有關地理標示保護的法律制度，在國際上向來區分為以歐盟為首的「特別權利」體系，以及以美國為首的「商標法」體系。《與貿易有關之智慧財產權協定》未限制各國實現地理標示保護之模式，也讓雙方論述有了持續發展的空間，而各會員國為回應該協定之義務，進行內國法修訂，更讓地理標示出現了許多規範與實踐的進展。

本文以蘇格蘭威士忌協會在各地所發起的侵權訴訟行動為背景，觀察到地理標示已非保護單純之「地名」。為實現更為全面之地理標示議題觀察，本文分析、比較歐盟與美國地理標示之司法實務判決及判決趨勢；並發現歐美雙方的認知落差，不僅反應於不同的法律制度選擇，亦呈現在司法所承認的地理標示保護範圍。不過，本文亦發現歐盟與美國司法實務，對「喚起」概念之理解有交集之處，此可成為我國未來面對歐美地理標示辯論之突破點。最後，本文分析台灣法制現狀，並主張即使台灣雖尚未受到歐美經貿談判的直接衝擊，但仍應持續追蹤各國地理標示議題發展、改善國內制度、確認地理標示保護範圍，以建立銜接歐美最新趨勢，同時慮及在地脈絡之地理標示保護制度。

Protection of Geographical Indications (GI), which is usually considered the struggle between the European Union (EU), the sui generis regime, and the United States (US), the trademark regime. Although the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) gave the EU-US debates on GI a consensus, the flexibility for member states to achieve GI protection left space for both EU and US arguments. In addition, the member states amending their domestic GI law as responses to TRIPS obligations, leading the GI to progress on normative and practical aspects.

As inspiration, the litigations from the scotch whisky association stated that the GI is not only a “place.” For more comprehensive observation of GI, this article analyzes the EU and US practices on GI, considering that the gap of acknowledgment between the EU and the US is not only in GI regimes but also in the scope of GI protection. However, the intersection of the EU and US practices on the concept of “evocation” could be an opportunity for Taiwan, a breakthrough between the EU-US debates on GI. Finally, after analyzing the GI protection in Taiwan, this article considers that, although Taiwan has not been under pressure from negotiations with the EU or US, Taiwan shall focus on the international discussions on GI, improve the domestic rules of GI protection, and create the system which conforms to the EU-US trend, meanwhile considering the local context.

摘要 I
Abstract II
誌謝辭 III
目錄 V
第一章 緒論 1
第一節 研究動機與問題 1
第二節 研究方法 6
第三節 研究架構 7
第二章 歐盟地理標示制度與侵權實務 9
第一節 歐盟地理標示制度 10
第一項 歐盟地理標示規章架構 11
第一款 註冊 11
第二款 異議 12
第三款 註銷 13
第四款 地理標示之權利內容 13
第五款 與商標之關係 14
第六款 地理標示之權利義務 14
第二項 地理標示保護範圍 15
第二節 歐盟法院侵權實務標準 17
第一項 直接或間接商業使用 18
第一款 蘇格蘭威士忌案以前 19
第二款 蘇格蘭威士忌案 28
第二項 誤用、模仿或喚起 30
第一款 「evocation」的定義 30
第二款 「喚起」的開端：義大利Gorgonzola起司案 31
第三款 概念上接近 32
第四款 消費者之於「喚起」 36
第三項 任何其他錯誤或誤導之指示 37
第四項 任何其他可能誤導消費者之行為 38
第五項 分析 40
第三節 小結 42
第三章 美國地理標示制度與實務 45
第一節 酒類地理標示特別保護—「原產地名稱」 46
第一項 酒類原產地名稱 47
第一款 聯邦商標法 48
第二款 聯邦酒類管理法 52
第三款 「商標法」與「酒類管理法」之關係 57
第二項 美國酒類地理標示訴訟實務—以「蘇格蘭威士忌」為例 59
第一款 商標不得註冊事由 61
第二款 不公平競爭 69
第二節 既有商標法保護模式—「證明標章」及「團體商標」 73
第一項 美國產地證明標章與產地團體商標制度 73
第二項 普通法證明標章之發展—以「法國干邑」為例 76
第三節 小結 81
第四章 歐盟與美國地理標示保護範圍於我國之反思與借鏡 84
第一節 歐盟與美國地理標示辯論與保護範圍分析 86
第一項 歐盟與美國地理標示辯論發展 86
第一款 TRIPS之前 86
第二款 TRIPS之後 88
第二項 歐盟與美國地理標示保護範圍之衝突與交集 90
第一款 歐盟與美國分歧的制度設計理念：「權利」vs「資訊」 90
第二款 歐盟與美國衝突立場的交集點：「喚起」 93
第二節 我國地理標示保護現況 96
第一項 我國地理標示制度 97
第一款 消極保護路徑 97
第二款 積極保護路徑 99
第三款 不公平競爭 101
第二項 我國地理標示實務 103
第三節 我國地理標示制度與實務之反思與借鏡 106
第一項 階段(一)：劃定保護範圍 106
第二項 階段(二)：擇定保護模式 110
第五章 結論 113
參考文獻 117

