本文關鍵詞： 知名商品 外觀設計 多重保護 價值 利益平衡 不正當競爭　出處：《西南政法大學》2014年碩士論文　論文類型：學位論文

【摘要】：2010年，上海中韓晨光公司起訴寧波微亞達公司侵犯外觀設計知識產(chǎn)權。這一案件不僅被納入2010年知識產(chǎn)權十大案件之中產(chǎn)生較大的影響，也牽扯出關于知名商品外觀設計多重保護問題的討論。 從理論角度分析，知名商品外觀設計的多重保護具有正當性。有學者依據(jù)知識產(chǎn)權選擇原則提出：權利人的選擇只能是唯一的，如果選擇一種權利保護形式，就必須放棄其他權利保護形式。因為各個知識產(chǎn)權在保護對象的范圍、保護時間和保護方式等方面是重疊的，所以多重保護是重復保護，不具有正當性。實質(zhì)上重復保護的觀點并不正確，各個知識產(chǎn)權的權利取得方式、保護角度、權利效力強度并不相同。并且即使存在重疊，可知名商品外觀設計也具有內(nèi)涵不同法益的可能，而各個知識產(chǎn)權單行法是從不同法益出發(fā)對外觀設計進行保護，所以多重保護仍具有正當性。并且知名商品的外觀設計相較普通外觀設計具有識別商品的顯著性，這一顯著性使得商品從同類產(chǎn)品中脫穎而出，獲得了更大的競爭優(yōu)勢。即使該設計曾經(jīng)以專利權的形式獲得保護，但由顯著性帶來的競爭優(yōu)勢并沒有隨專利保護期屆滿而消失，所以仍需其他知識產(chǎn)權繼續(xù)予以保護。專利法為外觀設計設定保護期的目的在于保持權利主體之間、信息創(chuàng)造與推廣之間的平衡機制。知名商品外觀設計的多重保護看似破壞了利益平衡�？墒菍嵸|(zhì)上，多重保護避免了不正當競爭，保持了權利人與社會公眾間的利益平衡，維護了消費者的合法權益。即使多重保護有設計創(chuàng)新長期掌握在權利人手中的形式特征，也并沒有阻礙技術進步和市場競爭。因為外觀設計屬于設計方案，是對美的表達的有形形式，而人們對于美的感受千差萬別，不存在一種設計可以成為基礎設計而阻礙其他競爭者進入市場的情況。 從實證角度研究，也能得出多重保護在法律實踐中是獲得支持的。我國國內(nèi)法院對類似的知名商品外觀設計的多重保護糾紛做出過支持的判決，知識產(chǎn)權局和一些學者也紛紛提出支持的觀點。國外，如知識產(chǎn)權法比較完善的美國以及幾個知識經(jīng)濟高速發(fā)展的歐洲發(fā)達國家都存在支持多重保護的法律或者案例。 不管是理論研究還是實證分析，目的都是為了解決現(xiàn)實中的糾紛。再次審視本文的案例，可以得出這樣的結論：K-35型中性筆既然符合多重保護的條件，滿足特有包裝裝潢權的構成要件，即便曾受專利權的保護，可是K-35型中性筆的外觀設計的競爭價值仍然存在，所以應以特有包裝裝潢權的形式繼續(xù)予以保護。
[Abstract]:In 2010, Shanghai Zhonghan Chenguang Company sued Ningbo Wei Yada Company for infringement of design intellectual property rights. This case was not only included in the 10 IPR cases of 2010, but also had a greater impact. Also involved in the well-known commodity design multiple protection of the discussion. From a theoretical point of view, the multiple protection of well-known commodity designs is justified. According to the principle of intellectual property selection, some scholars have proposed that the right holder's choice can only be unique, if he chooses a form of right protection, It is necessary to give up other forms of protection of rights. Because each intellectual property right overlaps in terms of the scope of the object of protection, the time of protection and the mode of protection, so multiple protection is repetitive protection. It is not justified. The view of repeated protection in essence is not correct. The way in which each intellectual property right is acquired, the angle of protection, and the intensity of the power of the right are not the same. And even if there is overlap, However, the appearance design of well-known goods also has the possibility of different legal interests, and the individual laws of intellectual property rights protect the design from different legal interests. So the multiple protection still has legitimacy. And the appearance design of the well-known goods has the significance of identifying the goods compared with the ordinary designs, which makes the goods stand out from the same kind of products. Gain a greater competitive advantage. Even though the design was protected in the form of a patent, the significant competitive advantage did not disappear with the expiration of the patent protection period, So there is still a need for other intellectual property rights to continue to be protected. The purpose of the patent law to set a protection period for designs is to keep the rights between the subjects. The balance mechanism between information creation and promotion. The multiple protection of well-known commodity design seems to destroy the balance of interests. But in essence, the multiple protection avoids unfair competition and maintains the balance of interests between the right holder and the public. Protecting the legitimate rights and interests of consumers. Even if there is a formal feature of design innovation that has long been in the hands of the right holder, it does not hinder technological progress and market competition. It is a tangible form of expression of beauty, and the perception of beauty varies widely, and there is no such thing as a design that can become the basis of design and prevent other competitors from entering the market. From an empirical point of view, it can also be concluded that multiple protection is supported in legal practice. The domestic courts of our country have made a decision in support of multiple protection disputes over similar well-known commodity designs. The intellectual property Office and some scholars have also put forward the point of support. Foreign countries, such as the United States with relatively perfect intellectual property law and several European developed countries with the rapid development of knowledge economy, all have laws or cases in support of multiple protection. Whether it is theoretical research or empirical analysis, the purpose is to solve disputes in reality. After reviewing the case of this paper, we can draw such a conclusion that since the neutral pen of the type of ": K-35" meets the condition of multiple protection, Even though it has been protected by patent right, the competitive value of the design of K-35 neutral pen still exists, so we should continue to protect it in the form of special packaging and decoration right.
【學位授予單位】：西南政法大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2014
【分類號】：D923.4

【參考文獻】

相關期刊論文 前10條

1 梁志文;;論知識產(chǎn)權規(guī)范競合及其解決路徑——兼評最高人民法院的一則解釋[J];法商研究;2006年02期

2 張玉勇;;從專利權限制角度看利益平衡機制[J];中國發(fā)明與專利;2011年02期

3 馮曉青;;企業(yè)品牌戰(zhàn)略及其實施策略研究[J];武陵學刊;2013年05期

4 袁博;;失效外觀設計進入公有領域的權利限制[J];河南司法警官職業(yè)學院學報;2011年03期

5 余敏;;論實用藝術作品著作權與外觀設計專利權的關系——由人體香水瓶案引發(fā)的法律思考[J];科技信息(科學教研);2008年01期

6 吳漢東;科技、經(jīng)濟、法律協(xié)調(diào)機制中的知識產(chǎn)權法[J];法學研究;2001年06期

7 吳漢東;知識產(chǎn)權的私權與人權屬性——以《知識產(chǎn)權協(xié)議》與《世界人權公約》為對象[J];法學研究;2003年03期

8 錢翠華;;失效的外觀設計專利不再受著作權法保護[J];人民司法;2009年14期

9 凌宗亮;;失效的外觀設計專利仍受著作權法保護[J];人民司法;2010年04期

10 錢光文;丁文聯(lián);;知名商品的司法認定[J];人民司法;2011年07期

，

本文編號：1520137