Under the modern economic system based on the knowledge industry, the biggest challenge for competition authorities is how to precisely and prudently apply competition laws to intellectual property rights. Article 20 of the Fair Trade Law and intellectual property rights are in a complementary yetcompeting relationship. Moreover, since relevant domestic and foreign laws governing intellectual property rights have been frequently revised over the last ten years, the standards for applying Article 20 to intellectual property rights need to be reformulated. The biggest difference between the modern and traditional economies is not the industrial categories or the distinction between regions and nations, but rather that modern industry derives its economic power from knowledge and technology, and not from massive production and natural resources. Intellectual property rights laws in various countries provide reasonably exclusive rights in order to efficiently attract enterprises to dedicate themselves to research nd development. This has become one of the most important guiding principles of property laws in the knowledge economy. From another perspective, the ability of knowledge industries to cross national boundaries and capital barriers makes them more capable than traditional industries of transcending space and time, and controlling the essence of economic development. However, as the underlying guardian of a free economy, the Fair Trade Law must ensure the freedom and fairness of competition, and must efficiently allocate resources through the market mechanism in the best interest of consumers. The Fair Trade Law must not let individual private parties monopolize sections of the economy, and must not allow competitors to employ unfair means to rob other people of their hard work.
As mentioned above, competition laws and intellectual property rights fundamentally exist in a state of mutual tension and antinomy, but nevertheless share the same long-term purpose. Article 20 of the Fair Trade Law is a bridge between competition laws and intellectual property rights laws, and impacts and complements relevant laws governing intellectual property rights. With precise and specific application, Article 20 may help establish robust and efficient enforcement standards and may have a deep significance for the joint development of the Fair Trade Law and the Intellectual Property Rights Laws. This is an issue that this study must address head on.
Article 20, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 1 of the Fair Trade Law states, “No enterprise shall have in any of the following acts with respect to the goods or services it supplies: 1. Using in the same or similar manner, the personal name, business or corporate name, or trademark of another, or container, packaging, or appearance of another’s goods, or any other symbol that represents such person’s goods, commonly known to relevant enterprises or consumers, so as to cause confusion with such person’s goods; or selling, transporting, exporting, or importing goods bearing such representation.” This provision covers a rather wide range of circumstances involving the business or corporate names, trademarks, and trade dress of goods or services. It also touches on commercial designs eligible for new style patents and art and literary works eligible for copyright. To differentiate competition laws from intellectual property rights, a reasonable discernment must be acquired, and imitation must cause confusion in discernment. In other words, the foregoing statement of the Fair Trade Law, apart from the static protection of intellectual property rights, establishes a dynamic balance in regulations governing fair competition. Enterprises must continue directing their efforts toward the market to gain the recognition and protection of the Fair Trade Law. If competitors’ reasonable use in good faith is consistent with commercial ethics, the competitors should be held free from blame.
Article 20 of the Fair Trade Law is an interface between competition laws and intellectual property rights laws, which exist in a state of mutual interdependence and conflict. However, on the premise of the harmonious interpretation of the laws, competition laws shall be constructed so as to appropriately protect intellectual property rights while allowing a legal structure that can simultaneously safeguard the fruits of R&D and encourage industrial development. According to legislative intent, Article 20 of the Fair Trade Law is to be based on the just utilization of intellectual property rights and able to distinguish the boundary between reasonable use in good faith and unfair competitive actions. This is the key to providing enforcement guidelines, and is also the keypoint of this study.
Apart from performing a comparative analysis of the domestic and foreign literature, this study also analyzes actual cases. It is hoped that the results may meet real needs and also contain suggestions and analysis that are useful in guiding both enforcement policies and practical standards. This study is divided into five chapters. Chapter One introduces key points, directions, and research methods. Chapter Two discusses protections accorded by intellectual property rights and the application of lawscontrolling unfair competition in the United States, Japan, and Germany. Meantime, this chapter employs comparative analysis to uncover international trends concerning the protection of intellectual property rights and laws governing unfair competition. Chapter Three explores the legal systems underpinning the Fair Trade Law and intellectual property rights laws, including the origins, relationships and mutual conflicts of the Trademark Law, Patent Law, and other related intellectual property rights laws and regulations. This chapter seeks to define the intent and protective function of each legal system. Chapter Four reviews and analyzes actualcases connected with Article 20 of the Fair Trade Law. This chapter uses case analysis to examine enforcement issues involving Article 20 of the Fair Trade Law and the adequacy of relevant legal systems. The results and suggestions derived in this study are provided in Chapter Five as a reference for future enforcement actions or legal amendment work. This study seeks to help establish an appropriate legal system for the protection of intellectual property rights and promotion of enforcement policies and standards of fair competition.