一、中文部分
中文專書
公平交易委員會（2008），《公平交易法為規範事業競爭行為之基本法》。
經濟部智慧財產局（2021），《商標法逐條釋義》，110年9月版。

中文期刊
王敏銓（2004），〈美國商標法上識別性之研究〉，《智慧財產權月刊》第67期，頁87-106。
王思原（2014），〈歐盟地理標示研究〉，《科技法學論叢第》第10期，頁207-253。
沈宗倫（2013），〈地理標示與商標利益衝突與協調—評析商標法第三十條第一項第八款相關司法實務發展〉，《政大法學評論》第139期，頁65-109。
林利芝（2015），〈美國商標核准註冊後撤銷之研究—以包含「地名」之商標為例〉，《台灣法學雜誌》第270期，頁27-38。
洪淳琦（預計2023年6月出版），〈「風土戰爭」在亞洲？：地理標示近期國際談判之議題分析與對台灣之啟示〉，《臺大法學論叢》第52卷第2期。
許曉芬（2016），〈以證明標章及團體商標保護地理標示之研究〉，《科技法學評論》13卷2期，頁1-46。
黃銘傑（2014），〈已於外國通用名稱化之地理標示與臺灣商標法之規範─最高行政法院有關撤銷「讚岐」商標判決之評析〉，《月旦法學雜誌》第232期，頁173-190。
黃銘傑（2015），〈地理標示保護之商標法與公平交易法的交錯〉，《月旦法學雜誌》第245期，頁93-118。

中文學位論文
黃千娟（2014），〈論地理來源標示—以標章法為中心〉，國立臺灣大學法律研究所碩士學位論文。

二、英文部分
英文專書
Kur, A. & Dreier, T. & Luginbuehl S. (2019). European intellectual property law: text, cases and materials (2nd ed.). Edward Elgar Publishing.
Song, X. (2021). The Protection of Geographical Indications in China: Challenges of Adopting the European Approach. Kluwer Law International B. V.

英文文獻
Biswas, M. (2021). TRIPS Agreement and Extended Protection of Geographical Indications. International Journal of Law Management & Humanities, 4(2), 2872-2878.
Brauneis, R. (2010). Geographic trademarks and the protection of competitor communication. The Trademark Reporter, 96(4), 782-849.
Calboli I. (2006). Expanding the Protection of Geographical Indications of Origin Under Trips: Old Debate or New Opportunity?. Marquette Intellectual Property Law Review, 10, 181-203.
Chen, J. (1996). A Sober Second Look at Appellations of Origin: How the United States will Crash Frances’s Wine and Cheese Party. Minnesota Journal of Global Trade, 151, 29-64.
Crescenzi, R. & Filippis, F. & Giua, M. & Vaquero-Piñeiro, C. (2022). Geographical Indications and local development: the strength of territorial embeddedness, Regional Studies, 56(3), 381-393.
Curzi, D. & Huysmans, M. (2022). The Impact of Protecting EU Geographical Indications in Trade Agreements. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 104(1), 364-384.
Gervais, D. J. (2014). A Cognac after Spanish Champagne? Geographical indications as certification marks. In Dreyfuss, R. & Ginsburg, J. (eds.), Intellectual Property at the Edge: The Contested Contours of IP, Cambridge Intellectual Property and Information Law (pp. 130-156). Cambridge University Press.
Gangjee, D. S. (2017). From Geography to History: Geographical Indications and the Reputational Link’. In: Calboli, I. & Ng-Loy, W. L. (eds.), Geographical Indications at the Crossroads of Trade, Development, and Culture in the Asia-Pacific. Cambridge University Press.
Hari, A. S. & Raju, K. D. (2022). Free Trade Agreements and Geographical Indications Standards in Asia. In: Bhattacharya, N. S. (ed.), Geographical Indication Protection in India: The Evolving Paradigm (pp. 49-73). Springer Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-4296-9.
Harvey, P. D. (2017). Geographical indications: the united states' perspective. The Trademark Reporter, 107(5), 960-979.
Heal, P. J. (1996). Trademarks and Geographical Indications: Exploring the Contours of the TRIPS Agreement. Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law, 29(3), 635-660.
Hughes, J. (2006). Champagne, feta, and bourbon: the spirited debate about geographical indications. Hastings Law Journal, 58(2), 299-386.
Johnson, R. & Schwarzenberg, A. B. (2020). U.S.-EU Trade Agreement Negotiations: Trade in Food and Agricultural Products. Congressional Research Service Report.
LaFrance, M. (2004). Innovations palpitations: the confusing status of geographically misdescriptive trademarks. Journal of Intellectual Property Law, 12(1), 125-150.
Mantrov, V. (2018). Do you Prefer Scotch or German Whisky? CJEU Judgement in the Scotch Whisky and Glen Buchenbach Dispute. European Journal of Risk Regulation, 9(4), 719–729.
Handler, M. (2016). Rethinking GI extension. In: Gangjee, D. S. (ed.), Research Handbook on Intellectual Property And Geographical Indications (pp. 146-182), Edward Elgar.
Monten, L. (2006). Geographical indications of origin: should they be protected and why an analysis of the issue from the U.S. and EU perspectives. Santa Clara Computer & High Technology Law Journal, 22(2), 315-350.
Nation, E. (2011). Geographical Indications: The International Debate Over Intellectual Property Rights for Local Producers. University of Colorado Law Review, 82, 959-1008.
O’Brien, V. (1997). Protection of the Geographical Indications in the United States of America, in Symposium on the International Protection of Geographical Indications in the Worldwide context. Symposium on the international protection of geographical indications in the worldwide context [Conference presentation]. 24-25 October 1997 organized by World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) in cooperation with the Hungarian Patent Office, Eger (Hungary).
O’Connor, B. & Bosio G. (2017). The Global Struggle between Europe and United States over Geographical Indications in South Korea and in the TPP Economies. In: Caenegem, W. V. & Cleary. J. (eds.), The Importance of Place: Geographical Indications as a Tool for Local and Regional Development (pp.47-79). Springer Cham.
Rubino, V. (2017). From “Cambozola” to “Toscoro”: The Difficult Distinction between “Evocation” of a Protected Geographical Indication, “Product Affinity” and Misleading Commercial Practices. European Food and Feed Law Review, 12(4), 326-334.
Smit, M. B. (2017). (Un)common law protection of certification marks. Notre Dame Law Review, 93(1), 419-441.
Verbeeren, M. & Vrins, O. (2021). The protection of PDOs and PGIs against evocation: a ‘Grand Cru’ in the CJEU’s cellar?. Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, 16(4-5), 316-330.
Wang, X. (2020). A Comparative Analysis of the Transatlantic Controversy over Geographical Indications. Stanford-Vienna Transatlantic Technology Law Forum, 53.
Zanzig, L. (2013). The perfect pairing: protecting u.s. geographical indications with sino-american wine registry. Washington Law Review, 88(2), 723-758.

