞㼍㼚㼏㼑 ࢵࢩࣥࢢ࢜ࣇࡢ⊃࠸ࣉ࣮ࣟࢳࡢ㛫ࠊ㢮ఝࡢ⥭ᙇ㛵ಀࡀᏑᅾࡍࡿࠋࡋ ࢆᦢྲྀࡍࡿ⾜Ⅽࡽಖㆤࡉࢀࡿࠋ↓チㅙࡢၟရᑐࡍࡿᩆ῭ᥐ⨨ࡣࠊ ࡋࠊᗄࡘࡢࢥ࣮ࣔࣥࣟࡢἲᇦ࠾࠸࡚ࠊࣃࢵࢩࣥࢢ࢜ࣇࡢᴫᛕࡣࠊࡼࡾ ࣮࢜ࢫࢺࣜ࠾࠸࡚≉ᙉຊ࡛࠶ࡿࠋⱥᅜࢧࢵ࣮࢝ࢡࣛࣈࡢ࢚ࣥࣈ࣒ࣞ ṇ➇தἲ㏆࠸ࡓ᪉ྥᣑࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ ࡀ↓チㅙ࡛ၟရ⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡓ࠾࠸࡚ࠊ࣮࢜ࢫࢺࣜࡢ᭱㧗ุᡤ ࡣࠊࢡࣛࣈࡢ࣓࣮ࢪホุࢆᐤ⏕ⓗᦢྲྀࡋࡓࡇࡘ࠸࡚ࠊ⿕࿌ࡣἲ ୍⯡ⓗゝࡗ࡚ࠊၟရ㸦merchandising㸧ࡢᴫᛕ࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊၟရࡢฟ ᚊୖࡢ㈐௵ࢆ㈇࠺ࡋࡓࠋࡑࡢ㝿ࠊྠุᡤࡣࠊᙜヱ࢚ࣥࣈ࣒ࣞࡀᾘ㈝⪅ ᡤࢆ≉ᐃࡍࡿࡇࡼࡾࡶࠊᾘ㈝⪅ࡀᶆ❶ὀពࢆྥࡅࡿࡇࢆ⏝ࡍࡿࡇ ࡗ࡚㨩ຊⓗ࡛࠶ࡿ⌮⏤ࡣࠊ࢚ࣥࣈ࣒ࣞࡀࢡࣛࣈࡢ೧ᴗࢆ⾲ࢃࡍࡶࡢࡔ ≉㔜Ⅼࡀ࠶ࡿࠋၟရ࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊ࠶ࡿ࣏ࣆ࣮ࣗࣛ࡞ᶆ❶ࢆࠊࡑࡢ ࡽ࡛࠶ࡾࠊࡑࡋ࡚ࠊࡑࡢ೧ᴗࡢ㐩ᡂࡣࠊࢡࣛࣈࡢດຊᨭฟࡼࡿ⤖ᯝ ᶆ❶ࢆ᭷ྡࡋ࡚࠸ࡿၟရࡣูࡢၟရࡍࡇࡀࡋࡤࡋࡤ⾜ࢃࢀࡿ ࡛࠶ࡿࡇࢆᙉㄪࡋࡓࠋ᭱㧗ࡣࠊ➇ྜ㛵ಀ࡞࠸ၟရࡸࢧ࣮ࣅࢫࡘ 㸫࠼ࡤࠊ㹒ࢩࣕࢶࣇ࢙࣮ࣛࣜࡢᶆ❶ࢆࡍࡀዴࡃ࡛࠶ࡿࠋၟရᶒࡣࠊ ࠸࡚ࡶࠊྠᵝࡢດຊᨭฟ㐩ᡂࡢ⌮ㄽࢆ୍㈏ࡋ࡚㐺⏝ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ Ⓩ㘓ࡉࢀࡓᶆ❶ཪࡣⓏ㘓ࡉࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸ᩘከࡃࡢᶆ❶㛵ࡋ࡚ᙇࡉࢀᚓ ࡿ㸫࠼ࡤࠊᫎ⏬ࡸࢸࣞࣅ␒⤌ࠊࣅࢹ࢜ࢤ࣮࣒ࡢࢱࢺࣝࡀዴࡃ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ ࡋࡋࠊ☜❧ࡉࢀࡓྡኌࢆᣢࡘᶆ❶ᙉຊ࡞ಖㆤࢆ࠼࡚࠸ࡿ㝣ἲࡢ ࡑࡢࡶࠊ㐠ື㑅ᡭࠊⱁ⬟ேࠊࡑࡢࡢⴭྡேࡢ⫝̸ീࡸྡ๓ࡀ࠶ࡾࠊᯫ ᅜࠎ࠾࠸࡚ࡶࠊእࡀᏑᅾࡍࡿࠋᖺࠊࢻࢶࡢ㐃㑥㏻ᖖุᡤ ✵ࡢே≀ࡢྡ๓ࡸ⫝̸ീࡢሙྜࡶ࠶ࡿࠋᗄࡘࡢ࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊ↓チㅙࡢ 㸦Bundesgerichtshof㸧ࡣࠊ⿕࿌ࡀࠊࢢࣜࣝ㒊࢜࣌ࣝ㸦Opel㸧ࡢࣟࢦ㸦Ⓩ㘓 ၟရ࠾࠸࡚ⴭసᶒࡢ࠶ࡿ⏬㸦࠼ࡤࠊ࣑ࢵ࣮࣐࢟࢘ࢫࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᯫ✵ࡢ ၟᶆ࡛࠶ࡿ㸧ࢆࡋࡓ࣭࢜࣌ࣝࢫࢺࣛࡢࣜࣔࢥࣥ⮬ື㌴ࢆ㈍ࡋࡓ ࢟ࣕࣛࢡࢱ࣮ࡢ⏬ࢆ⏝࠸ࡓሙྜ㸧ࡀၥ㢟࡞ࡿࡇࡀ࠶ࡾࠊࡑࡢࡼ࠺࡞ሙ ࠾࠸࡚ࠊࠕṇ࡞┈ࠖࡢྲྀᚓཪࡣΰྠࡢྍ⬟ᛶࡢ࠸ࡎࢀࡘ࠸࡚ࡶㄆ ྜ࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊⴭసᶒၟᶆᶒࡢ᪉ࡀၥ㢟࡞ࡾᚓࡿࠋࡋࡋࠊࡇࡇ࡛ ࡵࡽࢀ࡞࠸ࡋࡓࠋࡍ࡞ࢃࡕࠊ㐃㑥㏻ᖖุᡤࡣࠊࢻࢶ࠾࠸࡚ୡ ࡣࠊ↓チㅙࡢၟရࡼࡾ⏕ࡌࡿၟᶆᶒ㸦Ⓩ㘓ࡉࢀཪࡣⓏ㘓ࡉࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸ ⣖ᮎࡽࣞࣉࣜ࢝⮬ື㌴ࡢᕷሙࡀᏑᅾࡋࡓࡇࢆ⪃៖ࡋࠊࡓ࠼࢜࣌ࣝࡀ ࡶࡢ㸧ࡢၥ㢟㛵ࡋ࡚ࡢࡳࠊ↔Ⅼࢆᙜ࡚ࡿࡇࡍࡿࠋ ⮬ື㌴⋵ලࡘ࠸࡚Ⓩ㘓ၟᶆࢆ᭷ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡋ࡚ࡶࠊࢻࢶࡢᾘ㈝⪅ࡣࠊ ᙜヱᶆ❶ࡣࠊ࣭࢜࣌ࣝࢫࢺࣛࡢṇ☜࡞」〇ࢆࡍࡿࡓࡵᚲせ࡞㣭ࡢ୍ EU ࠾ࡅࡿ㝣ἲࡢࣉ࣮ࣟࢳࡢୗ࡛ࡣࠊၟᶆࠊⴭྡேࡸᯫ✵ࡢே≀ 㒊㐣ࡂ࡞࠸ㄆ㆑ࡍࡿ⤖ㄽࡅࡓࠋࡋࡋࠊ࠶ࡿ࣮ࣚࣟࢵࣃࡢุホ ࡢྡ๓ཪࡣ⫝̸ീࡢ↓チㅙࡢ⏝ࡣࠊࡓ࠼ᾘ㈝⪅ࡀᙜヱ⏝ࣛࢭࣥࢫ 㔘࡛ࡣࠊࠕ㸦⋵ලࡢ㸧⮬ື㌴㛵ࡍࡿぢ᪉ࡸࠊࠗᆅᇦࡢ࠘័⩦ࢆ⪃៖ධࢀ ࡸࡑࡢࡢࡅࡀ࠶ࡿಙࡌࡿࡇࡣ࡞࠸ࡋ࡚ࡶࠊᶒᐖࡋ࡚ ࡓሙྜࠖࠊࡢ㝣ἲࡢἲᇦ࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊྠࡌᐇ㛵ಀ࠾࠸ู࡚ࡢ⤖ㄽ ᙇࡍࡿࡇࡀྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿࡇࡀከ࠸ࠋ࡞ࡐ࡞ࡽṇ➇தἲࡢୗ࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊ ࡀୗࡉࢀᚓࡿࡇࢆᣦࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ ࡇ࠺ࡋࡓ⾜Ⅽࡣᶆ❶ࡢಖ᭷⪅ࡸⴭྡேࡢホุࣇ࣮ࣜࣛࢻࡍࡿࡶࡢࡔ ࡽ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࣇࣛࣥࢫ࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊࡓ࠼୧ᙜ⪅㛫➇ྜࡀᏑᅾࡋ࡞࠸ ࡋ࡚ࡶࠊ↓チㅙࡢၟရࡣࠕᐤ⏕⾜Ⅽ㸦agissements parasitaires㸧 ࠖࡢἲ⌮ ࡢୗ࡛ฎ⌮ࡉࢀࡿࠋࢻࢶ࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊⓏ㘓ࡉࢀࡓᶆ❶Ⓩ㘓ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ ࡞࠸ᶆ❶ࡢ࠸ࡎࢀࡶࠊࡑࢀࡽࡀඃ㉺ⓗ࡞౯್ࢆ᭷ࡍࡿሙྜࡣࠊࡑࡢ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 