本文首重比較性廣告的定義，係以國外有關比較性廣告的規定為主，並就相類似 概念一併介紹以確實掌握比較性廣告的範圍，如商品試驗廣告．損害他人營業信 譽．虛偽不實及引人錯誤廣告．頂尖廣告等第三章係介紹比較性廣告之類型與相關實例，第四章為環繞比較性廣告的一 些主要問題，商業言論自由在美．德．日甚至我國的發展過程，以及對比較性廣 告之影響；其次是公平競爭概念，比較性廣告是否本質上即屬不公平競爭行為， 競爭子自由的前提下，競爭者採取比較性廣告時是否可以為所欲為？最後是消費 者資訊的觀念，於比較性廣告中所佔之地位第五章及第六章分就歐美各國有關發展比較性廣告的法律規範，以及廣告自 律體系如何運作對不當廣告的影響力，為概略的敘述及相關事例的介紹，作為我 國規範比較性廣告之參考第七章為我國對比較性廣告的態度以及公平會相關案例之研究，第八為總結

每當承辦知名企業間因廣告行銷而發生不公平競爭的法律爭議時，作者最反覆思考的問題不外是：究竟一則比較廣告在什麼程度以內，與其他競爭對手間的產品比較以及資訊揭露，對消費者來說是最有利，而且對競爭者來說是最公平的？換句話說，就是使用「比較廣告」這樣的爭議性行銷方法，在什麼樣的限度內，是比較可以恰如其分地，一方面完成它原本行銷應達成的目的，帶給消費者充分且必要的消費資訊，另一方面也顧及了競爭法下的公平尺度，沒有用超過目的之手法損及競爭者；接著的問題是，現行國內的公平交易法規是不是已恰如其分地扮演了這樣一個尺度呢？ 　　基於以上目的，本研究分別從行銷管理、公平交易及主要國家競爭法立法例的觀點，廣泛探討相關文獻，切入檢視過去與比較廣告有關的研究，發現過去文獻對比較廣告展現創意的「不安全領域」和「安全領域」之探討，確實不足。故本文採用質性研究中的個案法及文件分析，藉由觀察公平會自1992年至2007年間的相關案例，選出指標案例共十二則，希望對透過實際個案之處分書或不處分書的解析，探討我國公平會對比較廣告違法性的認定標準，進一步釐清不法比較廣告與創意比較廣告的分際。 　　藉由觀察公平會對該十二個指標案例作成決定時所示的見解，本研究發現公平會對於其持以處分或不處分比較廣告的準則，已衍然成形。首先，如果一個比較廣告有「真實性原則」、「客觀性原則」或「資訊充分揭露原則」三原則中，任一原則的違反，導致成為一個不真實、不客觀或資訊未充分揭露（或兼具其中二者或三者）的比較廣告時，即已經存在「不法元素」，可能構成違法，此形成本研究之命題一。其次，公平會也明白宣示了比較廣告內容或方式的「安全區域」，本研究將此一發現名為公平會的「愈抽象愈安全原則」，並且認為此處即為比較廣告應該盡情展現創意之所在，此形成本研究之命題二。作者並盼望繼起的有志之士，往後能嘗試大膽建立各種假設，小心驗證本研究已經建立的兩項命題，以檢視其周延性和正確性，俾供企業未來在行銷上運用比較廣告時，能大膽展現創意，但又不致於違法的參考，同時亦對公平會及業者分別提出建議。 / Every time when Author undertakes unfair competition disputes between well-known enterprises arisen out of advertising and marketing, the question the Author will ponder over and over is: with respect to the comparative advertising, in terms of product comparison and information disclosure with other rivals, to which extent the comparative advertising will be the most beneficial advertising to the consumers and the most impartial advertising to the rivals. In other words, to which extent can “comparative advertising” be used appropriately, on one hand complete goals the original marketing was intended to achieve, bring sufficient and necessary consumption information to the consumers, on the other hand take into account of fairness criterion under competition law without application of technique beyond its original purpose which would cause damage to the rivals. Then the next question is: whether the existing Fair Trade Law has adequately set forth said criterion? Based on the above goals, from respective viewpoints in marketing management, fair trade and legislation precedent of competition laws of major countries, the author, through extensive probing into past documentary records and reviews of past researches related to comparative advertising, realized that researches on “unsafe territory” and “safe territory” to show creativity of comparative advertising in past documentary records are not sufficient. Therefore, the author has adopted case method and document analysis used in qualitative research. From among the relevant cases handled by the Fair Trade Commission between 1992 and 2007, the author has chosen twelve distinctive cases, aiming to probe into criterion for determination of violation of comparative advertising by Fair Trade Commission of the ROC, and further verification of the differences between unlawful comparative advertising and creative comparative advertising through study and analysis of disposition or non-disposition decision of each individual case. Upon review of administrative interpretations rendered by the Fair Trade Commission towards said twelve distinctive cases, the author realized that rules governing disposition of comparative advertising by the Fair Trade Commission has taken shape. First of all, when a comparative advertising breaches either the “principle of truthfulness”, the “principle of objectiveness” or the “principle of information disclosure”, the comparative advertising will become an unreal, non-objective or non-disclosed comparative advertising (or both or all), some “illegal elements” have occurred, which may constitute violation of law, this forms the first proposition of this thesis. Secondly, the Fair Trade Commission has clearly announced “safety areas” of content or manner of the comparative advertising, the author names this discovery as “more abstract more safe principle”, and believe this is the area where comparative advertising shall exert its best effort to show its creativity, which forms the second proposition of this thesis. The author expects that future researchers will be able to create hypotheses, examine and verify two propositions this thesis have already built up, in order to investigate its thoroughness and correctness, so that enterprises could bravely demonstrate its creativity when applying comparative advertising for the marketing.