| 關 鍵 詞： |
設計；專利；設計專利；專利權侵害；表徵；整體印象；不公平競爭；智慧財產法院；專利訴訟；仿冒 |
| 中文摘要： |
近年來產業界對於工業設計之智慧財產保護需求，日益增加。所謂的設計，乃對物品之全部或部分之形狀、花紋、色彩或其結合，透過視覺訴求之創作，係保護「外觀及感覺」之創作，從而設計有關智慧財產法律，夾雜著作、專利、商標及不公平競爭法之概念。臺灣與歐洲針對設計之智慧財產法律，最大差異在保護方式。臺灣以專利法之設計專利權保護工業設計，同於美國；德國及其他歐洲國家則採單獨立法（sui generis）。歐洲之設計與時尚市場有相當完善發展，甚早即保護設計及紡織品。有鑑於此，本文分析歐洲將設計納入保護之起源及制度重點，包括創作性要件、創作自由、保護範圍、排他權內容及侵權認定，並以德國設計法為主。檢討及解析臺灣設計專利規定與概念後，本文認為，我國對於設計之保護是置於專利法，致使諸多條文規定與概念不當的受到發明與新型專利之影響，此為設計專利制度之最大挑戰，亦使法院判決逸脫設計之保護，忽略應以「外觀及感覺」、整體印象為核心概念。強化工業設計保護，不僅能鼓勵個別設計人從事創作，亦能促進新商品之創新與投資，攸關相關產業發展。本文認為，臺灣關於設計之智慧財產權，應參考德國及歐盟之法規範架構與邏輯，使設計有足夠的保護。
|
| 英文關鍵詞： |
design；patent；design patent；patent infringement；trade dress；overall impression；unfair competition；intellectual property court；patent litigation；counterfeit |
| 英文摘要： |
Design, which encompasses everything from shape, pattern, color or any combination thereof of an article as a whole or in part by visual appeal, is increasingly the subject of intellectual property claims. The design protection is named the protection on "look and feel". The law of design is confused and splintered among various conceptions in copyright, patent, trademark and unfair competition laws. The key difference between the IP law governing design in Taiwan and Europe is the design protection system. In Taiwan, industrial design is protected by patent right, same as in the USA. Germany and other European countries follow sui generis protection for design. European design and fashion markets are significantly well developed, since IP law for design and textiles has existed for much longer and is more expansive in Europe. For this reason, this article traces back the history of design protection in Europe and reviews the normative conceptions and doctrines of specific design protection system, including the requirement of individual character, freedom of the designer in developing the design, scope of protection, right conferred by the protected design as well as determination of infringement of design right. To address these issues, this article provides comprehensive assessment of the articles and decisions, particularly the German laws. After analyzing the regulations of design patent in Taiwan, this article asserts that Taiwan should reconsider the legal framework of IP protection for industrial design. The main challenge of protection and enforcement of design patent in Taiwan is that lots of regulations and conception of design patent are improperly influenced by the invention patent and utility model patent, since design protection is incorporated into the Patent Act. Consequently, the court decisions depart quite starkly from the normative protection for the subject matter of "look and feel", namely the overall impression. Enhanced protection for industrial design not only promotes the contribution of individual designers, but also encourages innovation and development of new products and investment in their production. A more accessible design-protection legal system is essential for the industries. This article argues that it is important to bring the IP protection for industrial design in Taiwan into line with the legal framework of German and European design laws, which provides designers with significant levels of protection.
|
| 目 次： |
壹、前言
貳、歐洲設計保護制度之起源與立法目的
一、以智慧財產權保護設計之起源
二、設計權之立法目的在鼓勵視覺訴求面向之創新研發
三、不公平競爭法乃健全設計保護所不可或缺之一環
參、德國及歐盟之設計法規範
一、歐盟設計權與內國設計權為各自獨立之智慧財產權
二、設計之保護要件
三、設計權之排他權效力
四、設計權之權利範圍
五、設計權侵害之認定
六、小結
肆、我國設計專利法制之檢討
一、設計之保護兼具專利權與著作權之特性
二、設計之保護應脫離專利法而單獨立法
三、設計專利權範圍與近似範圍之寬窄，應考量先前技藝
四、設計專利權範圍不應受限於申請時所指定施予之物品
五、公平交易法對於強化設計保護之重要性
伍、結論
|
| 相關法條： |
 |
| 相關判解： |
|
| 相關函釋： |
|
| 相關論著： |
|