ᗄࡘࡢ㝣ἲ⣔ࡢᅜࠎ࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊ↓チㅙࡢၟရࡢ࡚ṇ ブ⛠㏻⏝ࣃࢵࢩࣥࢢ࢜ࣇṇ➇த㻸㼍㻲㼞㼍㼚㼏㼑 ࡗࡓࠋࡲࡓࢫࣃࢫ࣮࢞ࣝࢬ㸦the Spice Girls㸧ࡶࠊ⿕࿌ࡀᙼዪࡓࡕࡢ⫝̸ ➇தἲࢆཬࡰࡍࡶࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋ࡞ࡐ࡞ࡽࠊἲᚊୖࠊᙜ⪅㛫ࡢ➇த㛵ಀࡀ ീࢆࣇ࣮ࢳ࣮ࣕࡋࡓࢫࢸࢵ࣮࢝ࢆ〇㐀ࡋࡓࡇࢆࣃࢵࢩࣥࢢ࢜ࣇၥ せồࡉࢀࡓࡾࠊཪࡣࢭ࢝ࣥࢲ࣮࣑࣮ࣜࢽࣥࢢ㸦secondary meaning㸧ࡢせ௳ ࠺ࡇࡀ࡛ࡁ࡞ࡗࡓࠋࡋࡋࠊ࠶ࡿⴭྡ࡞࣮ࣞࢩࣥࢢ࣮࢝ࡢࢻࣛࣂ ࡀㄢࡉࢀࡓࡾࡍࡿࡽ࡛࠶ࡿࠋᅜ㝿▱ⓗ㈈⏘ಖㆤ༠㸦AIPPI㸧ࡣࠊࡇࢀ ࣮ࡣࠊ࠶ࡿࣛࢪ࢜ᒁࡀࠊࡑࡢᗈ࿌࠾࠸࡚ࡑࡢࢻࣛࣂ࣮ࡢ⫝̸ീࢆ⏝࠸ࠊ ࡽࡢせ௳ࡢ⦡ࡾࢆゎࡃࡓࡵࠊࡇࢀࡽࡢᅜࠎᑐࡋࠊṇ➇தἲࡢつᚊ⠊ᅖ ᙼࡀࡑࡢࣛࢪ࢜ᒁࢆᨭᣢࡋ࡚࠸ࡿᬯ♧ࡋࡓሙྜ࠾࠸࡚ࠊࣃࢵࢩࣥࢢ ࢆᣑࡍࡿࡼ࠺ᙉࡃാࡁࡅ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ ࢜ࣇࡢ㈐௵ࢆၥ࠺ࡇᡂຌࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋุᡤࡣࠊᾘ㈝⪅ࡀࠊࡑࡢࢻࣛ ࣂ࣮ࡀᙜヱᨺ㏦ᒁࢆᨭᣢࡋ࡚࠸ࡿᐇ㝿ಙࡌࡿ࡛࠶ࢁ࠺ࡋ࡚ࠊࣃࢵࢩ ⱥᅜࡢࣃࢵࢩࣥࢢ࢜ࣇࡢἲ⌮࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊၟᶆࡣࠊࡑࢀࡀၟရཪࡣࢧ࣮ ࣥࢢ࢜ࣇࡢ୍✀࡛࠶ࡿഇಖドࡢ⌮ㄽࢆ⏝࠸ࡓࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࢀࡽࡢࢣ࣮ ࣅࢫࡢฟᡤࢆഇࡿࡓࡵ⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡓࡢ࡛࡞࠸㝈ࡾࠊᐖࡉࢀࡓࡇ࡞ࡽ ࢫࡀ♧ࡍࡼ࠺ࠊഇಖドࠕ༢࡞ࡿࠖၟᴗୖࡢ⏝ࡢ㛫ࡢ⥺ᘬࡁࡣ㞴 ࡞࠸ࠋᖺ௦࠾ࡅࡿ୍㐃ࡢุἲࡣࠊ↓チㅙࡢၟရࡣࠊᶆ❶ࡀၟရ ࡋ࠸ࠋࡋࡋࠊ㏆ࡢᖺࡢࢣ࣮ࢫ࠾࠸࡚ࠊⱥᅜุᡤࡣࠊⴭྡேࡢ ฟᡤࢆ⾲ࢃࡍࡇ࡞ࡋᾘ㈝⪅ࢆᘬࡁࡅࡿሙྜ࡞ࡢ࡛ࠊࣃࢵࢩࣥࢢ࢜ࣇ ⫝̸ീࡢၟရᶒ㛵ࡍࡿᙇࡘ࠸࡚ᣄ⤯ࢆ⥆ࡅ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ ࠶ࡓࡽ࡞࠸࠸࠺ࡇࢆ☜❧ࡋࡓࠋࡍ࡞ࢃࡕࠊࣃࢵࢩࣥࢢ࢜ࣇࡣࠊᙜヱ ᶆ❶ࢆチㅙࡋࡓᙜ⪅ࡼࡗ࡚ရ㉁⟶⌮ࡀ࡞ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿᾘ㈝⪅ࡀ᥎ ୍⯡ⓗゝࡗ࡚ࠊⱥᅜࡢุᡤࡣࠊᯫ✵ࡢ࢟ࣕࣛࢡࢱ࣮ࡢၟရᶒࢆㄆ ࡍࡿሙྜ࡛࡞࠸㝈ࡾᡂ❧ࡋ࡞࠸ࠋ⡿ᅜࡣ␗࡞ࡾࠊⱥᅜ࡛ࡣࣃࣈࣜࢩࢸ ࡵࡿࡓࡵࣃࢵࢩࣥࢢ࢜ࣇࡢἲ⌮ࢆᣑᙇࡍࡿࡇᾘᴟⓗ࡛࠶ࡿࠋⴭྡ ࡢᶒࡣㄆࡵࡽࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࠋࡑࢀᨾࠊⱥᅜࡢุᡤࡣࠊⴭྡேࡢྡ๓ ேࡢྡ๓ࡸ⫝̸ീࢆ⏝࠸ࡿࡇࡣࠊ࠶ࡿ〇ရࡢಖド⤖ࡧࡃሙྜࡶ࠶ࢁ࠺ ࡸ⫝̸ീࡢ↓チㅙࡢၟᴗⓗ⏝ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊἲᚊୖࡢᶒ⾜ࢆ୍⯡ⓗㄆࡵ ࡚࠾ࡽࡎࠊࡓ࠼ཎ࿌ࡀࠕഇಖ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࠺ࡗ࡚ᙇࡋࡓࡋ࡚ࡶࠊᴫࡋ࡚ࡇࢀࢆㄆࡵ࡞࠸ࠋ࠼ࡤࠊ࣮ ࢭࢼ࣭ࣝࣇࢵࢺ࣮࣎ࣝࢡࣛࣈࡢྡ⛠࢚ࣥࣈ࣒ࣞࡣࠊᛅㄔࢆ♧ࡍࣂࢵࢪ ࡋ࡚⾰᭹⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡓࡋ࡚ࡶᐖࡉࢀ࡞࠸ࠋุᡤࡣࠊᾘ㈝⪅ࡀၟရࡢ v. Pally Screen Printing, [1998] FSR 665ᙜヱࢫࢸࢵ࣮࢝ࠕ↓チㅙࠖ⾲グࡋ࡞ ࡗࡓࡇࡣࠊチㅙࢆཷࡅࡓၟရ࡛࠶ࡿࡢ㯲♧ࡢᐇ⾲♧ࢆࡋࡓࡇࡣ࡞ࡽ࡞࠸ ࡋࡓ. 〇㐀ࡘ࠸࡚࣮ࢭࢼࣝࡀ㈐௵ࢆ㈇࠺ࡶࡢㄆ㆑ࡍࡿࡇࡣ࡞࠸ᤊ࠼ ࡚࠸ࡿࠋྠᵝࡢ⌮⏤࡛ࠊ㡢ᴦࢢ࣮ࣝࣉࡢࣂ㸦Abba㸧ࡣࠊᙼࡽࡢ࣓࣮ mouth, Eddie, Are You OK? Product Endorsement and Passing Off, [2002] IPQ 306. ࢪࡀ㹒ࢩࣕࢶࡸࡑࡢࡢ〇ရࢃࢀࡿࡇࢆ㜵Ṇࡍࡿࡇࡀ࡛ࡁ࡞ Irvine v. Talksport, Ltd., [2002] FSR 60, aff’d, [2003] EWCA Civ. 423; see M. LearElvis 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࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡢࢣ࣮ࢫ࡛ࡣࠊࢡࣞࢪࢵࢺ࣮࢝ࢻୖⴭྡேࡢ࣓࣮ࢪࢆ⏝ & Prac. 213-214 (2010). ࠸ࡿࡇࡘ࠸࡚ࡢᕪṆࡵࡀㄆࡵࡽࢀ࡞ࡗࡓࠋࡑࡢ⌮⏤ࡋ࡚ࠊࡇࡢሙྜࡣࠊᙜ Ruijsenaars, supra note 78, at 8. ヱⴭྡேࡀࡑࡢ࣮࢝ࢻࢆᨭᣢࡋཪࡣࣛࢭࣥࢫࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇࢆබ⾗ᥦ♧ࡋࡓࡇ Id. at 9. ࡞ࡽ࡞࠸ࡽ࡛࠶ࡿࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ Taverner Rutledge v. Trexpalm, [1977] RPC 275; Lyngstad v. Anabas, [1977] FSR 62; ከࡃࡢ୰ࣃࢵࢩࣥࢢ࢜ࣇࡢᡂ❧ࢆྰᐃࡋࡓࡶࡢࡋ࡚௨ୗࡀ࠶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ࢩࣕࢶࢸࣞࢱࣅ࣮ࢬ Teletubbies ࡢ࣓࣮ࢪࢆ 99 (Wombles of Wimbledon); Lygnstad v. Anabas, [1977] FSR 62 (ABBA group); BBC ࡋࡓࡋ࡚ࡶࠊᾘ㈝⪅ࡣฟᡤࡢ⾲♧ࡸಖドཷࡅྲྀࡿࡇࡣ࡞࠸ㄆᐃ. Worldwide v. Pally Screen Printing, [1998] FSR 665 (Teletubbies). ▱ⓗ㈈⏘ἲᨻ⟇Ꮫ◊✲ 9RO ▱ⓗ㈈⏘ἲᨻ⟇Ꮫ◊✲ 9RO ᕳ㢌ㄽᩥ ブ⛠㏻⏝ࣃࢵࢩࣥࢢ࢜ࣇṇ➇த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✵࡛࠶ࡿࡀᨾࠊ〇ရࢆᩥᏐ࠾ࡾࠕಖドࠖࡍࡿࡇࡣྍ⬟ ᶆᶒ⪅㸦ཪࡣⴭྡே㸧࡛࠶ࡿಙࡌࡿྍ⬟ᛶࡀ࡞࠸ࡋ࡚ࡶࠊഇಖドࡢ ࡔࡽ࡛࠶ࡿ ࠋ㛗࠸㛫ࠊⱥᅜࡢุᡤࡣࠊཎ࿌⿕࿌ࡀࠕඹ㏻ࡢάືࡢ ⌮ㄽࡢୗ࡛ἲᚊୖࡢᙇࢆࡍࡿࡇࡀࠊ୍⯡ⓗྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿࡍࡿࠋࡇ࠺ ሙࠖࢆ᭷ࡋ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࡋ࡚ࠊ࢟ࣕࣛࢡࢱ࣮ࡢၟရ㛵ࡍࡿᶒᙇࢆᣄ ࡋࡓ᭱ࡶᗈ⠊࡞ࣃࢵࢩࣥࢢ࢜ࣇࡢ㐺⏝ࢆㄆࡵࡓࡢࡣࠊᏛࡀ↓チㅙࡢၟရ ⤯ࡋ࡚ࡁࡓࠋࡼࡾ᭱㏆࡞ࡾࠊⱥᅜࡢุᡤࡣࠕඹ㏻ࡢάືࡢሙࠖࡢつ ࠾࠸࡚≉ᐃࡢⰍᙬཬࡧグ❶ࢆ⏝࠸ࡿࡇࢆ⚗ࡌࡿࡇࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࡋࡓ ไࢆ⦆ࡵ࡚ࡁ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡋࡋࠊ⿕࿌ࡀࠊ࠼ࡤᙜヱၟရࡣࠕබᘧࠖ࡞ၟရ ➨ ᕠᅇ༊᥍ッุᡤ࡛࠶ࡿࠋุᡤࡣࠊᾘ㈝⪅ࡀࠊ㉎ධࡋࡓᙜヱၟရࡀ ࡛࠶ࡿ⾲♧ࡍࡿ࡞ࡢ᪉ἲ࡛࢟ࣕࣛࢡࢱ࣮⏝ࡘ࠸࡚チㅙࢆཷࡅ࡚ බᘧᏛࡽࣛࢭࣥࢫࢆཷࡅ࡚࠸ࡿ࠺Ẽࡅ࡞࠸࡛࠶ࢁ࠺ ࠸ࡿࡇࢆ✚ᴟⓗ⾲♧ࡋ࡞࠸㝈ࡾࠊุᡤࡣ࡞࠾ᐇ⾲♧ࡢᙇࢆ㏥ࡅ ࡇࢆㄆࡵ࡞ࡀࡽࡶࠊᾘ㈝⪅ࡀᙜヱၟရࡣࣛࢭࣥࢫࢆཷࡅ࡚࠸ࡿ⌧ ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡋࡋࠊࡇ࠺ࡋࡓែᗘࡶኚࢆぢࡏࡘࡘ࠶ࡿࠋᖺࡢ Mirage ಙࡌࡿ࡛࠶ࢁ࠺ࡋࡓࠋุᡤࡀࠕࡓࡔࡾ㸦free riding㸧ࠖࡘ࠸࡚ゝཬ Studios v. Counter-Feat Clothing Co., Ltd. ࠾࠸࡚ࠊⱥᅜุᡤࡣࠊࢸ࣮ࣥ ࡋࡓࡇࡣࠊࣃࢵࢩࣥࢢ࢜ࣇ㛵ࡍࡿᗈ࠸ほᛕࡀࠊṇ➇தࡢᴫᛕࡢᙳ㡪 ࢚ࢪ࣭࣑࣮ࣗࢱࣥࢺ࣭ࢽࣥࢪ࣭ࣕࢱ࣮ࢺࣝࢬ㸦the Teenage Mutant Ninja ࢆᙉࡃཷࡅ࡚࠸ࡿࡇࢆ♧၀ࡍࡿࠋ Turtles㸧ࢆ⾰᭹↓チㅙ࡛⏝࠸ࡓሙྜࠊࣃࢵࢩࣥࢢ࢜ࣇࡀᡂ❧ࡍࡿุ ᩿ࡋࡓࠋุᡤࡣࠊබ⾗ࡢ㒊ศࡣࠊ࢟ࣕࣛࢡࢱ࣮ၟရࡢ⏕⏘ࡣ୍⯡ⓗ ࠕ⿕࿌ࡀᙜヱᏛࡢ࣮࢝ࣛグ❶ࢆ⏝ࡋࡓ⾜ⅭࡣࠊᏛ㛵ಀࡀ࠶ ࣛࢭࣥࢫ㛵ಀࡀᏑᅾࡍࡿࡇࢆㄆ㆑ࡋ࡚࠾ࡾࠊࡑࢀᨾࠊࡓ࠼ᙜ ࡿࡢࡼ࠺࡞㘒ぬࢆ⏕ࡌࡉࡏࡿࡓࡵࡢࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࠊࡑ࠺ࡋࡓ ࢟ࣕࣛࢡࢱ࣮ࡢᶒ⪅ࡀⱥᅜ࡛ࣛࢭࣥࢫάືࢆ⾜ࡗ࡚࠸࡞ࡗࡓࡋ ⾜ⅭࡣࠊᏛࣇࢵࢺ࣮࣎ࣝࢳ࣮࣒ࡢᨭᣢࡸࢳ࣮࣒ࡢ㛵ಀᛶࢆ♧ࡋ ࡚ࡶࠊ⿕࿌ၟရࡣࣛࢭࣥࢫࢆཷࡅ࡚࠸ࡿࡶࡢබ⾗ࡀಙࡌࡿྍ⬟ᛶࡀ࠶ ࡓ࠸ᮃࢇ࡛࠸ࡿࣇࣥ࠾࠸࡚ΰྠࢆ⏕ࡌࡉࡏࠊࡘࡲࡿࡇࢁࠊࡑ ࡿࠊࡋࡓࠋุホ㔘࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊ࢟ࣕࣛࢡࢱ࣮ࢆฟᡤ⾲♧ࡋ࡚⏝࠸ ࡢΰྠࡓࡔࡾࡋ࡚┈ࢆᚓࡿࡶࡢゝ࠼ࡿࠋᾘ㈝⪅ࡢ㢌ࡢ୰࡛ࠊ ࡚࠸ࡿࡇࠊ࢟ࣕࣛࢡࢱ࣮ࢆ༢࡞ࡿ〇ရࡢ㣭ࡋ࡚⏝࠸ࡿࡇࡢ༊ู 㹒ࢩࣕࢶᏛࡢ㛫㛵㐃ࡅࢆࡉࡏࠊࡑࡇࡽ┤᥋┈ࢆᚓࡼ ࡀᅔ㞴࡛࠶ࡿࡇࡀᣦࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ ࠋࡇࢀࡣ๓グࡢഇಖドⴭྡேࡢ ࠺ࡍࡿࡇࡣࠊࠗ࠸ࡼ࠺ࡢ࡞࠸ḭ▇ࡢ࣮࢜ࣛ࠘ࡀᏑᅾࡋࠊΰྠ ⫝̸ീࡢ༢࡞ࡿၟᴗୖࡢ⏝ࡢ㛫ࡢ༊ูࡀᅔ㞴࡛࠶ࡿࡇྠᵝ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ ࡢྍ⬟ᛶࢆᖐ⤖ࡍࡿ㹿㺁 See Carty, supra note 4, at 291. ࡓ࠼㠀㢮ఝࡢၟရ࡛࠶ࡗ࡚ࡶⓏ㘓ࡉࢀࡓᶆ❶ࡢ⏝ࢆ⚗ࡌࡿࡇࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࡋ See id. at 294-95 (collecting cases). ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡑࡢせ௳ࡣࠊ ᙜヱᶆ❶ࡀ♫ⓗホ౯ࢆ᭷ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇࠊཬࡧ ᙜヱ Elvis Presley Trade Marks, [1997] RPC 543, 558 (Laddie, J.); Wilkie v. McCulloch, ᶆ❶ࡢ⏝ࡀࠕṇ࡞ࢆᚓࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡾࠊཪࡣၟᶆࡢྡኌࡸ≉᭷ࡢᛶ㉁ᦆᐖࢆ [1823] 2 S. 413; Arsenal FC plc v. Reed, [2001] RPC 922 (Laddie, J.)⿕࿌ࡣࡑࡢၟရࡀ ࠼ࡿࠖࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࡇࠊ࡛࠶ࡿࠋCarty, supra note 4, at 292.