本文選題：立體商標 + 外觀設(shè)計專利��； 參考：《蘭州大學(xué)》2014年碩士論文

【摘要】：伴隨著商品經(jīng)濟的持續(xù)快速發(fā)展,我國知識產(chǎn)權(quán)制度在社會主義市場經(jīng)濟中所發(fā)揮的作用日益明顯。生產(chǎn)力的提高促使商品或服務(wù)日趨同質(zhì)化,使得消費者不能輕易地僅從琳瑯滿目的商品中區(qū)分來源,因此企業(yè)間的競爭不僅是商品質(zhì)量或服務(wù)的競爭,更是品牌與創(chuàng)新的競爭。商標和外觀設(shè)計也逐漸成為企業(yè)加強產(chǎn)品營銷、提高市場競爭力以及發(fā)展知識產(chǎn)權(quán)戰(zhàn)略的關(guān)鍵。立體商標作為商標的特殊形式,以其可由商品本身或商品包裝構(gòu)成的三維特點更加具備顯著性,得到了越來越多的企業(yè)注冊使用。外觀設(shè)計的創(chuàng)新使得產(chǎn)品富有美感,也能夠提高消費者的購買欲望,增加商品銷售量。 立體商標和外觀設(shè)計由不同的法律進行保護,其主旨和目的也各不相同。然而,當外觀設(shè)計具備顯著性時也能起到區(qū)分商品來源的作用,可能會被注冊為立體商標；而當立體商標存在美感時,或許也能夠受到專利法保護,二者存在一定的交叉和重疊。更重要的是,在第二次修訂的《專利法》第25條中,將平面印刷品的圖案、色彩或者二者的結(jié)合做出的主要起標識作用的設(shè)計列為不能授予外觀設(shè)計專利的項。這樣以來商標權(quán)與外觀設(shè)計專利的交叉與沖突問題便主要集中在了立體形狀產(chǎn)品領(lǐng)域。因此,本文章主要通過立體商標與外觀設(shè)計專利的比較研究,綜合分析二者的交叉與沖突問題,全文共有四個部分： 首先,分別考察立體商標與外觀設(shè)計專利的國內(nèi)外法律保護現(xiàn)狀,對二者的特征以及申請注冊的條件進行概括分析。 其次,對比分析立體商標權(quán)與外觀設(shè)計專利權(quán)的交叉與重疊問題,研究二者存在交叉的前提,闡述其表現(xiàn)方式,并且研究二者交叉所產(chǎn)生的現(xiàn)實意義以及能給企業(yè)帶來的經(jīng)濟意義。 再次,通過對比分析和歸納二者產(chǎn)生沖突的特征、原因以及表現(xiàn)形式,此外,還對司法實踐中,立體商標與外觀設(shè)計專利侵權(quán)訴訟近似性判定的沖突進行比較分析。 最后,依據(jù)前文對立體商標與外觀設(shè)計專利交叉和沖突問題的分析,總結(jié)解決二者沖突的建議,歸納解決沖突的原則,提出解決沖突的對策。
[Abstract]:With the sustained and rapid development of commodity economy, the role of intellectual property system in the socialist market economy is increasingly obvious.The improvement of productivity makes the goods or services become more and more homogeneous, so consumers can not easily distinguish the source from the full range of goods. Therefore, the competition among enterprises is not only the competition of goods quality or service, but also the competition of brand and innovation.Trademark and exterior design have become the key to strengthen product marketing, improve market competitiveness and develop intellectual property strategy.As a special form of trademark, stereoscopic trademark has been used by more and more enterprises because of its three-dimensional characteristics, which can be made up of commodity itself or commodity packaging.The innovation of appearance design makes the product full of beauty, also can increase the consumer's desire to buy and increase the sales volume of the product.Three-dimensional trademarks and designs are protected by different laws, and their purport and purpose are different.However, when the design is significant, it may be registered as a three-dimensional trademark, and it may also be protected by patent law when it has a sense of beauty.There is a certain cross and overlap between the two.More importantly, section 25 of the second revision of the Patent Law lists the design of a flat print, color, or combination of the two as an item that cannot be granted a design patent.In this way, the intersection and conflict between trademark rights and design patents are mainly concentrated in the field of stereoscopic products.Therefore, this article mainly through the three-dimensional trademark and the appearance design patent comparison research, synthetically analyzes the two intersection and the conflict question, the full text has four parts:First of all, the domestic and foreign legal protection status of stereoscopic trademark and design patent are investigated respectively, and the characteristics of the two and the conditions of applying for registration are summarized and analyzed.Secondly, the paper analyzes the intersection and overlap between the three-dimensional trademark right and the design patent right, studies the premise that the two have intersecting, and expounds its expression mode.And to study the practical significance of the intersection of the two and can bring economic significance to enterprises.Third, through comparative analysis and induction of the conflict between the two characteristics, causes and manifestations, in addition, the judicial practice, three-dimensional trademark and design patent infringement litigation similar to the conflict between the comparative analysis of the conflict.Finally, based on the above analysis of the intersection and conflict between 3D trademark and design patent, the author summarizes the suggestions to resolve the conflict, summarizes the principles of resolving the conflict, and puts forward the countermeasures to resolve the conflict.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：蘭州大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2014
【分類號】：D923.42

【參考文獻】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 熊敏琴;商標權(quán)和外觀設(shè)計專利權(quán)的權(quán)利沖突[J];中華商標;2002年09期

2 青木博通;日本的立體商標與外觀設(shè)計[J];中華商標;2003年11期

3 李石;;外觀設(shè)計可否在美國申請注冊立體商標[J];中華商標;2008年04期

4 歐陽峰;劉宇暉;梁平;;對外觀設(shè)計專利侵權(quán)判定標準的幾點質(zhì)疑[J];電子知識產(chǎn)權(quán);2007年03期

5 羅先覺;;外觀設(shè)計專利客體的可商標性及其經(jīng)濟意義[J];電子知識產(chǎn)權(quán);2008年05期

6 孔祥俊;王永昌;李劍;;《最高人民法院關(guān)于審理侵犯專利權(quán)糾紛案件應(yīng)用法律若干問題的解釋》適用的若干問題[J];電子知識產(chǎn)權(quán);2010年02期

7 凌宗亮;;論立體商標的非功能性——兼談我國《商標法》第12條的完善[J];電子知識產(chǎn)權(quán);2010年03期

8 胡充寒;;外觀設(shè)計專利侵權(quán)判定混淆標準的反思與重構(gòu)[J];法律適用;2010年06期

9 金鳳濤,曹世華;立體商標注冊的限制性條件[J];法學(xué)雜志;2005年06期

10 王偉民;注冊商標與外觀設(shè)計專利競合侵權(quán)責(zé)任研究[J];中國工商管理研究;2002年01期

，

本文編號：1769923