外觀設(shè)計(jì)法體系化研究
發(fā)布時間：2018-09-08 20:45
【摘要】：外觀設(shè)計(jì)的體系化研究,對于系統(tǒng)理解并適用外觀設(shè)計(jì)法律規(guī)則至關(guān)重要。體系化分析的基礎(chǔ)是概念及規(guī)則,而對概念及規(guī)則的理解核心則在于其價值取向。外觀設(shè)計(jì)法所具有的財(cái)產(chǎn)法及智力成果性質(zhì)決定了其價值取向在于,“通過具體制度的設(shè)立激勵產(chǎn)生更多有價值的外觀設(shè)計(jì),并最終達(dá)到外觀設(shè)計(jì)所投入的社會總成本與其所帶來的社會總收益的最優(yōu)配置。”外觀設(shè)計(jì)法律制度中的各項(xiàng)規(guī)則(如新穎性、創(chuàng)造性、登記制度等)無不體現(xiàn)了該價值取向,而對該價值取向的了解亦是解決實(shí)踐中爭議問題的關(guān)鍵。外觀設(shè)計(jì)應(yīng)具有確定性、可視性、功能性與非功能性、可復(fù)制性。其中,確定性系指外形的確定,而非思想或文字的確定;相對確定,而非絕對確定;申請狀態(tài)下的確定,而非使用狀態(tài)下確定;單獨(dú)構(gòu)件的確定,而非最終組合狀態(tài)的確定。外觀設(shè)計(jì)的可視性不等同于美感,其包括在從生產(chǎn)到使用狀態(tài)下各個階段的可視性,且并不完全排除肉眼之外的觀測工具。外觀設(shè)計(jì)還應(yīng)具有實(shí)用功能,但最終獲得保護(hù)的并非該功能,而系與功能相結(jié)合的設(shè)計(jì)。外觀設(shè)計(jì)的可復(fù)制性強(qiáng)調(diào)的是具有產(chǎn)業(yè)上的利益,但并不限于機(jī)器復(fù)制,亦包括手工復(fù)制。外觀設(shè)計(jì)所依附的產(chǎn)品依據(jù)不同的分類標(biāo)準(zhǔn),可劃分為工業(yè)制品與手工制品、二維產(chǎn)品與三維產(chǎn)品、組裝產(chǎn)品與產(chǎn)品部件、產(chǎn)品部件與產(chǎn)品的部分、傳統(tǒng)產(chǎn)品與新類型產(chǎn)品等,上述分類在外觀設(shè)計(jì)規(guī)則中均具有各自的意義。產(chǎn)品的類別對于外觀設(shè)計(jì)的保護(hù)范圍并無決定性意義,其作用主要體現(xiàn)在行政管理、外觀設(shè)計(jì)的理解、在先設(shè)計(jì)檢索等方面。外觀設(shè)計(jì)的功能性系指技術(shù)功能性及法律功能性,而非美學(xué)功能性及事實(shí)功能性。功能性規(guī)則著眼于具體設(shè)計(jì)特征,而非產(chǎn)品的整體設(shè)計(jì)為基礎(chǔ)。如果某個設(shè)計(jì)特征屬于實(shí)現(xiàn)相應(yīng)技術(shù)功能的唯一選擇或極為有限方式的選擇,則在新穎性、創(chuàng)造性或侵權(quán)認(rèn)定中,該特征不應(yīng)予以考慮。該制度的目的在于避免通過外觀設(shè)計(jì)的保護(hù)使得權(quán)利人獲得對于技術(shù)方案的壟斷。新穎性制度的目的主要在于避免重復(fù)授權(quán)、避免占有公有領(lǐng)域以及保持與侵權(quán)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的一致性。新穎性的認(rèn)定應(yīng)以外觀設(shè)計(jì)產(chǎn)品直接購買者的認(rèn)知能力為基礎(chǔ),由直接購買者對兩設(shè)計(jì)是否屬于相同或相近種類產(chǎn)品上的相同或相近的設(shè)計(jì)進(jìn)行判斷。判斷兩產(chǎn)品是否屬于相近種類的產(chǎn)品應(yīng)以二者是否具有替代關(guān)系為標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。而對于兩設(shè)計(jì)是否構(gòu)成實(shí)質(zhì)相同,則應(yīng)采用整體觀察的原則,并考慮形狀、圖案及色彩等不同要素的不同權(quán)重,新穎點(diǎn)、功能性特征、設(shè)計(jì)空間等因素。在具體判斷過程中,應(yīng)站在審查員或法官的角度,依據(jù)其思維的特點(diǎn),確定認(rèn)定的具體步驟。創(chuàng)造性制度的目的在于提高對外觀設(shè)計(jì)智力成果難度的要求,從而更有利于達(dá)到社會總成本與總收益的優(yōu)化配置。創(chuàng)造性的判斷應(yīng)以普通設(shè)計(jì)者作為判斷主體。對比設(shè)計(jì)不限于產(chǎn)品的外觀設(shè)計(jì),亦包括在先作品等,而對于產(chǎn)品的外觀設(shè)計(jì)亦不僅限于相同或相近種類的產(chǎn)品設(shè)計(jì)。創(chuàng)造性的比對包括單一比對與結(jié)合比對兩種情形。單一比對中主要考慮的因素包括是否具有轉(zhuǎn)用啟示、產(chǎn)品類別的變化是否導(dǎo)致功能與設(shè)計(jì)特征的結(jié)合應(yīng)付出創(chuàng)造性勞動、區(qū)別特征是否屬于創(chuàng)新點(diǎn)等等。在結(jié)合比對中,則可參考發(fā)明專利創(chuàng)造性判斷的三步檢驗(yàn)法,其關(guān)鍵在于結(jié)合啟示的認(rèn)定。侵權(quán)規(guī)則的制度目的在于盡可能實(shí)現(xiàn)對于權(quán)利人及社會公眾的激勵,并達(dá)到權(quán)利人與社會公眾之間的利益平衡。外觀設(shè)計(jì)權(quán)利范圍的確定應(yīng)與新穎性及單一比對的創(chuàng)造性標(biāo)準(zhǔn)相一致�，F(xiàn)有設(shè)計(jì)抗辯是最為重要的抗辯理由,該抗辯的適用中應(yīng)避免以近似性程度高低作為判斷抗辯是否成立的標(biāo)準(zhǔn),而應(yīng)以現(xiàn)有設(shè)計(jì)為核心,只要涉案外觀設(shè)計(jì)或被控侵權(quán)產(chǎn)品之一落入現(xiàn)有設(shè)計(jì)的范圍,均應(yīng)認(rèn)定該抗辯理由成立。
[Abstract]:Systemized study of design is essential for the systematic understanding and application of the legal rules of design. Systemized analysis is based on concepts and rules, while the core of understanding concepts and rules lies in their value orientation. The establishment of the system encourages the creation of more valuable designs, and ultimately achieves the optimal allocation of the total social costs and the total social benefits of the designs. Knowledge is also the key to resolving disputes in practice. Design should be deterministic, visible, functional and non-functional, and reproducible. Certainty refers to the determination of shape, not thought or writing; relative determinacy, not absolute determinacy; determination in the application state, not in the use state; separate construction. The visibility of a design is not the same as that of a sense of beauty. It includes visibility at all stages from production to use, and does not completely exclude observing tools other than the naked eye. Combination design. Reproducibility of design emphasizes industrial benefits, but not limited to machine replication, but also manual replication. Products attached to design can be classified into industrial and handmade products, two-dimensional and