ࡋࡋ࡞ࡀࡽࠊࡇࡢ ࣮ࢭࢼࣝࡢ࢜ࣇࢩࣕࣝࢢࢵࢬ࡛࡞࠸ࡇࢆ᫂ࡽࡋ࡚࠸ࡓࡢ࡛ࠊࣃࢵࢩࣥࢢ ᩥゝࡣࠊຍ┕ᅜࡑ࠺ࡋࡓᢅ࠸ࡢ⩏ົࢆ㈇ࢃࡏࡿࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊࡑ࠺ࡋࡓᢅ࠸ࢆチᐜ ࢜ࣇࡣᡂ❧ࡋ࡞࠸; see Hector MacQueen, Charlotte Waelde, Graeme Laurie, Contem- ࡍࡿ࠸࠺ࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡾࠊࡲࡓࠊⓏ㘓ࡉࢀࡓᶆ❶ࡢࡳ㐺⏝ࡉࢀࡿ࠸࠺Ⅼὀពࡍ 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. ᅇࡋࡣࠊྠุᡤ࠾࠸࡚ඛࡔࡗุ࡚᩿ࡉࢀࡓ୍⠇ྠᵝ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡑࡢඛࡣࠊ ⱥᅜࡣࠊEU ၟᶆᣦ௧ࡢ➨ ᮲ࢆ㑂Ᏺࡍࡿࡓࡵࠊၟရᶒࡢಖㆤࢆᗈࡆ࡞ࡅ Boston Professional Hockey Ass'n v. Dallas Cap & Emblem Mfg., 510 F.2d 1004 (5th Cir. ࢀࡤ࡞ࡽ࡞࠸ࡔࢁ࠺ᣦࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡓࠋ➨ ᮲ࡣࠊຍ┕ᅜࡣࠊ୍ᐃࡢሙྜࠊ 1975) ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢ௳࠾࠸ุ࡚ᡤࡣࠊࣃࢵࢳ⪅ࡢၟᶆࢆࡋ࡚㈍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⛠㏻⏝ࣃࢵࢩࣥࢢ࢜ࣇṇ➇த㻸㼍㻲㼞㼍㼚㼏㼑 ࡋࡋ࡞ࡀࡽࠊ㐃㑥ุᡤࡢ㛫࠾࠸࡚ࡶࠊᗄࡘࡢゎ㔘ࡢ┦㐪ࡀ⏕ࡌ ࢆ᥇⏝ࡍࡿᮍࡔỴࡵ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࠋ↓チㅙࡢၟရࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠊᗄࡘࡢ┦ ࡚࠸ࡿࠋከࡃࡢุᡤ࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊࡇࢀࡽࡢ௳࠾࠸࡚ࠊΰྠࡢྍ⬟ᛶ ࡍࡿุἲࡀᏑᅾࡍࡿࠋࡑࡢ࠺ࡕࡢᗄࡘࡢ࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊุᡤࡣ ࢆ᥎ᐃࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊูࡢุᡤ࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊᾘ㈝⪅ࡀᙜヱᶆ❶ࢆ༢࡞ࡿ 㝣ἲࡢࣉ࣮ࣟࢳ㏆࠸᪉ἲࢆ᥇⏝ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡍ࡞ࢃࡕࠊࡑࢀࡽࡢࢣ࣮ 㣭ࡸࢳ࣮࣒ࡢᛅㄔࢆ⾲ࢃࡍࣂࢵࢪࡋ࡚ㄆ㆑ࡍࡿ࡛࠶ࢁ࠺ሙྜࡣࠊ ࢫ࡛ࡣࠊࡓ࠼ᾘ㈝⪅ࡀཎ࿌⿕࿌ࡢ㛫ၟᴗୖࡢྲྀỴࡵࡀᏑᅾࡍࡿ ᐖࡣ࡞ࡽ࡞࠸ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋᗄࡘࡢุᡤ࡛ࡣࠊᶆ❶ࡢࠕᶵ⬟ⓗࠖ ಙࡌࡿࡇࡀ࡞࠸ࡋ࡚ࡶࠊᾘ㈝⪅ࡀ⿕࿌ࡢၟရᶆ❶ࡢಖ᭷⪅ࡢ㛫 ⏝ࡢእࢆ㐺⏝ࡋ ࠊ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣฟᡤ࡞࠸ࡋᚋྡ⩏ࡢΰྠࡢྍ⬟ᛶࡀ࡞࠸ ఱࡽࡢ㛵㐃ࡅࢆࡍࡿሙྜࡣࠊᶒ⪅ࡀἲⓗᥐ⨨ࢆồࡵࡿࡇࡀ࡛ࡁ ࡇࢆㄆᐃࡋ࡚ࠊྠᵝࡢ⤖ㄽࢆᑟ࠸࡚࠸ࡿ ࠋ ࡿࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ ࣮࢜ࢫࢺࣛࣜࡣࠊࣃࢵࢩࣥࢢ࢜ࣇࡢཝ᱁࡞ゎ㔘ᰂ㌾࡞ゎ㔘ࡢ࠸ࡎࢀ ࡋࡋ࡞ࡀࡽࠊᾘ㈝⪅ࡀㄆ㆑ࡍࡁ㛵㐃ࡅࡢᛶ㉁ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊ࣮࢜ࢫࢺ ࣛࣜࡢุᡤ㛫࡛ពぢࡢ୍⮴ࡀᮍࡔぢࡽࢀ࡞࠸ࠋᖺࡢ௳࡛࠶ࡿ ࡇࡣࠊࡓ࠼ᙜヱࣃࢵࢳࡀࡢၟရ᪤ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡶࡢ࡛࡞ࡃࡶࠊၟᶆᶒ Henderson v. Radio Corp. Pty. Ltd.࠾࠸࡚ࠊࢽ࣮ࣗࢧ࢘ࢫ࢙࣮࢘ࣝࢬ᭱㧗 ᐖ࡞ࡿࡋࡓࠋุᡤࡣࠊࣃࢵࢳ⮬యࡀᐖရ࡞ࡢ࡛࠶ࡾࠊࡼࡗ࡚ᾘ㈝⪅ࡀࣃ ࢵࢳࡢฟᡤࡘ࠸࡚ΰྠࡍࡿ࠺ࡣࠕ↓㛵ಀ࡛ࠖ࠶ࡿࡋࡓࠋࠕࢳ࣮࣒⏤᮶ ࡍࡿၟᶆࡀ࢚ࣥࣈ࣒ࣞࡢ㈍ࢆྍ⬟ࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿሙྜ࠾࠸࡚ࠊᾘ㈝⪅ࡢΰྠ ࡣ࢚ࣥࣈ࣒ࣞ⮬యࡢ〇㐀ඖࡘ࠸࡚⏕ࡌࡿࡶࡢ࡛࡞ࡅࢀࡤ࡞ࡽ࡞࠸ࡢ㆟ㄽࡣㄝ ุᡤࡣࠊࣞࢥ࣮ࢻࢪࣕࢣࢵࢺ ேࡢࢲࣥࢧ࣮ࡢ࣓࣮ࢪࢆ↓チㅙ࡛⏝ ࠸ࡓࡇࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠊᾘ㈝⪅ࡀࢲࣥࢧ࣮ࡓࡕࡀࣞࢥ࣮ࢹࣥࢢࡘ࠸࡚ᢎ ㄆࡋࠊཪࡣࡇࢀࢆᨭᣢࡋࡓཷࡅྲྀࡿࡇ࡞ࡿࡽࠊࣃࢵࢩࣥࢢ࢜ࣇ ᚓຊࡀ࡞࠸ࠋࠖSmack Apparel, 510 F.2d at 1012. Accord, Boston Athletic Ass’n v. Sullivan, ࡞ࡿࡋࡓࠋࡋࡋࠊࡇࡢ௳ุ࡛ᡤࡣ᭦ࡶ࠺୍Ṍ㐍ࡵࡓุ᩿ࢆࡋࡓࠋ 867 F.2d 22 (1st Cir. 1989). ࡍ࡞ࢃࡕࠊࢲࣥࢧ࣮ࡢホุࡀἲὶ⏝ࡉࢀࡓࡋࡓࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢࠕ Smack Apparel, 550 F.3d at 484-85; Boston Athletic Ass'n v. Sullivan, 867 F.2d 22 (1st