外观设计专利侵权判定研究

发布时间：2018-05-18 02:32

本文选题：外观设计 + 保护范围　；参考：《湖南师范大学》2011年硕士论文

【摘要】：对外观设计给予专利保护,可有效保护专利权人的市场利益,促进产品式样不断创新,进而提高产品市场竞争能力。优秀的外观设计是一种智力创造性劳动,然而仿造起来却极为简单,同时有些专利授权质量不高,专利权人轻率的行使权利,外观设计专利侵权纠纷案件也不断增多。由于外观设计专利及其侵权的复杂性,专利法及最高法在2009年底出台的相应的司法解释只有原则性的规定,其中许多问题在理论界还存在争议,因而对保护外观设计专利的实践不能起到全面的指导作用。外观设计与实用新型、发明、著作权、商标权、知名商品特有的包装装潢等的交叉或重合,愈发增加了侵权判定的难度。此外,实践中还存在对专利司法理解与适用的不统一,法官的“自由裁量”权过大,有时会出现相同的案件审判结果迥异的情况。在司法实践判断过程中,争议的焦点、难点首先在于判断主体标准问题,我国现有的法律规定是以“普通消费者的知识水平和认知能力”为标准,参照美国法律所使用的“知悉先前设计的普通观察者”标准,我国目前宜以同类或类似产品的经常性购买者及零组件契约采购者的认知能力和知识水平进行判断；其次是关于所选用的判断方法问题,美国自Egyptian Goddess案后重新回到单独采用最高法院自1871年由Gorham案创设的“普通观察者测试”,借以对比,我国宜运用“创新判断法”、“普通观察者判断法”、“交叉对比判断法”等方法进行综合分析判断。为了更好的实施侵权判定,更加公正、合理地维护当事人利益,减少侵权纠纷的发生,须适当提高外观设计专利授权条件,改初步审查为实质审查,简化无效程序和缩短审判周期,提高审判效率,加强审判队伍建设,在适当时候引入部分外观设计保护制度。
[Abstract]:The patent protection of design can effectively protect the patentee's market interests, promote the innovation of product pattern, and then improve the competitive ability of product market. Excellent design is a kind of intellectual creative labor, but imitation is very simple, at the same time, some patent authorization quality is not high, patentee exercise the right recklessly, design patent infringement dispute cases are also increasing. Due to the complexity of design patent and its infringement, the corresponding judicial interpretation issued by patent law and supreme law at the end of 2009 has only the provisions of principle, many of which are still controversial in the theoretical circle. Therefore, the practice of protecting the design patent can not play a comprehensive guiding role. The intersection or overlap of design and utility model, invention, copyright, trademark rights, and the unique packaging and decoration of well-known commodities has increased the difficulty of judgment of infringement. In addition, in practice, there is a lack of unity between the judicial understanding and application of patent, and the judge's "discretion" is too large, and sometimes the same trial results will be very different. In the process of judicial practice judgment, the focus of the dispute lies in the criterion of judging the subject first. The existing legal provisions of our country are based on the standard of "the level of knowledge and cognitive ability of ordinary consumers". Referring to the standard of "know the previously designed ordinary Observer" used in American law, it is advisable to judge the cognitive ability and knowledge level of the regular buyers of similar or similar products and the buyers of component contracts in our country at present; Secondly, about the choice of judgment methods, the United States has returned to the "ordinary Observer Test" created by the Supreme Court since 1871 in the Gorham case since the Egyptian Goddess case. In order to compare, it is appropriate to apply the "innovative judgment method" in our country. The general observer judgment method and the cross contrast judgment method are used to analyze and judge synthetically. In order to better enforce the judgment of infringement, safeguard the interests of the parties fairly and reasonably, and reduce the occurrence of infringement disputes, it is necessary to properly improve the licensing conditions of design patents and change the preliminary examination to substantive review. It simplifies the invalid procedure, shortens the trial cycle, improves the efficiency of the trial, strengthens the construction of the judicial team, and introduces part of the design protection system in due course.
【学位授予单位】：湖南师范大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2011
【分类号】：D923.42

【相似文献】