外观设计法体系化研究
发布时间：2018-09-08 20:45
【摘要】：外观设计的体系化研究,对于系统理解并适用外观设计法律规则至关重要。体系化分析的基础是概念及规则,而对概念及规则的理解核心则在于其价值取向。外观设计法所具有的财产法及智力成果性质决定了其价值取向在于,“通过具体制度的设立激励产生更多有价值的外观设计,并最终达到外观设计所投入的社会总成本与其所带来的社会总收益的最优配置。”外观设计法律制度中的各项规则(如新颖性、创造性、登记制度等)无不体现了该价值取向,而对该价值取向的了解亦是解决实践中争议问题的关键。外观设计应具有确定性、可视性、功能性与非功能性、可复制性。其中,确定性系指外形的确定,而非思想或文字的确定;相对确定,而非绝对确定;申请状态下的确定,而非使用状态下确定;单独构件的确定,而非最终组合状态的确定。外观设计的可视性不等同于美感,其包括在从生产到使用状态下各个阶段的可视性,且并不完全排除肉眼之外的观测工具。外观设计还应具有实用功能,但最终获得保护的并非该功能,而系与功能相结合的设计。外观设计的可复制性强调的是具有产业上的利益,但并不限于机器复制,亦包括手工复制。外观设计所依附的产品依据不同的分类标准,可划分为工业制品与手工制品、二维产品与三维产品、组装产品与产品部件、产品部件与产品的部分、传统产品与新类型产品等,上述分类在外观设计规则中均具有各自的意义。产品的类别对于外观设计的保护范围并无决定性意义,其作用主要体现在行政管理、外观设计的理解、在先设计检索等方面。外观设计的功能性系指技术功能性及法律功能性,而非美学功能性及事实功能性。功能性规则着眼于具体设计特征,而非产品的整体设计为基础。如果某个设计特征属于实现相应技术功能的唯一选择或极为有限方式的选择,则在新颖性、创造性或侵权认定中,该特征不应予以考虑。该制度的目的在于避免通过外观设计的保护使得权利人获得对于技术方案的垄断。新颖性制度的目的主要在于避免重复授权、避免占有公有领域以及保持与侵权标准的一致性。新颖性的认定应以外观设计产品直接购买者的认知能力为基础,由直接购买者对两设计是否属于相同或相近种类产品上的相同或相近的设计进行判断。判断两产品是否属于相近种类的产品应以二者是否具有替代关系为标准。而对于两设计是否构成实质相同,则应采用整体观察的原则,并考虑形状、图案及色彩等不同要素的不同权重,新颖点、功能性特征、设计空间等因素。在具体判断过程中,应站在审查员或法官的角度,依据其思维的特点,确定认定的具体步骤。创造性制度的目的在于提高对外观设计智力成果难度的要求,从而更有利于达到社会总成本与总收益的优化配置。创造性的判断应以普通设计者作为判断主体。对比设计不限于产品的外观设计,亦包括在先作品等,而对于产品的外观设计亦不仅限于相同或相近种类的产品设计。创造性的比对包括单一比对与结合比对两种情形。单一比对中主要考虑的因素包括是否具有转用启示、产品类别的变化是否导致功能与设计特征的结合应付出创造性劳动、区别特征是否属于创新点等等。在结合比对中,则可参考发明专利创造性判断的三步检验法,其关键在于结合启示的认定。侵权规则的制度目的在于尽可能实现对于权利人及社会公众的激励,并达到权利人与社会公众之间的利益平衡。外观设计权利范围的确定应与新颖性及单一比对的创造性标准相一致。现有设计抗辩是最为重要的抗辩理由,该抗辩的适用中应避免以近似性程度高低作为判断抗辩是否成立的标准,而应以现有设计为核心,只要涉案外观设计或被控侵权产品之一落入现有设计的范围,均应认定该抗辩理由成立。
[Abstract]:Systemized study of design is essential for the systematic understanding and application of the legal rules of design. Systemized analysis is based on concepts and rules, while the core of understanding concepts and rules lies in their value orientation. The establishment of the system encourages the creation of more valuable designs, and ultimately achieves the optimal allocation of the total social costs and the total social benefits of the designs. Knowledge is also the key to resolving disputes in practice. Design should be deterministic, visible, functional and non-functional, and reproducible. Certainty refers to the determination of shape, not thought or writing; relative determinacy, not absolute determinacy; determination in the application state, not in the use state; separate construction. The visibility of a design is not the same as that of a sense of beauty. It includes visibility at all stages from production to use, and does not completely exclude observing tools other than the naked eye. Combination design. Reproducibility of design emphasizes industrial benefits, but not limited to machine replication, but also manual replication. Products attached to design can be classified into industrial and handmade products, two-dimensional and three-dimensional products, assembled products and product components, product parts and components according to different classification criteria. The categories of products have no decisive significance for the scope of protection of the design. Their functions are mainly embodied in the administrative management, the understanding of the design, the first design retrieval and so on. Technical and legal functionality, not aesthetic functionality and factual functionality. Functional rules focus on specific design features, not on the basis of the overall design of the product. If a design feature is the only choice or extremely limited choice to achieve the corresponding technical function, it is in the identification of novelty, creativity or infringement. This feature should not be taken into account. The purpose of the system is to avoid the monopoly of the obligee on the technical scheme through the protection of the design. The purpose of the novelty system is to avoid duplicate authorization, avoid occupying the public domain and maintain consistency with the standard of infringement. On the basis of the cognitive ability of the receiver, the direct purchaser decides whether two designs belong to the same or similar products of the same kind or not. The principle of holistic observation should be taken into account and the weights, novelties, functional features and design space of different elements such as shapes, patterns and colors should be taken into account. Creative judgment should be based on the general designer. Contrastive design is not limited to the appearance design of the product, but also includes the first work, and for the appearance design of the product is not limited to the same or similar types of product design. Creative comparisons include single comparisons and combined comparisons. The main considerations in a single comparison include whether there is a revelation of conversion, whether changes in product categories lead to a combination of function and design features to cope with creative labor, and whether features are innovative or not. The key to the three-step test of patent creative judgment lies in the identification of revelation. The purpose of the tort rules is to encourage the obligee and the public as much as possible, and to achieve the balance of interests between the obligee and the public. The determination of the scope of the right of design should be based on novelty and the creativity of a single comparison. The existing design defense is the most important defense reason. The application of this defense should avoid taking the degree of approximation as the criterion to judge whether the defense is tenable or not, and should take the existing design as the core. As long as the appearance design involved or one of the products accused of infringement falls into the scope of the existing design, the defense reason should be recognized. Stand.