ἲ࡞ὶ⏝ࡢἲ⌮ࠖࡣࠊ⡿ᅜ࡛ㄆࡵࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࣃࣈࣜࢩࢸᶒ┦ᙜࡍࡿࡶ Cir. 1989); University of Georgia Athletic Ass'n v. Laite, 756 F.2d 1535 (11th Cir. 1985); ࡢ࡛࠶ࡾࠊ᭦ṇ➇தไᗘ࠾ࡅࡿࠕᙜᚓࠖࡸࠕࣇ࣮ࣜࣛࢹࣥ Boston Professional Hockey Ass'n v. Dallas Cap & Emblem Mfg., 510 F.2d 1004 (5th Cir. ࢢࠖࡢἲ⌮ࢆᙸᙿࡉࡏࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡋࡋࠊࡇࢀࡼࡾᚋࡢ࠾࠸ 1975). See, e.g., International Organization of Job's Daughters v. Lindenburg and Co., 633 F.2d ࡚ࡣࠊ↓チㅙࡢ࢟ࣕࣛࢡࢱ࣮ࡢ࣓࣮ࢪࡸᫎ⏬ࡢ᭷ྡ࡞ࢩ࣮ࣥࢆ↓チㅙ࡛ 912, 917-19 (9th Cir. 1980); University of Pittsburgh v. Champion Prods., Inc., 566 F. Supp. ၟရࡋࡓሙྜ࠾࠸࡚ࠊᾘ㈝⪅ࢆࡋ࡚ࣛࢭࣥࢫྜពࡀᏑᅾࡍࡿㄗಙ 711, 720-21 (C.D. Pa. 1983).➨ ᕠᅇ༊᥍ッุᡤࡣࠊᙜึࠊJob’s Daughters ࡢศᯒ ࡉࡏࡿྍ⬟ᛶࡀ࠶ࡿ࠸࠺ࠊࡼࡾ⊃࠸ഇಖドࡢㄽ⌮ࡀ⏝࠸ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ ᡭἲࢆ⏝࠸࡚ࠊFleischer Studios, Inc. v. A.V.E.L.A., Inc., 636 F.3d 1115 (9 Cir. 2011) ࠾ࡅࡿ “Betty Boop” ࡢ࢟ࣕࣛࢡࢱ࣮ࢆ⏝࠸ࡓၟရᶒᐖࡢᙇࢆ㏥ࡅ࡚࠸ࡓࠋࡋ ࡋࠊᚋ⌮⏤ࢆ᫂ࡽࡋ࡞࠸ࡲࡲࡇࡢ㒊ศࡢពぢࢆ᧔ᅇࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋFleischer Crocodile Dundee㸧࡛࣏࣮࣭࣮ࠖࣝ࣍࢞ࣥ Paul Hogan ࡀ₇ࡌࡓ࢟ࣕࣛࢡࢱ࣮ᐦ Studios, Inc. v. A.V.E.L.A., Inc., 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 17220 (Aug. 19, 2011). Fleischer ᥋㛵ಀࡋ࡚࠸ࡓࢸ࣒ࢆᶍೌࡋࡓᗑෆ㣭㸦ࢺ࣮ࣞࢻࢻࣞࢫ㸧ࡘ࠸࡚ഇಖ Studios ࠾ࡅࡿ᧔ᅇࡉࢀࡓពぢࡣࠊࣃࣈࣜࢵࢡࢻ࣓ࣥᒓࡍࡿ࢟ࣕࣛࢡࢱ࣮ࡢ ドࡢᡂ❧ࢆㄆࡵࡓ; Pacific Dunlop v. Hogan, 87 ALR 14 (1987)ࢡࣟࢥࢲࣝࢲࣥࢹ ࣓࣮ࢪࡢၟရࡲ࡛ၟᶆࡢಖㆤࢆཬࡰࡍࡇࡣࠊⴭసᶒಖㆤᮇ㛫ࡼࡿಖㆤࡢ㝈 ࣮ࡢࢩ࣮ࣥࢆ┿ఝࡓᗈ࿌ࡘࡁࠊၟᴗୖࡢฟᡤࡢᐇ⾲♧ࡀᡂ❧ࡍࡿࡋࡓ; th See Hogan v. Koala Dundee, 12 IPR 508 (1988)ᫎ⏬ࠕࢡࣟࢥࢲࣝࢲࣥࢹ࣮ ᐃࢆᅇ㑊ࡍࡿࡇ࡞ࡿ࡛࠶ࢁ࠺࠸࠺ࡇࡘ࠸࡚ࡶ㆙࿌ࡋ࡚࠸ࡓࠋFleischer Henderson v. Radio Corp. Pty., Ltd., [1960] SR (NSW) 576ࣞࢥ࣮ࢻࡢࢪࣕࢣࢵࢺࢲ Studios, 636 F.3d at 1124. ࣥࢧ࣮ࡢ⫝̸ീࡀ⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡓ࠾࠸࡚ࠊഇಖ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⛠㏻⏝ࣃࢵࢩࣥࢢ࢜ࣇṇ➇த㻸㼍㻲㼞㼍㼚㼏㼑 ᫎ⏬ࠕࢡࣟࢥࢲࣝࢲࣥࢹ࣮㸦Crocodile Dundee㸧 ࠖࡢၟရᶒ㛵ࡍࡿ ࡓࢸࣞࣅᗈ࿌㛵ࡋ࡚ࣃࢵࢩࣥࢢ࢜ࣇࡀၥ㢟࡞ࡗࡓ࠾࠸࡚ࠊྠࡌ ᖺࡢุ࠾࠸࡚ࠊ࣮࢜ࢫࢺࣛࣜ㐃㑥ุᡤࡣࠊഇಖドࡢἲ⌮ࢆ ุᡤ࠾࠸࡚῝࠸ពぢࡢ┦㐪ࢆぢࡿࡇ࡞ࡗࡓࠋSheppard ุࡣࠊど ࠕᢏᕦⓗ࡛ࠖ࠶ࡿࡋ࡚ᢈุࡋࠊࡲࡓၟရ㛵ࡍࡿἲࡘ࠸࡚බ⾗ࡢㄆ ⫈⪅ࡣࠕ࣮࣍࢞ࣥẶࡀࡑࡢᗈ࿌ࡘ࠸࡚ᢎㅙࡋཪࡣチㅙࡋࡓࡣྜ⌮ⓗ ㆑㸦ཪࡣㄗࡗࡓㄆ㆑㸧㐣ᗘ౫Ꮡࡍࡿ≧ἣ⨨ࡃࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࡋࡓ ࠋ ⤖ㄽࡋ࡞࠸ࠖࡽࠊࣃࢵࢩࣥࢢ࢜ࣇࡢᙇࡣㄆࡵࡽࢀ࡞࠸ࡋࡓࠋࡢ ྡࡢุᐁࡣࠊᐇᑂุᡤࡀࣃࢵࢩࣥࢢ࢜ࣇࡢᡂ❧ࢆㄆࡵࡓࡇࢆᨭ ࠕ 㸦࢟ࣕࣛࢡࢱ࣮ཬࡧⴭྡேࡢၟရࢆࡵࡄࡿ㸧ἲ࡞⾜Ⅽࡢᮏ㉁ⓗ㒊 ᣢࡋࡓࡀࠊ␗࡞ࡿㄽ⌮ࡅࢆ⏝࠸ࡓࠋBeaumont ุࡣࠊୗ⣭ᑂࡀࠊ┦ᙜ ศࡣ͐ཎ࿌⿕࿌ࡢ㛫ࣛࢭࣥࢫࡸࢫ࣏ࣥࢧ࣮ྜពࡀ࠶ࡿࡢ ከᩘࡢど⫈⪅ࡀࠕ➨୍⿕࿌ཎ࿌ࡢ㛫࡛ࠊ➨୍⿕࿌ࡀᗈ࿌ྠពࡋ࡚࠸ ᐇ⾲♧࠶ࡿࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋᮏ㉁ࡣࠊHenderson ௳࠾࠸࡚㏙ࡽ ࡓࡢၟᴗୖࡢྜពᙧᡂࡀ࡛ࡁ࡚࠸ࡓࠖಙࡌࡿ࡛࠶ࢁ࠺⤖ㄽࡅࡓࡇ ࢀࡓ➨ࡢẁ㝵࠶ࡿࠋࡍ࡞ࢃࡕࠊࡑࡢᮏ㉁ࡣࠊྡኌࡢἲ࡞ὶ⏝࡛ ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣྜ⌮ᛶࡀ࠶ࡿ⪃࠼ࡿࡋࡓࠋࡇࢀᑐ↷ⓗࠊBurchett ุ ࠶ࡾࠊཪࡣࠊࡼࡾᗈࡃᤊ࠼࡚ࠊཎ࿌ṇᙜᖐᒓࡍࡿ࣓࣮ࢪၟရ ࡣࠊṇ➇தࡢ⪃࠼᪉㏆࠸ᗈ࠸ㄽ⌮ࢆ㐺⏝ࡋࡓࠋྠุࡣࠊ ࠕㄽⅬࡣࠊ ࡢ㛫ࡢἲ࡞㛵㐃ࡅࢆࡋࡓ࠸࠺ࡇ࡛࠶ࡿ㹿㺁 ࣓ࢵࢭ࣮ࢪࡢ᭕ࡉࡀࣃࢵࢩࣥࢢ࢜ࣇࡢἲ⌮ࡢ㐺⏝ࢆጉࡆࡿ࠺ ࠸࠺ࡇ࡛࠶ࡿࠖࡋࡓࠋᙼࡢぢゎࡼࢀࡤࠊど⫈⪅ࡀᙜ⪅㛫࡛ၟᴗࣛ ࠕ㛵㐃ࡅࠖࡢᙉㄪࡣࠊ ࠕ ࠗရ㉁ཪࡣಖド࠘௨እࡢ㛵㐃ᛶࠖࢆᑟࡁᚓࡿࠋ ࢭࣥࢫࡢྜពࡀ࠶ࡿಙࡌࡓྰࢃࡽࡎࠊࣃࢵࢩࣥࢢ࢜ࣇࡣᡂ ุᡤࡣࠊ⿕࿌ࡀ⏝ࡋࡓྡ๓ࡸ࣓࣮ࢪࡣࠕ➨୍⿕࿌ཪࡣྠ⿕࿌ࡀ㈍ ❧ࡍࡿࠋ ࡍࡿၟရࡣࠊᫎ⏬ࠗࢡࣟࢥࢲࣝࢲࣥࢹ࣮࠘ཪࡣ୰࡛ཎ࿌࣏࣮࣭ࣝ࣍ ࣮࢞ࣥࡀ₇ࡌࡓ࢟ࣕࣛࢡࢱ࣮㛵㐃ࡋࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿබ⾗ࡀಙࡌࡿࡼ࠺ ࠕ⚾ࡢ⪃࠼࡛ࡣࠊᮏ௳࠾ࡅࡿ♧၀ࡀ᭕࡛࠶ࡿࡽゝࡗ࡚ࠊ㈐௵ ⤌ࡲࢀࡓࠖࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࡋ࡚ࠊࡑࢀࡽࡢ⏝ࡢᕪṆࡵࢆࡌࡓ ࠋࡑࡢ ࢆࡲࡠࡀࢀࡿࡶࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋ࠶ࡿၟேࡀ࠶ࡽࡉࡲࡢᐇ⾲♧ࢆ⾜ ഹ ᖺᚋࠊࠕࢡࣟࢥࢲࣝࢲࣥࢹ࣮ࠖࡢ᭷ྡ࡞ࢼࣇࡢࢩ࣮ࣥࢆ┿ఝ ࡗࡓሙྜࡔࡅἲࡀ㐺⏝ࡉࢀࠊ࡞ḭ▇ࢆᡂຌࡉࡏࡿࠊࡼࡾὙ⦎ࡉ ࢀࡓ♧၀ࡢ᪉ἲࢆ⏝࠸ࡓ⪅ࡀᡭࢆࡿ࠸࠺ࡢࡣྜ⌮࡛࠶ࡿࠋ⚾ ࡣࠊഇ࡛࠶ࡿ୍ᐃࡢ᥎ ࢆᇶ♏ࡋ࡚ࠊၟேࡸࡑࡢ〇ရ᭷࡞ ⏝࠸ࡓሙྜࠊᾘ㈝⪅ࢆࡋ࡚ࣛࢭࣥࢫྜពࡀᏑᅾࡍࡿࡶࡢㄗಙࡉࡏࡿྍ⬟ᛶࡀ ࡼ࠺ぢ㎸ࡳᐈᙳ㡪ࢆ࠼ࡿࡼ࠺ࢹࢨࣥࡉࢀࡓㄝᚓࡢᡭἲࡢᑟ ࠶ࡿࡋࡓ; 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⏝ࡘ ධࡣࠊㄗᑟⓗ࡛ࠊḭ▇ⓗ࡛࠶ࡾࠊࡲࡓ᮲ᐃࡵࡿㄗᑟཪࡣḭ▇ࡢྍ ࠸࡚ࠊṇ➇த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 ࡣࠊ࣮࢜ࢫࢺࣛࣜࡢၟရ㛵ࡍࡿἲࡢ≧ែࡣ௨ୗࡢ࠾ࡾ ࡛࠶ࡿࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࠕᐇ⾲♧ࡢᏑᅾࡀ♧ࡉࢀ࡞ࡅࢀࡤ࡞ࡽ࡞࠸ࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࠊᐇ⾲ ♧ࡣࠊබ⾗ࡀࠊཎ࿌⿕࿌ࡢ㛫ࠊࡣࡗࡁࡾࡋ࡞࠸ࡀఱࡽࡢၟᴗୖࡢྜពࡀᏑ ᅾࡍࡿ⪃࠼ࡿሙྜㄆࡵࡽࢀࡿࠋࠖChristopher Wadlow, The Law of Passing Off ࡇࢀࡽࡢࢣ࣮ࢫࡽࢃࡿࡇࡣࠊ࣮࢜ࢫࢺࣛࣜࡣࠊ⡿ᅜ࡛Ⓨᒎࢆぢ ࡏ࡚࠸ࡿ⌮ㄽྠᵝࡢࠊၟရᶒࢆಖㆤࡍࡿࡓࡵࡢࣜ࣋ࣛࣝ࡞ࣃࢵࢩࣥࢢ ࢜ࣇࡢἲ⌮ࡢ㐺⏝࠾ࡑࡽࡃྥࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ࠸࠺ࡇ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࠊࡑ ࢀᨾࠊḭ▇⾜Ⅽࢆ࣮࣋ࢫࡍࡿಖㆤࠊṇ➇தࡢἲไࡢୗ࡛Ⓨ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⛠㏻⏝ࣃࢵࢩࣥࢢ࢜ࣇṇ➇த㻸㼍㻲㼞㼍㼚㼏㼑 ࣇ࣮ࣜࣛࢹࣥࢢࡢᴫᛕࡢ㛫ࡢቃ⏺⥺ࡀ᭕࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ ᖺ ᭶ࠊECJ ࡣࠊᗈ࿌ࡼࡿࢻ࣮࣡ࢬࡢ⏝ࡣၟᶆⓗ⏝࠶ ࡓࡿ㸦ࡑࢀᨾᙜヱ⏝ࡀΰྠࢆᘬࡁ㉳ࡇࡍྍ⬟ᛶࡀ࠶ࡿሙྜࡣᐖ 㹁㸬ᑗ᮶ࡢㄽதࡢሙ㸽࣮࣮࢟࣡ࢻᗈ࿌ ࡞ࡿྍ⬟ᛶࡀ࠶ࡿ㸧ࡢពぢࢆබ⾲ࡋࡓࠋࡋࡋࠊࢢ࣮ࢢࣝࡼࡿࢻ࣡ ࣮ࣚࣟࢵࣃ࠾ࡅࡿࣃࢵࢩࣥࢢ࢜ࣇṇ➇தࡢἲไᗘࡢ㛫ࡢㄪ ࣮ࢬࡢ⏝ࡣၟᶆⓗ⏝࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࡋࡓࠋࡓࡔࡋࠊECJ クࡉࢀࡓ㸦ࣇ ࡣࠊ࣮࣮࢟࣡ࢻᗈ࿌ࡢᩥ⬦࠾࠸࡚ࡧ⬮ගࢆᾎࡧࡓࠋࣇࣛࣥࢫࡢୗ⣭ ࣛࣥࢫࠊ࣮࢜ࢫࢺࣜཬࡧࢻࢶࡽク㸧ࡇࢀࡽࡢࢣ࣮ࢫࡣࠊṇ➇த ุᡤࡣࠊ㸦 ࡘࡢእࢆ㝖࠸࡚㸧ᗈ࿌ࢢ࣮ࢢࣝࡣࠊၟᶆࢆ↓チㅙ࡛࢟ 㛵ࡍࡿ௳࡛ࡣ࡞ࡗࡓࠋECJ クࡉࢀࡓ ࡘ┠ࡢࢣ࣮ࢫࡣࠊ࢜ࣛࣥ ࣮࣮࣡ࢻࡋ࡚⏝࠸ࡿࡇ㸦adwords, ࢻ࣮࣡ࢬ㸧ࡘ࠸࡚㈐௵ࢆ㈇࠺ࠊ ࢲࡢ Hoge Raad ࡀࠊࠕᙜヱၟᶆࡢಙ⏝ᛶࡸ㆑ูᛶࢆᐖࡋࠊཪࡣṇࢆ ࡋࡓ ࠋୖグࡢእࡢ௳࠾࠸࡚ࠊࢫࢺࣛࢫࣈุ࣮ࣝᡤࡣၟᶆᶒ ᚓࡿ࣮࣮ࠖ࢟࣡ࢻᗈ࿌ࢆᕞࡀ⚗Ṇࡍࡿࡇࡀ࡛ࡁࡿ࠺ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊᬻ ᐖࢆㄆࡵ࡞ࡗࡓࠋࡋࡋࠊྠุᡤࡣࠊࢻ࣮࣡ࢬࡢ⏝ࡣ᮲ࡢ ᐃⓗ࡞ุ᩿ࢆồࡵࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡋࡋࠊᖺ ᭶ࠊECJ ࡣࠊࡢத ṇ➇தࢆᵓᡂࡍࡿࡋࡓ ࠋ Ⅼࡘ࠸࡚ୗࡋࡓฎศ↷ࡽࡋࠊᙜヱதⅬࡘ࠸ุ࡚᩿ࡍࡿᚲせࡣ࡞࠸ ࡇࢀᑐ↷ⓗࠊࢻࢶࡢ BGH ࡣࠊᗈ࿌ࡀ➇த⪅ࡢᴗྡࢆࢻ࣡ ࡋࡓࠋ ࣮ࢻࡋ࡚⏝ࡋࡓࡇ㛵ࡍࡿၟᶆᶒᐖṇ➇தࡢᙇࢆㄆࡵ࡞ ࡗࡓ ࠋุᡤࡀฟᡤࡘ࠸࡚ࡢΰྠࡢྍ⬟ᛶࡀ࡞࠸ࡋࡓࡓࡵࠊၟᶆ ࣮࣮࢟࣡ࢻᗈ࿌ᑐࡋṇ➇தࡢἲ⌮ࢆ⏝࠸ࡿࡇࡢྍ⬟ᛶࡣࠊⱥᅜࡢ ᶒᐖࡢᙇࡣ㏻ࡽ࡞ࡗࡓࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋṇ➇தࡢᙇࡣࠊ ࡘࡢᙇ ௳࡛࠶ࡿ Interflora, Inc. v. Marks & Spencer ࠾࠸࡚ᗘၥ㢟ࡉࢀࡓ ᇶ♏ࢆ⨨࠸࡚࠸ࡓࠋࡍ࡞ࢃࡕࠊ ⿕࿌ࡀᙜヱᶆ❶ࡢಙ⏝ຊࢆṇ⏝ 㸦⌧ᅾࠊECJ ಀᒓ୰࡛࠶ࡿ㸧 ࠋᖺ ᭶௨᮶ࠊ᳨⣴࢚ࣥࢪࣥࡢࢢ࣮ࢢࣝ ࡋࡓࡇࠊ᭦ ⿕࿌ࡢᶆ❶⏝ࡼࡾཎ࿌ࡢ㢳ᐈࡀᘬࡁࡅࡽࢀࡓࡇ ࡣࠊⱥᅜཬࡧࣝࣛࣥࢻ࠾ࡅࡿ࣮࣮࢟࣡ࢻᗈ࿌ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊ࣮ࣚࣟࢵࣃ ࠊ࡛࠶ࡿࠋBGH ࡣ࠸ࡎࢀࡢᙇࡶྰᐃࡋࡓࠋࡍ࡞ࢃࡕุᡤࡣࠊ 㝣࠾ࡅࡿࡼࡾࡶ✚ᴟⓗ࡞࣏ࣜࢩ࣮ࢆ᥇⏝ࡋ࡚ࡁࡓࠋࡇࢀࡣࠊ᫂ࡽ ࣥࢱ࣮ࢿࢵࢺ࣮ࣘࢨ࣮ࡀࠊࢻ࣮࣡ࢻ㛵㐃ࡅࡽࢀࢧ࣮ࢳᑐ㇟ࡋ࡚࠸ ၟᶆಖㆤ㛵ࡍࡿࢥ࣮ࣔࣥࣟ㝣ἲࡢࣉ࣮ࣟࢳࡢᕪ␗ᇶ࡙ࡃࡶࡢ ࡿࡶࡢࡢࢡ࢜ࣜࢸࢆࠊ⿕࿌ᗈ࿌ࡀᥦ౪ࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡛௦᭰ࡍࡿࡇࡣ⪃࠼ 