jxtsui 資深會員 
註冊時間: Dec 03, 2006
文章: 1085
來自: "共建和諧社會"的地方
|
發表於: 星期日 2007-10-28 21:49
Dear lawyertk,
Please pardon me for writing in English as I can't input Chinese right now.
As you would appreciate it from this thread, at all times my humble opinion is that this might constitute passing off (there is a likelihood of confusion). It is NOT a counterfeit, or otherwise I wouldn't have mentioned "passing off" right from the very beginning.
Passing off talks about the "likelihood of confusion" -- for example, how likely a person would get confused with a Panerai watch by looking at a Fiber watch (Fiber's representation), and thereby causes a damage to Panerai's goodwill. Passing off deals nothing with novelty or originality however.
Perhaps we are in different jurisdictions, and that's why different interpretations arise. 
|
|
|
arther 白金會員 
註冊時間: Jun 13, 2006
文章: 2012
來自: 猿區
|
發表於: 星期一 2007-10-29 00:22
據我所知全世界的智慧財產權是沒有包含外型的,
也就是所謂的"ID",因為我前公司的外型設計師跟
我說他們要申請智慧財產專利是很難的一件事,因
為外型真的很難判定有沒有侵權.
|
|
|
jxtsui 資深會員
註冊時間: Dec 03, 2006
文章: 1085
來自: "共建和諧社會"的地方
|
發表於: 星期一 2007-10-29 09:04
For quick reference:
Statutory protection: Design rights (with links of the relevant Acts):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_right
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_design_rights
Common law protection: Passing off (with links of some established case laws):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passing_off
A possible reason why it's not easy to seek design right protection is because of the technicality and difficulty in establishing an infringement. Another reason may be the fact that the design right protection only lasts for a short period of time (ie it expires so soon!). As such, the aggrieved party may find himself relunctant to file/pursue a lawsuit in view of the legal costs and time involved (as compared with the outcome and damages).
|
|
|
georgenee 資深會員
註冊時間: Jan 14, 2007
文章: 1579
來自: Targaryen
|
發表於: 星期一 2007-10-29 12:47
|
|
|
lawyertk 資深會員
註冊時間: Aug 21, 2005
文章: 614
|
發表於: 星期一 2007-10-29 17:30
| jxtsui 寫到: | Dear lawyertk,
Please pardon me for writing in English as I can't input Chinese right now.
As you would appreciate it from this thread, at all times my humble opinion is that this might constitute passing off (there is a likelihood of confusion). It is NOT a counterfeit, or otherwise I wouldn't have mentioned "passing off" right from the very beginning.
Passing off talks about the "likelihood of confusion" -- for example, how likely a person would get confused with a Panerai watch by looking at a Fiber watch (Fiber's representation), and thereby causes a damage to Panerai's goodwill. Passing off deals nothing with novelty or originality however.
Perhaps we are in different jurisdictions, and that's why different interpretations arise. |
如果版大所看到的這錶不是made by Fiber，而是勞力士出了個「復古款」，不知大大的意見是否也認為「person would get confused with a Panerai watch by looking at a Rolex watch」，所以勞力士已侵害了沛錶的權利？真不曉得這座墊型錶款是誰最先創造的？
|
|
|
al 終極會員 
註冊時間: Jun 17, 2005
文章: 7391
|
發表於: 星期一 2007-10-29 18:10
| lawyertk 寫到: | | jxtsui 寫到: | Dear lawyertk,
Please pardon me for writing in English as I can't input Chinese right now.
As you would appreciate it from this thread, at all times my humble opinion is that this might constitute passing off (there is a likelihood of confusion). It is NOT a counterfeit, or otherwise I wouldn't have mentioned "passing off" right from the very beginning.
Passing off talks about the "likelihood of confusion" -- for example, how likely a person would get confused with a Panerai watch by looking at a Fiber watch (Fiber's representation), and thereby causes a damage to Panerai's goodwill. Passing off deals nothing with novelty or originality however.
Perhaps we are in different jurisdictions, and that's why different interpretations arise. |
如果版大所看到的這錶不是made by Fiber，而是勞力士出了個「復古款」，不知大大的意見是否也認為「person would get confused with a Panerai watch by looking at a Rolex watch」，所以勞力士已侵害了沛錶的權利？真不曉得這座墊型錶款是誰最先創造的？ | 勞的座墊型錶殼與錶耳和小沛有著很明顯的差異!
而版上這支幾乎是照抄 
|
|
|
jxtsui 資深會員
註冊時間: Dec 03, 2006
文章: 1085
來自: "共建和諧社會"的地方
|
發表於: 星期二 2007-10-30 21:52
lawyertk 兄:
如上. 或許咱們身處的司法區有別, 所以手上的尺未必相同.
倘若按我方的尺度提問的話, 則這問題應為:"how likely a person would get confused with a Panerai watch by the Rolex watch (representation of product itself), and thereby causing a damage to Panerai's goodwill."
因為英聯邦法系(小妹所在地適用法系)的影射法乃屬侵權法 (tort of passing off). 故此 "causing a damage to one's goodwill (by the confusion engendered by the misrepresentation)" 應為成立passing off 的要素之一 .
(話說回來, 勞的座墊型錶和小沛有著很明顯的差異. 似乎一般人也不會把這勞誤認作小沛, 或覺得這勞在影射小沛呢.)
也許前輩所論乃monopoly protection (actionable right) 而非 right to prevent copying.
可否請前輩分享一下閣下所在地的適用法律(影射法/註冊設計權等等)? 先謝謝.
_________________
道隱於小成
言隱於榮華
|
|
|
lawyertk 資深會員
註冊時間: Aug 21, 2005
文章: 614
|
發表於: 星期三 2007-10-31 17:52
| jxtsui 寫到: | lawyertk 兄:
如上. 或許咱們身處的司法區有別, 所以手上的尺未必相同.
倘若按我方的尺度提問的話, 則這問題應為:"how likely a person would get confused with a Panerai watch by the Rolex watch (representation of product itself), and thereby causing a damage to Panerai's goodwill."
因為英聯邦法系(小妹所在地適用法系)的影射法乃屬侵權法 (tort of passing off). 故此 "causing a damage to one's goodwill (by the confusion engendered by the misrepresentation)" 應為成立passing off 的要素之一 .
(話說回來, 勞的座墊型錶和小沛有著很明顯的差異. 似乎一般人也不會把這勞誤認作小沛, 或覺得這勞在影射小沛呢.)
也許前輩所論乃monopoly protection (actionable right) 而非 right to prevent copying.
可否請前輩分享一下閣下所在地的適用法律(影射法/註冊設計權等等)? 先謝謝. |
台灣對於廣義的智慧財產權的保障主要是由專利法、商標法及著作權法所規範。與工業設計有關的領域是在專利法中規範賦予「新型專利」，也就是以產品外型申請等同於專利權之保護。但要取得新型專利權之保護，首先須經向專利機關申請登記，且該項「新型」須未經公開使用，且非公眾所週知。由於取得某新型專利須經申請登記並繳交規費，故除非該項新型確能獲得廣大大眾之喜愛，其強度可大到讓設計者願意付費申請專有排他之權利以限制後來之競爭者，否則在成本考量下，並非每一項工業設計者均願向主管機關申請新型專利保護。再者，縱已申請新型專利保護，但競爭者可容易地透過修改部分設計以迴避所申請之新型專利內容，進而避免被認定為侵害新型專利，亦大幅降低原型設計者申請專利保護之意願。若再慮及取締不易，求償金額不高且困難（按台灣沒有類似美國法之高額懲罰賠償制度，且台灣法令對於脫產的規範不足）等因素，願意申請新型專利保護者就更低了。
本版Fiber所製作的錶，在我等腕錶玩家眼中幾乎沒有人不認為它和沛錶的主打錶款很像或可說完全一樣。但在將所有腕錶市場的消費者均納入評量後，是否能說這個Fiber錶足令一般消費者（此處的消費者應是指玩家及廣大的非玩家市場，包含連什麼是沛納海都沒聽過的腕錶消費者）對二個品牌產生混淆不清的認識，誠然令人懷疑。
更何況沛錶就該座墊錶殼之外型並未申請新型專利之保護（個人認為縱然申請亦不會被核准），亦未曾以外型之立體型態申請商標專用之保護，此即我不認為Fiber有侵害沛錶何等權利之理由。至於Fiber的商業行為是否會被認定是「搭便車」行為而違反公平交易法，下節討論。
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
