在我國入出境的旅客，大多數是經由桃園國際機場入出境，因此桃園國際機場可說是我國國家的大門，國際機場予人的觀感就是對於我國的第一印象。當旅客抵達國際機場時，首先會接觸到的即是海關通關作業，因此如果海關通關作業的服務品質良好，不但可提高旅客滿意度，更有助於提升我國在國際中的形象。 本研究參考Parasuraman,Zeithaml＆Berry（1988a，1991）所發展之服務品質量表，根據台北關稅局的海關通服務特性加以修正，設計出服務品質有關的26個題項，另參考Olorunniwo, Hsu＆Udo（2006）與Ruyter, Wetzels＆Birgelen（1999）對顧客服務滿意度的定義，並依此定義設計旅客滿意度量表的5個題項，衡量海關通關服務品質與旅客滿意度，運用SPSS統計套裝軟體，對回收之有效問卷進行統計分析，驗證本研究所探討之假設。本研究發現如下： 一、入境旅客所期望的海關通關服務水準與其實際所感受到的服務水準有顯著差異；而出境旅客所期望的海關通關服務水準與其實際所感受到的服務水準除有形性構面無顯著差異外，其餘反應性、可靠性、保證性與關懷性等四個構面皆有顯著差異。 二、入出境旅客所期望的海關通關服務水準與海關人員對旅客所期望的服務水準認知皆在關懷性構面有顯著差異，其餘構面皆無顯著差異。 三、入境旅客實際所感受到的海關通關服務水準與旅客的整體滿意度有顯著相關；而出境旅客實際所感受到的海關通關服務水準與旅客的整體滿意度在保證性與關懷性構面有顯著相關。 四、不同屬性入境旅客對其實際所感受到的海關通關服務水準在不同性別與不同年齡有顯著差異；不同屬性出境旅客對其實際所感受到的海關通關服務水準在不同職業、不同國別與不同月收入有顯著差異。 五、不同屬性入境旅客對其所期望的海關通關服務水準在不同國別有顯著差異；不同屬性出境旅客對其所期望的海關通關服務水準無顯著差異。 六、不同屬性入境旅客對旅客的整體滿意度在不同性別、不同年齡、不同職業、不同月收入、不同旅遊目的與不同使用頻率有顯著差異；不同屬性出境旅客對旅客的整體滿意度在不同國別、不同月收入與不同使用頻率有顯著差異。 七、不同屬性的海關人員對旅客所期望的海關通關服務水準認知無顯著差異。 本研究依據研究發現提出建議，以供海關機關與後續研究之參考。 / The passenger entering or leave the country in our country, the great majority enter or leave the country via Taoyuan International Airport, so Taoyuan International Airport can be regarded as the gate of the country of our country, the impressions that the International airport gives to people are the first impression on our country. When the passenger reaches the International airport, it can touches to be customs clear customs the homework at first, so if the customs clearance of the service quality of the homework is good, not only can improve passenger's satisfaction, contribute to improving the image in world of our country even more. consults Parasuraman, Zeithaml& Berry (1988a,1991)Service product quality forms developed, revise according to the open service characteristic of the customs of Taibei Bureau Veritas, is it serve quality relevant 26 question item to design, consult Olorunniwo, Hsu& Udo separately (2006) And Ruyter, Wetzels& Birgelen (1999) Definition of the satisfaction to customer service, and definition design passenger to be satisfied to measure 5 question item of form according to this, weigh customs is it serve quality and passenger satisfaction to clear customs, use SPSS to count the suit software, carry on statistical analysis to the effective questionnaire retrieving, verify the assumption that this research institute probes into. Originally discover as follows: 1. Inbound passenger has significant difference between the customs clearance service level of the passenger’s expectation and the customs clearance service level of the passenger’s actual perception, however, outbound passenger only has not significant difference in Tangibles between the customs clearance service level of the passenger’s expectation and the customs clearance service level of the passenger’s actual perception, the other four dimensions, responsiveness, reliability, assurance and empathy all have significant difference. 2. Inbound passengers and outbound passengers both have significant difference between the customs clearance service level of the passenger’s expectation and the customs clearance service level of the passenger’s expectation by the customs officer’s sense in empathy dimension, the other dimensions all have not significant difference. 3. Inbound passenger has significant relationship between the customs clearance service level of the passenger’s actual perception and the entire passenger’s satisfaction, however, outbound passenger has significant relationship between the customs clearance service level of the passenger’s actual perception and the entire passenger’s satisfaction in assurance and empathy. 4. Different attribute inbound passenger to the customs clearance service level of the passenger’s actual perception have significant difference in the different sex and different age. Different attribute outbound passengers to the customs clearance service level of the passenger’s actual perception have significant difference in the different month income, different occupation and different country. 5. Different attribute inbound passenger to the customs clearance service level of the passenger’s expectation have significant difference in the different country. Different attribute outbound passengers to the customs clearance service level of the passenger’s expectation have not significant difference. 6. Different attribute inbound passenger to the entire passenger’s satisfaction have significant difference in the different sexual, different age, different occupation, different monthly income, different purpose of travel and different using times. Different attribute outbound passenger to the entire passenger’s satisfaction have significant difference in the different country, different monthly income and different using times. 7. Different attribute customs to the customs clearance service level of the passenger’s expectation by the customs officer’s sense have not significant. To conclude, this study has some suggestions by empirical finding, customs organization and future study may referable.

