本文選題：立體商標(biāo) + 外觀設(shè)計(jì)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(jì)的持續(xù)快速發(fā)展,我國(guó)知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)制度在社會(huì)主義市場(chǎng)經(jīng)濟(jì)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(fèi)者不能輕易地僅從琳瑯滿目的商品中區(qū)分來(lái)源,因此企業(yè)間的競(jìng)爭(zhēng)不僅是商品質(zhì)量或服務(wù)的競(jìng)爭(zhēng),更是品牌與創(chuàng)新的競(jìng)爭(zhēng)。商標(biāo)和外觀設(shè)計(jì)也逐漸成為企業(yè)加強(qiáng)產(chǎn)品營(yíng)銷、提高市場(chǎng)競(jìng)爭(zhēng)力以及發(fā)展知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)戰(zhàn)略的關(guān)鍵。立體商標(biāo)作為商標(biāo)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(diǎn)更加具備顯著性,得到了越來(lái)越多的企業(yè)注冊(cè)使用。外觀設(shè)計(jì)的創(chuàng)新使得產(chǎn)品富有美感,也能夠提高消費(fèi)者的購(gòu)買欲望,增加商品銷售量。 立體商標(biāo)和外觀設(shè)計(jì)由不同的法律進(jìn)行保護(hù),其主旨和目的也各不相同。然而,當(dāng)外觀設(shè)計(jì)具備顯著性時(shí)也能起到區(qū)分商品來(lái)源的作用,可能會(huì)被注冊(cè)為立體商標(biāo)；而當(dāng)立體商標(biāo)存在美感時(shí),或許也能夠受到專利法保護(hù),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(biāo)識(shí)作用的設(shè)計(jì)列為不能授予外觀設(shè)計(jì)專利的項(xiàng)。這樣以來(lái)商標(biāo)權(quán)與外觀設(shè)計(jì)專利的交叉與沖突問(wèn)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(guò)立體商標(biāo)與外觀設(shè)計(jì)專利的比較研究,綜合分析二者的交叉與沖突問(wèn)題,全文共有四個(gè)部分： 首先,分別考察立體商標(biāo)與外觀設(shè)計(jì)專利的國(guó)內(nèi)外法律保護(hù)現(xiàn)狀,對(duì)二者的特征以及申請(qǐng)注冊(cè)的條件進(jìn)行概括分析。 其次,對(duì)比分析立體商標(biāo)權(quán)與外觀設(shè)計(jì)專利權(quán)的交叉與重疊問(wèn)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(shí)意義以及能給企業(yè)帶來(lái)的經(jīng)濟(jì)意義。 再次,通過(guò)對(duì)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(duì)司法實(shí)踐中,立體商標(biāo)與外觀設(shè)計(jì)專利侵權(quán)訴訟近似性判定的沖突進(jìn)行比較分析。 最后,依據(jù)前文對(duì)立體商標(biāo)與外觀設(shè)計(jì)專利交叉和沖突問(wèn)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(duì)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(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2014
【分類號(hào)】：D923.42

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

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

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

3 李石;;外觀設(shè)計(jì)可否在美國(guó)申請(qǐng)注冊(cè)立體商標(biāo)[J];中華商標(biāo);2008年04期

4 歐陽(yáng)峰;劉宇暉;梁平;;對(duì)外觀設(shè)計(jì)專利侵權(quán)判定標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的幾點(diǎn)質(zhì)疑[J];電子知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán);2007年03期

5 羅先覺(jué);;外觀設(shè)計(jì)專利客體的可商標(biāo)性及其經(jīng)濟(jì)意義[J];電子知識(shí)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(wèn)題的解釋》適用的若干問(wèn)題[J];電子知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán);2010年02期

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

8 胡充寒;;外觀設(shè)計(jì)專利侵權(quán)判定混淆標(biāo)準(zhǔn)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(biāo)注冊(cè)的限制性條件[J];法學(xué)雜志;2005年06期

10 王偉民;注冊(cè)商標(biāo)與外觀設(shè)計(jì)專利競(jìng)合侵權(quán)責(zé)任研究[J];中國(guó)工商管理研究;2002年01期

，

本文編號(hào)：1769923