近年來，「地理標示」的保護觀念逐漸成熟，雖然該標示後享有的既存價值，不若商標明確，但由於地理標示得以連結特定「地理區域」與該區域的自然或人文屬性所產出的商品或服務，在相當程度內，似形成另一既存價值。不可否認的，「地理標示」的既存價值富含商業、社會與文化的概念。我國商標法第三十條第一項第八款似為解決「地理標示」與「商標」間權利衝突的法源，向來亦伴隨有豐富的相關司法實務。為確保「地理標示」與「商標」於商標法正確的利益衡量，令商標法第三十條第一項第八款的解釋適用，能具有正當化的基礎，並切合商標法的立法意旨，本文擬由國際公約、比較法與我國司法實務三方面，重新檢視與思考商標法第三十條第一項第八款關於「地理標示」的解釋適用，望能建立「地理標示」與「商標」間利益保護的均衡點，有益於未來司法實務對於相關議題的開展。

The protection of geographical indication has been becoming mature gradually. Distinguished from trademark, the values of geographical indication are reflected in the link between a specific geographical area and the products or services with the characteristics contributed essentially from such an area. Under some occasions, the value of trademarks seems inevitable to collide with that of geographical indications. As a consequence, it is worth further clarifying whether the registration of trademark should be revoked, provided that the applicant of trademark has taken advantage of geographical indications to function as trademark content. If the answer is affirmative, what extent of protection for geographical indication is required to justify the revocation of trademark registration? The eighth subparagraph, the first paragraph of Article 30, current Taiwan Trademark Act is the authority to resolve the conflicting interests between trademark and geographical indication. To start from the reviews from international treaties, this article would like to seek an optimal interpretation of this provision to achieve the interest balance of trademark and geographical indication.