大陸及臺灣均規定，發明專利權人專有排除他人未經其同意而實施該發明之權。亦規定，物之發明之實施，指製造、為販賣之要約、販賣、使用或為上述目的而進口該物之行為。在專利權人或其專屬被授權人提起專利侵權實體訴訟前，專利權人或其專屬被授權人一般得請求海關就嫌疑貨物為暫不放行措施或扣押，以防止侵害專利權之貨物進入商業市場。一般而言，涉及商標權或著作權之貨物較容易透過貨物外觀以觀察是否侵權。然而，大部分附有專利的貨物均不易以貨物外觀以觀察是否侵權。特別是，舉例而言，一支智慧型手機上可能有上千的專利於其上，而且許多商品都有類似情形。所以，由第一線的海關人員去辨識有無專利侵權是困難的。 「與貿易有關的智慧財產權協定」第52條規定，任何權利人申請第51條之暫不放行措施，都應向主管機關提出足以推定在進口國法律之下有侵害權利持有人智慧財產權之表面證據，並就有關物品提供詳細說明，俾使海關易於辨認。如果權利持有人提供有侵害其智慧財產權之表面證據，仿冒品或是盜版品一般來說較易於由海關第一線人員透過貨物外觀加以辨識。另一方面，專利權人或其專屬被授權人提出侵害其專利權之表面證據是困難的。 除上述問題之外，尚有一更困難的問題有待專利權人或其專屬被授權人解決。那便是，如果專利權人或其專屬被授權人不指派間諜至競爭對手之中，並不知道涉及侵害專利權之貨物何時、何地將會進口。因此，本論文嘗試研究如何扣押侵害專利權貨物之議題。 本論文區分為六個部分。第一章是緒論，說明研究動機及目的，以及研究方法及範圍。第二章是說明及定義智慧財產權邊境執行之指導原則，以及第一線海關人員依據貨物外觀辨識原則查尋嫌疑貨物。第三章是討論智慧財產權邊境執行之三種方式。第四章是分析與比較兩岸專利權之執行。第五章是闡述司法暫時權利保護與專利權邊境執行之配合。第六章是結論。 / Both Mainland China and Taiwan enacted laws to protect patentees’ exclusive rights to the invention and to prevent the rights from being exploited, without the patentee’s consent, via making, offering for sale, selling, using or importing of the infringed goods. Prior to filing the infringement litigation, the patentee or the exclusive licensee may generally initiate to request its customs authorities to suspend the release of, or to detain, suspect goods that involve the infringement of a patent from entering into the channels of commerce. Generally speaking, goods that involve trademark or copyright can be more easily observed whether it is infringed via its apprearance. However, most of goods that involve patents can not be more easily observed whether it is infringed, and inter alia, for example, there are probably more than 1,000 patent rights in one smart phone, and many goods have the similar situations. So it is difficult to distinguish infringed or non-infringed goods by front line staffs of customs. Article 52 of Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights defines suspension of release. It provides: “Any right holder initiating the procedures under Article 51 shall be required to provide adequate evidence to satisfy the competent authorities that, under the laws of the country of importation, there is prima facie an infringement of the right holder’s intellectual property right and to supply a sufficiently detailed description of the goods to make them readily recognizable by the customs authorities.” It’s understood that the counterfeit trademark or pirated copyright goods can be generally observed via its appearance by front line staffs of customs, if a right holder supply prima facie evidence of infringement of the right holder’s intellectual property right. On the other hand, it is very difficult for a patentee or a exclusive licensee to supply prima facie evidence of infringement of the patent. In addition to the above mentioned issues, there is a more severe problem that the patentee or the exclusive licensee needs to solve. It’s that the patentee or the exclusive licensee doesn’t know when and where the goods that involve the infringement of patents will import, if the patentee or the exclusive licensee seek for the goods that involve the infringement of patents without designating spies in rivals. Therefore, this thesis tries to research the issue with respect to how to detect and detain goods that infringe patent rights. This thesis is divided in six parts. Chapter 1 makes a description of the motive and the purpose of this article. It also includes the method and the range of this research. Chapter 2 explains and defines “The Guidelines of Intellectual Property Rights Border Enforcement” and the suspect of goods could be found by front line staffs of customs in compliance with “The Principle of Goods Appearance Identification”. Chapter 3 discusses three modes of intellectual property rights enforcement. Chapter 4 analyzes and compares Cross-Strait Customs in patent border enforcement. Chapter 5 describes cooperation of provisional measures and patent border enforcement. Finally, Chapter 6 is the conclusion.

