商標真品平行輸入之議題，不僅涉及商標權之侵害、市場競爭秩序之違背，甚至與國際貿易商品之流通有關，特別是商標屬地原則和權利耗盡原則兩者，針對平行輸入行為，所產生在立法政策、法律效果上之交錯反應。當然，商標之特性，在於屬地原則，亦即商標權之保護範圍，僅限於註冊國之境內；然則，現行我國法制卻對平行輸入貼附系爭商標之真品，採取不侵害國內合法授權代理商之商標權的態度，而此乃適用權利耗盡原則之結果，亦即：平行輸入者縱使未得到國內代理商之同意，而輸入系爭真品，只要經合法之方式取得，即便該取得之行為發生於國外，仍有權利耗盡原則之適用。故本文擬從文獻分析及案例研究等研究方法，對於如此見解與作法之妥適性，來為深入的探討；另外，並點出現行法制的六大立法缺陷，和可能的改進建議：商標法第2條至第4條屬地原則與權利耗盡原則之衝突、商標法第36條第2項但書「其他正當事由」之規範模糊、平行輸入在著作權法和商標法之評價不同、開放平行輸入對合法商標使用人之商譽影響、平行輸入商品致使相關消費者為混淆誤認之虞、平行輸入導致國外廠商退出國內市場，將不利國內消費者等。本文期望藉由再窺探這爭論已久的商標爭議之機會，提出未來在司法及立法上，為多元因素考量（例如：考量平行輸入和非平行輸入商品之市占率、檢視市場上有無替代商品、放寬受理外國申請人註冊商標之限制、依據法律明確性原則之立法等），作為融合屬地原則及權利耗盡原則之途徑。

The issues that have arisen concerning parallel importation relate to trademark infringement, unfair marketing competition, international trade in goods, and, in particular, legislative policies and the legal effects of parallel importation caused by interactions between the territoriality principle and the exhaustion doctrine. It is well known that the territoriality principle implies that trademarks are protected within the territories in which they are registered. However, parallel importation does not just infringe upon the trademark rights of domestically authorized dealers or agents in current Taiwanese law; it is also a result of the application of the exhaustion doctrine. Parallel importers do not require permission from domestic agents to import genuine goods; the exhaustion doctrine permits this as long as these goods are legally obtained outside of or within Taiwan. This paper attempts to discuss these defects through literature analyses and case studies. It also attempts to point out six particular defects and to proffer solutions. These defects include the conflict between the territoriality principle in Articles 2, 3, and 4 of the Trademark Act and the exhaustion doctrine, the conflict involving “other legitimate reasons” governed by the proviso to Section 2, the ambiguity of Article 36 of the Trademark Act, and the different definitions for parallel importation in the Copyright Act and the Trademark Act. The paper also includes a discussion of the influence on potential commercial goodwill for legitimate trademark users when parallel importation is permitted, the likelihood of parallel importation to cause confusion and trademark dilution effects on relevant consumers, how parallel importation forces foreign firms to withdraw from the domestic market, and the negative consequences of such withdrawal for domestic consumers. The goal of the paper is to reexamine such trademark disputes. It is this author’s hope that future Taiwanese legislation and the judicial system will consider various factors as possible solutions to harmonize the territoriality principle and the exhaustion doctrine. These factors include examining market shares of parallel-imported goods and those that are not, authorizing substantive goods in the market, relaxing restrictions on foreign trademark applications, and drafting legislation based on the principle of legal certainty.