㞴࠸ࡇࠊ ཎ࿌ࡣ㢳ᐈᇶ┙ࢆ⥔ᣢࡍࡿࡓࡵࡢಖㆤ್ࡍࡿᶒࢆ᭷ࡋ Google Fr. SARL v. Louis Vuitton Malletier SA (23 March 2010), http://eurlex.europa. ࡚࠸ࡿࢃࡅ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࡇࠊࢆᣦࡋࡓࠋࢻ࣮࣡ࢬࡀ㛵ಀࡍࡿࡢ௳ࡣ eu/Lex UriServ/LexUri Serv.do?uri=CELEX:62008J0236:EN:HTML, 2010 ECJ EUR-Lex ECJクࡉࢀࡓࡀࠊࡑࡢ௳ࡣၟᶆᶒᐖࡔࡅࡀதⅬࡉࢀ࡚࠾ࡾࠊ LEXIS 119 (joined cases C-236/08 to C-238/08) (referred by the French Court of Cassa- ṇ➇தࡣதⅬ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡗࡓࠋ 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 (26 linksandlaw.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⛠㏻⏝ࣃࢵࢩࣥࢢ࢜ࣇṇ➇த㻸㼍㻲㼞㼍㼚㼏㼑 ࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋⱥᅜࡢุᡤࡣࠊᖺࠊࡇࡢ㆟ㄽࢆ ECJ クࡋࡓࠋEU ϫ㸬⤖ ㄽ㻌 ἲົᐁ㸦Advocate General of the EU㸧ࡣࠊᖺணഛⓗពぢࢆᥦฟࡋࠊ ࢻ࣮࣡ࢬࡘ࠸࡚ࠊ௬ࢫ࣏ࣥࢧ࣮ࣜࣥࢡࡀၟᶆࡘ࠸࡚ゝཬࡋ࡚࠸ࡓ ⱥᅜࡢࢥ࣮ࣔࣥࣟࡣࠊḭ▇⾜Ⅽᇶ♏ࢆ⨨ࡃࣃࢵࢩࣥࢢ࢜ࣇࡢᴫᛕࢆᨺ ሙྜࠊḟ࡞ࡿၥ㢟ࡣࠕࣇ࣮ࣜࣛࢹࣥࢢ㛵ࡍࡿㄽⅬࡣࠊࡑࢀࡀྜἲ Რࡋࠊᗈ⠊࡞ᴫᛕ࡛࠶ࡿṇ➇தࡢἲ⌮ࢆ㔜どࡏࡼࠊࡢࡁ࡞ᅽຊࡢୗ ⓗ࡞ẚ㍑ᗈ࿌࡞ࡢࠊཪࡣࡇࢀࡣ㏫ၟᶆࡢಖ᭷⪅ࡢಙ⏝ࡓࡔࡾࡋ ࠶ࡿࠋࡋࡋࠊⱥᅜࡢุᡤࡣࠊ࣮ࣚࣟࢵࣃࡢ㝣ἲࡢୗ࡛ᬑཬࡋ࡚࠸ ࡚࠸ࡿࡢࠊ࠸࠺ࡇ࡛࠶ࡿࠖࡋࡓ ࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࠊၟᶆಖ᭷⪅ࡣࠊ௨ୗ ࡿᗈ⠊࡞ṇ➇தࡢᴫᛕࢆ㠃ⓗᨭᣢࡍࡿࡇࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠊែᗘࢆៅ㔜 ࡢሙྜࢫ࣏ࣥࢧ࣮ࣜࣥࢡ࠾ࡅࡿၟᶆ⏝ࢆᕪࡋṆࡵࡿᶒࢆ᭷ࡍࡿ ␃ಖࡍࡿࡇࢆ⾲᫂ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡑࡢࡓࡿ⌮⏤ࡣࠊ ࠕබṇ㸦ࣇ࢙ࢿࢫ㸧ࠖ ࡶࡢࡋࡓࠋࡍ࡞ࢃࡕࠊ ᙜヱᶆ❶ࡀᙜヱၟရཪࡣࢧ࣮ࣅࢫࢆ⾲ࢃࡍ୍ ࡢ㏣ồࡀࠊ ࠕ➇த㸦ࢥࣥ࣌ࢸࢩࣙࣥ㸧ࠖࡀ┠ᣦࡍࡶࡢࢆ⬣ࡍࡽ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ ⯡⏝ㄒ㸦generic term㸧ࡋ࡚⏝࠸ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠊཪࡣ ᗈ࿌ࡀࠊᙜヱ ⱥᅜࡢุᡤࡀ♧ࡍࡇ࠺ࡋࡓᠱᛕࡀࠊEUࡢࡢᅜࠎࡢ⪃࠼᪉ᙳ㡪ࡍࡿ ᶆ❶ࡢᣢࡘ㨩ຊࠊಙ⏝ຊࡸྡኌࡽ┈ࢆᚓࡓࡾࠊၟᶆಖ᭷⪅ࡀᨭฟࡋࡓ ࠺ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠊᚋࡢほᐹࡀᚲせ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ ᕷሙ㛤Ⓨࡢດຊࢆᦢྲྀࡋࡼ࠺ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿሙྜࠊ࡛࠶ࡿ ࠋࡋࡓࡀࡗ࡚ࠊࡇ ࡢἲົᐁࡢ Interflora ࠾ࡅࡿࣉ࣮ࣟࢳࡢୗ࡛ࡣࠊṇ➇தࡢἲ⌮ࡣࠊ EU ࡢᨻ⟇୍⮴ࡍࡿࡇࢀࡽࡢᅽຊࡽ⮬⏤࡛࠶ࡿ⡿ᅜ࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊ㧗 EU ࠾ࡅࡿᑗ᮶ࡢࢻ࣮࣡ࢬ㛵ࡍࡿ௳ࡢ⤖ㄽᙳ㡪ࢆཬࡰࡍྍ⬟ᛶ ᗘつไࡉࢀࡓᕷሙࡸࠊබṇࡉࡸࠕࣇ࣮ࣜࣛࢹࣥࢢࠖ࠸࠺᭕࡞ᴫ ࡀ࠶ࡿゝ࠼ࡿࠋ ᛕࡼࡾࡶࠊ⮬⏤➇தࡢ☜ಖࡀ㔜どࡉࢀ⥆ࡅ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࠊࡑࢀᨾࣃࢵ ࢩࣥࢢ࢜ࣇࡢไᗘࡀᚋࡶᨭᣢࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡃ࡛࠶ࢁ࠺ࠋࡋࡋ࡞ࡀࡽࠊ⡿ᅜ ⡿ᅜࡢ㐃㑥ุᡤ࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊ࣮࣮࢟࣡ࢻᗈ࿌ࡀࠕၟᶆⓗ⏝ࠖ࠶ࡓ ࠾࠸࡚ࡉ࠼ࠊၟᶆᶒ⪅ࡢ✚ᴟⓗ࡞ッゴάືࡼࡗ࡚ࠊⓏ㘓ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿၟ ࡿ࠺ࡘ࠸࡚ࡃࢥࣥࢭࣥࢧࢫࡀᚓࡽࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸ ࠋࡲࡓࠊၟᶆࡀ ᶆⓏ㘓ࡉࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࡶࡢࡢ᪉࠾࠸࡚ࠊࣃࢵࢩࣥࢢ࢜ࣇࡢἲ⌮ࡢ࡞ ༢ᗈ࿌ࢆᑟࡃࡓࡵ⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡓࠊཪࡣၟᶆࡀ᳨⣴⤖ᯝᗈ࿌⌧ᐇ⾲ ࡾࡢᣑᙇࡀᑟࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࠊ᪥ࠊࠕഇಖドࠖࡢᴫᛕࡣࠊṇ┠ ♧ࡉࢀࡓࡀ㛵㐃ࡍࡿࡢࡘ࠸࡚ࡶࠊࢥࣥࢭࣥࢧࢫࢆぢ࡚࠸࡞࠸ ࠋ ⓗ⏝㸦misappropriation㸧ࢇྠ⩏ࡢࡶࡢࡋ࡚ᗈࡃゎ㔘ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ ࡿࠋ࣮࢜ࢫࢺࣛࣜࡣࠊ⡿ᅜࡢࡇ࠺ࡋࡓゎ㔘ྠࡌ㐨ࢆࡓࡗ࡚࠸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. ࡋࡋࠊࢺࣞࣥࢻࡋ࡚ࡣࠊ࣮࣮࢟࣡ࢻᗈ࿌ࢆၟᶆࡋ࡚ࡢ⏝࡛࠶ࡿㄆࡵ 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. ᗄࡘࡢࢥ࣮ࣔࣥࣟࡢᅜࠎ࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊ❧ἲࡼࡾࠊၟᶆἲ࠾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࡞ࠖၟ ࡢ᮲F࠾࠸࡚ࠊΰྠࡀ㛵ಀࡋ࡞࠸ ✀㢮ࡢᐖᑐࡋࠊ ᶆࡔࡅࢆಖㆤࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ㩭᫂㸦blurring㸧ởᦆ㸦tarnishment࡛࠶ࡿࠋ ⱥᅜ࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊᖺၟᶆἲ㸦Ⓩ㘓ࡉࢀࡓၟᶆࡔࡅ㐺⏝ࡉࢀࡿ㸧ࡢ 19, 2007)ࢫ࣏ࣥࢧ࣮ࣜࣥࢡࡀၟᶆⓗ⏝࡛࡞࠸ࡋ࡚ࡶࠊᶆ❶ࢆ⾲♧ࡍࡿࡇࡀ ၟᶆࡋ࡚ࡢ⏝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⛠㏻⏝ࣃࢵࢩࣥࢢ࢜ࣇṇ➇த㻸㼍㻲㼞㼍㼚㼏㼑 ᮲ࡀࠊࠕಙ⏝ຊࡢ࠶ࡿࠖᶆ❶ࡘࡁࠊࠕྜ⌮ⓗ࡞⌮⏤࡞ࡃࡋ࡚ࠊἲ ࡚ࡣࠊࡢ EU ຍ┕ᅜᑐࡋࠊࡼࡾ⦆ࡸ࡞つไୗࡢ➇த⎔ቃࡀጇᙜ࡛࠶ ᙜ࡞┈ࢆᚓࠊཪࡣᙜヱᶆ❶ࡢྡኌࡸ≉ᚩࡘ࠸࡚ᐖࢆ࠼ࡿࠖ࠸ ࡿㄝᚓࡋ࡞࠸㝈ࡾࠊᢠࢆ⥆ࡅࡿࡇࡣ㞴ࡋ࠸ࠋ⡿ᅜ࠾ࡅࡿၟရᶒ ࡞ࡿ⏝ࡽࡶಖㆤࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋಙ⏝ຊࡀ࠶ࡿゝ࠼ࡿࡓࡵࡣࠊᙜヱၟᶆ ࡢ୍ぢࡋࡓࡇࢁṆࡴࡇࡢ࡞࠸ᡂ㛗ࡣࠊⱥᅜ࠾ࡅࡿࡑ࠺ࡋࡓᶒࢆㄆ ࡀࠊၥ㢟࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿၟရࡸࢧ࣮ࣅࢫࡢࢱࣉ⤖ࡧࡅࡽࢀ࡚ࠊᾘ㈝⪅ ࡵࡿࡇࡢᣄ⤯㠀ᖖᑐ↷ⓗ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡋࡋࠊⱥᅜࡢࡑ࠺ࡋࡓᢠ ࡢ┦ᙜᩘࡼࡗ࡚▱ࡽࢀ࡚࠸࡞ࡅࢀࡤ࡞ࡽ࡞࠸ࠋᕼ㔘㛵ࡍࡿἲᚊࡣࠊ ࡣࠊࡓ࠼ EU ࡽࡢᅽຊࡀ࡞࠸ࡋ࡚ࡶࠊኚࡀぢࡽࢀࡿࠋࡍ࡞ࢃࡕࠊ ၟᶆᶒ⪅ࡀࠊΰྠࢆ⏕ࡌࡉࡏ࡞࠸ᶆ❶⏝ᑐࡋࠊ┦ᙜ⛬ᗘᗈࡃࢥࣥࢺࣟ ഇಖドࣇ࣮ࣜࣛࢹࣥࢢࡢ㛫ࡢ༊ูࡀḟ➨᫂░࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ ࣮ࣝࢆཬࡰࡍࡇࢆྍ⬟ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡓ࠼ࡑ࠺ࡋࡓἲᚊࡀ୍㒊ࡢᶆ❶ ࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡑ࠺ࡋࡓኚࡣࠊ࣮࢜ࢫࢺࣛࣜ࠾࠸࡚ࡶ᫂ࡽ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ ࡋ㐺⏝ࡉࢀ࡞࠸ࡋ࡚ࡶࠊࡇࢀࡽࡢἲࡣࠊࢥ࣮ࣔࣥࣟࡢἲไᗘᗈ⠊࡞ ၟᶆಖㆤ㛵ࡍࡿࣉ࣮ࣟࢳࡢ┦㐪ࡣࠊἲไᗘࡢᩥⓗ࡞ࡁ࡞┦㐪㸦ࡍ ṇ➇தࡢᴫᛕࢆᣢࡕ㎸ࡴຠᯝࢆ᭷ࡍࡿࡇࡣ᫂ⓑ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡋࡋࠊᕼ㔘 ࡞ࢃࡕࠊࣈࣛࣥࢻಖ᭷⪅ࡢᢞ㈨ಖㆤࢆඃඛࡍࡿἲไᗘᾘ㈝⪅ಖㆤ║ ἲ࠾࠸࡚ࡶࠊ୍⯡ⓗࠊᙜヱᶆ❶ࡢࢢࢵࢻ࢘ࣝࡸ♫ⓗಙ⏝ᦆᐖ ࢆ⨨ࡃἲไᗘࡢ┦㐪㸧ࢆᚋࡶᫎࡋ࡚࠸ࡃࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡑࡢ୍᪉࡛ࠊἲ ࢆ࠼ࡿࡇ㸦ཪࡣᦆᐖࢆ࠼ࡿྍ⬟ᛶ㸧㛵ࡍࡿ୍ᐃࡢドᣐࡼࡿ ⌮ୖࡢᩡྥࡅࡓືࡁࢆཷࡅ࡚ࠊၟᶆᶒ⪅ࡣࠊᅜቃ㛵ಀ࡞ࡃࠊࡲࡍࡲ ࡅࢆせㄳࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡑࢀᨾࠊ༢࡞ࡿࠕࣇ࣮ࣜࣛࢹࣥࢢࠖࡀ࠶ࡗࡓࡔ ࡍ✚ᴟⓗࡑࡢࣈࣛࣥࢻࡢࢹࣥࢸࢸࢆᣑࡍࡿࡇࢆồࡵࡿື ࡅ࡛ࡣ༑ศ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ ࠋ ࡁࢆぢࡏࡿࡇ࡞ࢁ࠺ࠋ ࢥ࣮ࣔࣥࣟࡢἲไᗘࡢୗ࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊࣃࢵࢩࣥࢢ࢜ࣇࡣࠊḭ▇⾜Ⅽ㛵 ࡍࡿつไࡽࡲࡍࡲࡍ㞳ࢀ࡚ࡁ࡚࠸ࡿࠋάⓎ࡞➇த㧗࠸౯್ࢆ⨨ࡃᅜࠎ ࡣࠊࡇ࠺ࡋࡓഴྥᑐࡋࠊࣃࢵࢩࣥࢢ࢜ࣇࡢᙇᑐࡍࡿㄆᐜࡢᗘྜ࠸ࢆ ᵝࠎࡍࡿࡇ࡛ᢠࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࢥࣆ࣮࢟ࣕࢵࢺ〇ရཬࡧẚ㍑ᗈ࿌ࡢᩥ⬦ ࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊࡑ࠺ࡋࡓᅜࠎࡢᢠࡣ≉ᙉ࠸ࠋࡋࡋ࡞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Ⓩ㘓ၟᶆࡘ࠸࡚ࡢࡳㄆࡵࡽࢀࡿࠋSee Trademarks Act, § 22Ⓩ㘓ࡉࢀࡓၟᶆࡘࡁࠊ ࠕయࡉࢀࡓࢢࢵࢻ࢘ࣝࡢ౯್ࢆᦆ ࡞࠺࠸࡞ࡿ⏝ࡶ⚗ࡌࡽࢀࡿ㺁. ຍ࠼࡚ࠊ࢝ࢼࢲࡢ᭱㧗ุᡤࡣiࢆ⊃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ἲࡘ࠸࡚㆟ㄽࡋ࡚ ࠸ࡿ. ▱ⓗ㈈⏘ἲᨻ⟇Ꮫ◊✲ 9RO ▱ⓗ㈈⏘ἲᨻ⟇Ꮫ◊✲ 9RO
© Copyright 2024 Paperzz