國際組織文件
Report by the Director-General (May 18, 2005). Issues Related to the Extension of the Protection of Geographical Indications Provided for in Article 23 of the TRIPS Agreement to Products other than Wines and Spirits, World Trade Organization - General Council Trade Negotiations Committee, WT/GC/ W/546.

英文網路資料
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB). Wine Appellations of Origin, Authorized Wine Appellations of Origin. https://www.ttb.gov/appellations-of-origin#definition. (Last visited: 01.07.2023)
Buxton, I. (April 21, 2021). Scotch Whisky Association – guardian or bully?, Master of Malt Blog. https://www.masterofmalt.com/blog/post/scotch-whisky-association-guardian-or-bully.aspx. (Last visited: 01.07.2023)
Chan, A. (April 28, 2022). Saanich distillery settles dispute with Scotch Whisky Association, Vancouver Island. https://vancouverisland.ctvnews.ca/saanich-distillery-settles-dispute-with-scotch-whisky-association-1.5878811. (Last visited: 01.07.2023)
Walker, P. A. (February 4, 2022). Canadian distiller considers EU trade complaint over Scotch Whisky Association threat, insider.co.uk. https://www.insider.co.uk/news/canadian-distiller-considers-eu-trade-26137293. (Last visited: 01.07.2023)
European Commission. Quality scheme explained. https://ec.europa.eu/info/food-farming-fisheries/food-safety-and-quality/certification/quality-labels/quality-schemes-explained_en. (Last visited: 01.07.2023)
Hutchins, A. (29 June 2021). 'Big Scotch' is going after this Canadian distiller for naming his whisky after himself, Maclean’s. https://www.macleans.ca/economy/business/macaloneys-caledonian-distillery/. (Last visited: 01.07.2023)
Hopkins, A. (11 June 2018). SWA takes German single malt to court over ‘Glen’ title, The Spirit Business. https://www.thespiritsbusiness.com/2018/06/swa-takes-german-single-malt-to-court-over-glen-title/?edition=asia. (Last visited: 01.07.2023)
Scotch Whisky Association (20 January 2022). Decision over Glen Buchenbach upheld by appeal court. Scotch Whisky Association. https://www.scotch-whisky.org.uk/newsroom/decision-over-glen-buchenbach-upheld-by-appeal-court/. (Last visited: 01.07.2023)
Watson, K. W. (2016). Reign of Terroir: How to Resist Europe’s Efforts to Control Common Food Names as Geographical Indications. CATO Institute Policy Analysis. https://www.cato.org/policy-analysis/reign-terroir-how-resist-europes-efforts-control-common-food-names-geographical. (Last visited: 01.07.2023)