|
| 文章编号：1672-3104(2016)05-0026-07 |
| |
|
论商业外观的功能性判定——以美国司法判例为中心的比较分析 |
| |
高阳 |
| |
|
（华东政法大学知识产权学院，上海，200042） |
| |
| 摘 要： 商业外观可获得商标法或反不正当竞争法的保护，前提条件为非功能性设计。非功能性要件的理论基础在于一方面防止与发明、实用新型专利的冲突，另一方面意在排除商标法或反不正当竞争法对具有实用性或竞争必需性特征的保护，维护竞争秩序。其中，实用功能性应是指对产品用途必不可少或者影响产品成本或质量的设计。此时，替代性设计的存在不足以证明该设计的非功能性。竞争必需性的设计应是指授予某项设计专有权保护会使竞争者陷入与商誉无关的竞争劣势，替代性设计的存在可证明该设计并不具有竞争必需性。通过对美国商业外观功能性基本原理和判断规则的借鉴，试图对我国立法和司法实务中的相关问题做出必要的澄清和解答。 |
| |
| 关键词： 商业外观；实用功能性；美学功能性；立体商标 |
| |
|
| |
On functionality determination of trade dress: From the view of American judicial practice |
| |
GAO Yang |
| |
（School of Intellectual Property, East China University of Political Science and Law, Shanghai 200042, China） |
| |
| Abstract: The product’s trade dress, under non-functional condition, can be protected by trademark law or law of unfair competition. The theoretical basis of non-functional components lies in, on the one hand preventing conflicts with inventing and applying new type of patents, and on the other hand excluding the protection of trademark law or unjust competition law on applicable or competitive characteristics as well as maintaining competitive order. The practical functionality refers to such design as being essential to the utility of the product and affecting the cost and quality of the product. Meanwhile, substitutive design is not enough to prove the non-functionality of such design. The competitive necessity test should be up to whether exclusive use of the design would put competitors at a significant non-reputation-related disadvantage. The present essay, by taking examples from the basic principles and judgment rules in the functionality analysis of American trade dress, aims at clarifying and resolving relative issues in Chinese legislation and practice. |
| |
Key words: trade dress; utilitarian functionality; aesthetic functionality; three dimensional trademark |
| |
|
