商標係指任何具有識別性之標識；至商標之使用，指為行銷之目的，並將 商標用於商品、服務或其有關之物件，或利用平面圖像、數位影音、電子媒體 或其他媒介物足以使相關消費者認識其為商標。我國《商標法》第68條第1項 第1款及第2款明定，未經商標權人同意，為行銷目的而有於同一商品或服務， 使用相同於註冊商標之商標者；或於類似之商品或服務，使用相同於註冊商標 之商標，有致相關消費者混淆誤認之虞者，構成侵害商標權。又同法第70 條 規定第1 項第2 款規定，未得商標權人同意，而有「明知為他人著名之註冊商 標，而以該著名商標中之文字作為自己公司、商號、團體、網域或其他表彰營 業主體之名稱，有致相關消費者混淆誤認之虞或減損該商標之識別性或信譽之 虞者。」視為侵害商標權。如斯，使用外國知名企業的商標作為自家公司的網 域名稱；或反之，我國知名業者的商標遭到外國業者使用作為其網域名稱， 台、美法院如何裁判？對此疑問，本文於茲引介相關裁判，並比較台、美法院 分別審理涉外商標侵權事件之適用法則說明。

Trademark means any recognition of its distinctiveness, and the use of trademark, for the purposes of marketing, trademarks for goods, services or their related objects, or to use graphics, digital audio, electronic media or other media to make consumers aware of its trademark. According to the Taiwanese Trademark Act §68.1(1)(2), in the course of trade and without consent of the proprietor of a registered trademark, by using a trademark which is identical with the registered trademark in relation to goods or services which are identical with those for which it is registered; or using a trademark which is identical with the registered trademark and used in relation to goods or services similar to those for which the registered one is designated, and hence there exists a likelihood of confusion on relevant consumers, may constitute infringement of the right of such trademark. In addition, the Taiwanese Trademark Act §70.1(2) also clearly put that knowingly using words contained in another person's well-kn own registered trademark as the name of a company, business, group or domain or any other name that identifies a business entity, and hence there exists a likelihood of confusion on relevant consumers or a likelihood of dilution of the distinctiveness or reputation of the said well-known trademark, constitutes infringement of the right of such trademark.?So, using a foreign well-known enterprise's trademark as our own company's domain names; or, on the contrary, a Taiwanese wellknown enterprise's trademark is used as domain names by foreign businesses. Howw ould the Taiwanese and the US court rule the case? To this question, this paper thus introduces related court decisions respectively to account for their applicable laws.