University of Macau / Faculty of Social Sciences and Humanities / Department of Portuguese

海峽兩岸自2008年6月恢復中斷近10年的制度化協商管道之後，迄2013年6月，兩岸兩會已舉行9次高層會談並簽署19項協議，以及達成2項共識，不僅建立了兩岸「機制對機制」、「官員對官員」的協商模式，亦創造兩岸在經貿、社會交流秩序等各項互動上的保障，為兩岸關係打造和平穩定之發展環境。在此氛圍下，已逐步奠定了兩岸互利互信之基礎，亦深化了雙方在政治、經濟、社會、文化等多層面之交流，也預示著兩岸未來之合作與發展將有無限可能。 在此特別值得一提的是，兩岸於2010年6月29日第5次江陳會談簽署「海峽兩岸經濟合作架構協議」(ECFA)之同時，亦簽署了「海峽兩岸智慧財產權保護合作協議」，復於2012年8月9日第8次江陳會談簽署了「海峽兩岸海關合作協議」。前揭協議之簽署為兩岸在「智慧財產權保護」以及「海關合作」兩議題建立了相互溝通之平臺。因此，研析與比較我國與中國大陸海關智慧財產權邊境保護相關措施及其異同點，對於兩岸海關未來在相關措施法制面與實務執行面之革新、發展與合作十分重要。 本文首先透過對於兩岸相關文獻之回顧、相關國際規範及其發展之認識，瞭解兩岸及國際間海關智慧財產權邊境措施之過去與現在，再分別針對我國與中國大陸海關智慧財產權邊境措施進行研究，以充分瞭解兩岸海關現行措施之法制面與實務執行情形，復透過對於兩岸之間海關關員之執法權力、海關緝獲之侵權貨物，以及智慧財產權邊境措施制度面之比較，研析雙方之異同，並提出改進意見，最後再綜合歸納以獲致研究成果。 / Since June 2008 when Taiwan and China resumed institutionalized negotiation that has been interrupted for nearly ten years till June 2013, the Straits Exchange Foundation (SEF) and the Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Straits (ARATS) have held nine rounds of high-level talks, signed 19 agreements, and reached two consensuses. The resumption of bilateral talks has not only led to the establishment of “mechanism vs mechanism” and “official vs official” negotiation models, but has also safeguarded the security of economic and social activities in both sides and created a peaceful and stable environment for cross-strait relation. In this context, the two sides, which have gradually gained mutual trust, have deepened bilateral exchanges in political, economic, social and welfare aspects for mutual benefits. All of these forebode every possibility of future cooperation and development between the two sides. One thing worth our attention is the signing of the “Cross-Strait Agreement on Intellectual Property Rights Protection and Cooperation” on June 29th, 2010 when SEF and the ARATS officially signed the Cross-Strait Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement in the fifth round of Chiang-Chen talks. Furthermore, both sides signed the “Cross-Strait Customs Cooperation Agreement” on August 9th, 2012 in the eighth round of Chiang-Chen talks. The signing of the above agreements sets up a platform for both sides in implementing “IPR protection” and “Customs cooperation.” Therefore, the analysis and comparison of Cross-Strait Customs IPR protection border measures is very crucial to the innovation, improvement and cooperation of cross-strait Customs in terms of legal and practical aspects of relevant measures in the future. This study, through survey of cross-strait literature and knowledge of international standards and the development thereof, intends to comprehend the past and present of cross-strait Customs IPR border measures and international standards and then proceed to study IPR border measures of cross-strait Customs, so as to fully understand the legal and practical situation of current cross-strait Customs implementing IPR protection. Through comparing the legal authority of Customs officers, infringed commodities seized by Customs and IPR enforcement system of cross-strait Customs, this study also intends to analyze the discrepancies between the two Customs administrations and propose some personal opinions for improvement and present some conclusions as research results.