three-dimensional products, assembled products and product components, product parts and components according to different classification criteria. The categories of products have no decisive significance for the scope of protection of the design. Their functions are mainly embodied in the administrative management, the understanding of the design, the first design retrieval and so on. Technical and legal functionality, not aesthetic functionality and factual functionality. Functional rules focus on specific design features, not on the basis of the overall design of the product. If a design feature is the only choice or extremely limited choice to achieve the corresponding technical function, it is in the identification of novelty, creativity or infringement. This feature should not be taken into account. The purpose of the system is to avoid the monopoly of the obligee on the technical scheme through the protection of the design. The purpose of the novelty system is to avoid duplicate authorization, avoid occupying the public domain and maintain consistency with the standard of infringement. On the basis of the cognitive ability of the receiver, the direct purchaser decides whether two designs belong to the same or similar products of the same kind or not. The principle of holistic observation should be taken into account and the weights, novelties, functional features and design space of different elements such as shapes, patterns and colors should be taken into account. Creative judgment should be based on the general designer. Contrastive design is not limited to the appearance design of the product, but also includes the first work, and for the appearance design of the product is not limited to the same or similar types of product design. Creative comparisons include single comparisons and combined comparisons. The main considerations in a single comparison include whether there is a revelation of conversion, whether changes in product categories lead to a combination of function and design features to cope with creative labor, and whether features are innovative or not. The key to the three-step test of patent creative judgment lies in the identification of revelation. The purpose of the tort rules is to encourage the obligee and the public as much as possible, and to achieve the balance of interests between the obligee and the public. The determination of the scope of the right of design should be based on novelty and the creativity of a single comparison. The existing design defense is the most important defense reason. The application of this defense should avoid taking the degree of approximation as the criterion to judge whether the defense is tenable or not, and should take the existing design as the core. As long as the appearance design involved or one of the products accused of infringement falls into the scope of the existing design, the defense reason should be recognized. Stand.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：中國社會科學(xué)院研究生院
【學(xué)位級別】：博士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2015
【分類號】：D923.42
[Abstract]:Systemized study of design is essential for the systematic understanding and application of the legal rules of design. Systemized analysis is based on concepts and rules, while the core of understanding concepts and rules lies in their value orientation. The establishment of the system encourages the creation of more valuable designs, and ultimately achieves the optimal allocation of the total social costs and the total social benefits of the designs. Knowledge is also the key to resolving disputes in practice. Design should be deterministic, visible, functional and non-functional, and reproducible. Certainty refers to the determination of shape, not thought or writing; relative determinacy, not absolute determinacy; determination in the application state, not in the use state; separate construction. The visibility of a design is not the same as that of a sense of beauty. It includes visibility at all stages from production to use, and