本文乃針對最近歐洲法院所熱烈討論中之保持公共使用需求原理（dasFreihaltebedürfnis; the requirement of availability principle）之爭議，以比較法之研究方法，根據WTO與貿易有關之智慧財產權協定及巴黎公約等國際規範來探討英美法等採顯著性（distinctiveness ）概念之法制與德國法等採識別力（die Unterscheidungkraft）概念之法制，在處理描述性標識及通用標章與名稱之商標註冊准駁時，因有無考量競爭者對該標識之保持公共使用需求所造成之結果差異，以及此兩大法系由於對保持公共使用需求原理之強調程度之不同，所造成之商標拒絕註冊理由、商標權效力（侵害）規定、商標權限制、商標廢止等規定間規範關聯性之差異。英美法由於著眼於相關消費者對商標之顯著性，因此，較不重視此些規範間之互動關係；與此相對地，德國法傳統上強調競爭者對描述性標識及種類名稱等之保持公共使用需求，因此，保持公共使用需求原理乃幾乎貫穿商標權成立、效力、限制、廢止規定之中心原理。此不僅使得此些規範在此一原理的串聯下獲得協調，更使得商標註冊實務與侵權訴訟程序取得分工，共同落實此一中心原理。然而，由於歐體商標指令的制定，試圖協調顯著性法制（以英國為代表）與識別力法制（以德國為代表），此一保持公共使用需求原理在歐體商標指令之存否遂成爭議。我國法由於受到英美顯著性概念之影響，對保持公共使用需求原理並未適度地關注，以至於我國之商標拒絕註冊理由、商標權效力（侵害）規定、商標權限制、商標廢止等規定間有失協調，實務上訟爭亦不斷，「鑽石恆久遠」一案即為著例。因此，本文建議在我國法中適度地凸顯保持公共使用需求原理，以上之問題或可獲得緩解。

　　The requirement of availability principle (das Freihaltebedürfnis) is the legal rationale underlying the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property. As a result, the requirement of availability principle (das Freihaltebedürfnis) is present in German Trademark Statute, and is also the legal principle that brings relevant parts of German Trademark Statute into conformity. For example, the trademark registration provisions about descriptive marks and general terms are consistent with their counterparts in the limitation of trademark right provision of German Trademark Statute. Whether this requirement is also present in European Trademark Directive is a hotly debated issue in European Court of Justice now. In R.O.C. Trademark Law, the requirement of availability principle is not explicit, so this requirement has not been used to synchronize the provisions about the trademark registration, the legal effect of trademark, the trademark infringement and the limitation of trademark right. It is no wonder that there are some discrepancies in Section 1, Article 23 and Section 1, Article30. This essay argues that the requirement of availability principle should be heeded and used to bring these discrepancies into conformity.