公序良俗條款在不同性質之智慧財產權法中，是否存在及存在理由皆有所不同。商標法除了保障商標權人之私益外，亦有強大保護消費者及維持市場公平競爭之公益考量。因此公序良俗條款在商標註冊之適法性上，扮演了較其他體系更直接也更積極介入的角色。我國商標法明定妨害公共秩序或善良風俗者不得註冊，行政主管機關與法院實務更不乏以該理由核駁或否准之決定。然而實務向來僅以寥寥數語帶過對於公序良俗之解釋，對於如何具體判斷商標違反公序良俗及其適用範圍，常欠缺具體論證。本文藉由比較法之視野，參照歐洲，特別是法國相關規定與實務見解，區分二類可能被視為違反公序良俗之商標型態。透過其豐富的案例，相互對照我國實務上對於商標法中公序良俗條款之適用是否妥當，以及可能之解釋方式。本文以為，若一商標明顯欠缺妥適性，不論是商標自身，或是其使用為法律所禁止，自得認定系爭商標違反公序良俗進而排除其商標。但若未能謹慎使用公序良俗條款，特別是過度擴大解釋之情況下，將嚴重損害商標註冊適格性之預測可能性及法之確定性。

Article 6quinquies, Sections B(3) prohibits the registration of “trade marks which are contrary to ordre public or to accepted principles of morality”. European and Taiwanese trademarks law provide the same provisions. It follows that the purpose of this provision is not to identify and filter out signs whose use in commerce must at all costs be prevented; rather the rationale of the provision is that the privileges of trade mark registration should not be granted in favour of signs that are contrary to ordre public or the accepted principles of morality. A judicious application of this provision necessarily entails balancing the right of traders to freely employ words and images in the signs they wish to register as trade marks against the right of the public not to be confronted with disturbing, abusive, insulting and even threatening trade
marks. This article aims to analyze the ordre pubic and morality criteria both in Taiwanese and French trademarks law in the light of recent administration decisions and court case law. While the principle of non-registrability is well-established, its applicability raises many questions. From a comparative point of view, some decisions and cases will be examined in hope of defining a more reasonable approach toward interpretation of this provision. The applicability of the objection must be decided objectively and non-discriminately, otherwise the eligibility of the trademark for registration could be very uncertain and the legal security will be harmed.