does not completely exclude observing tools other than the naked eye. Combination design. Reproducibility of design emphasizes industrial benefits, but not limited to machine replication, but also manual replication. Products attached to design can be classified into industrial and handmade products, two-dimensional and three-dimensional products, assembled products and product components, product parts and components according to different classification criteria. The categories of products have no decisive significance for the scope of protection of the design. Their functions are mainly embodied in the administrative management, the understanding of the design, the first design retrieval and so on. Technical and legal functionality, not aesthetic functionality and factual functionality. Functional rules focus on specific design features, not on the basis of the overall design of the product. If a design feature is the only choice or extremely limited choice to achieve the corresponding technical function, it is in the identification of novelty, creativity or infringement. This feature should not be taken into account. The purpose of the system is to avoid the monopoly of the obligee on the technical scheme through the protection of the design. The purpose of the novelty system is to avoid duplicate authorization, avoid occupying the public domain and maintain consistency with the standard of infringement. On the basis of the cognitive ability of the receiver, the direct purchaser decides whether two designs belong to the same or similar products of the same kind or not. The principle of holistic observation should be taken into account and the weights, novelties, functional features and design space of different elements such as shapes, patterns and colors should be taken into account. Creative judgment should be based on the general designer. Contrastive design is not limited to the appearance design of the product, but also includes the first work, and for the appearance design of the product is not limited to the same or similar types of product design. Creative comparisons include single comparisons and combined comparisons. The main considerations in a single comparison include whether there is a revelation of conversion, whether changes in product categories lead to a combination of function and design features to cope with creative labor, and whether features are innovative or not. The key to the three-step test of patent creative judgment lies in the identification of revelation. The purpose of the tort rules is to encourage the obligee and the public as much as possible, and to achieve the balance of interests between the obligee and the public. The determination of the scope of the right of design should be based on novelty and the creativity of a single comparison. The existing design defense is the most important defense reason. The application of this defense should avoid taking the degree of approximation as the criterion to judge whether the defense is tenable or not, and should take the existing design as the core. As long as the appearance design involved or one of the products accused of infringement falls into the scope of the existing design, the defense reason should be recognized. Stand.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：中國社會科學(xué)院研究生院
【學(xué)位級別】：博士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2015
【分類號】：D923.42
【參考文獻(xiàn)】
相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條
1 李秀娟;;外觀設(shè)計(jì)之“一般消費(fèi)者”認(rèn)定——“見多識廣的用戶”和“普通觀察者”的案例比較[J];電子知識產(chǎn)權(quán);2012年04期
2 杜蓓蕾;程萬華;;三種外觀設(shè)計(jì)保護(hù)模式之比較[J];中國發(fā)明與專利;2008年11期
3 易俊雄;王瑋;;淺議我國外觀設(shè)計(jì)專利侵權(quán)的判斷標(biāo)準(zhǔn)——從兩個案例談起[J];湖北警官學(xué)院學(xué)報;2012年03期
4 趙小東;;創(chuàng)造性與外觀設(shè)計(jì)授權(quán)條件選擇[J];科技與法律;2008年01期
5 張廣良;;試論外觀設(shè)計(jì)專利新穎性的判斷——兼議外觀設(shè)計(jì)專利性判定標(biāo)準(zhǔn)之修改[J];人民司法;2009年05期
6 徐清平;;外觀設(shè)計(jì)專利請求保護(hù)色彩相關(guān)問題探討[J];中國專利與商標(biāo);2007年01期
7 何a魑，
本文編號：2231651
本文鏈接：http://sikaile.net/falvlunwen/minfalunwen/2231651.html
最近更新
教材專著