【学位授予单位】：中国社会科学院研究生院
【学位级别】：博士
【学位授予年份】：2015
【分类号】：D923.42
[Abstract]:Systemized study of design is essential for the systematic understanding and application of the legal rules of design. Systemized analysis is based on concepts and rules, while the core of understanding concepts and rules lies in their value orientation. The establishment of the system encourages the creation of more valuable designs, and ultimately achieves the optimal allocation of the total social costs and the total social benefits of the designs. Knowledge is also the key to resolving disputes in practice. Design should be deterministic, visible, functional and non-functional, and reproducible. Certainty refers to the determination of shape, not thought or writing; relative determinacy, not absolute determinacy; determination in the application state, not in the use state; separate construction. The visibility of a design is not the same as that of a sense of beauty. It includes visibility at all stages from production to use, and does not completely exclude observing tools other than the naked eye. Combination design. Reproducibility of design emphasizes industrial benefits, but not limited to machine replication, but also manual replication. Products attached to design can be classified into industrial and handmade products, two-dimensional and three-dimensional products, assembled products and product components, product parts and components according to different classification criteria. The categories of products have no decisive significance for the scope of protection of the design. Their functions are mainly embodied in the administrative management, the understanding of the design, the first design retrieval and so on. Technical and legal functionality, not aesthetic functionality and factual functionality. Functional rules focus on specific design features, not on the basis of the overall design of the product. If a design feature is the only choice or extremely limited choice to achieve the corresponding technical function, it is in the identification of novelty, creativity or infringement. This feature should not be taken into account. The purpose of the system is to avoid the monopoly of the obligee on the technical scheme through the protection of the design. The purpose of the novelty system is to avoid duplicate authorization, avoid occupying the public domain and maintain consistency with the standard of infringement. On the basis of the cognitive ability of the receiver, the direct purchaser decides whether two designs belong to the same or similar products of the same kind or not. The principle of holistic observation should be taken into account and the weights, novelties, functional features and design space of different elements such as shapes, patterns and colors should be taken into account. Creative judgment should be based on the general designer. Contrastive design is not limited to the appearance design of the product, but also includes the first work, and for the appearance design of the product is not limited to the same or similar types of product design. Creative comparisons include single comparisons and combined comparisons. The main considerations in a single comparison include whether there is a revelation of conversion, whether changes in product categories lead to a combination of function and design features to cope with creative labor, and whether features are innovative or not. The key to the three-step test of patent creative judgment lies in the identification of revelation. The purpose of the tort rules is to encourage the obligee and the public as much as possible, and to achieve the balance of interests between the obligee and the public. The determination of the scope of the right of design should be based on novelty and the creativity of a single comparison. The existing design defense is the most important defense reason. The application of this defense should avoid taking the degree of approximation as the criterion to judge whether the defense is tenable or not, and should take the existing design as the core. As long as the appearance design involved or one of the products accused of infringement falls into the scope of the existing design, the defense reason should be recognized. Stand.
【学位授予单位】：中国社会科学院研究生院
【学位级别】：博士
【学位授予年份】：2015
【分类号】：D923.42
【参考文献】
相关期刊论文 前10条
1 李秀娟;;外观设计之“一般消费者”认定——“见多识广的用户”和“普通观察者”的案例比较[J];电子知识产权;2012年04期
2 杜蓓蕾;程万华;;三种外观设计保护模式之比较[J];中国发明与专利;2008年11期
3 易俊雄;王玮;;浅议我国外观设计专利侵权的判断标准——从两个案例谈起[J];湖北警官学院学报;2012年03期
4 赵小东;;创造性与外观设计授权条件选择[J];科技与法律;2008年01期
5 张广良;;试论外观设计专利新颖性的判断——兼议外观设计专利性判定标准之修改[J];人民司法;2009年05期
6 徐清平;;外观设计专利请求保护色彩相关问题探讨[J];中国专利与商标;2007年01期
7 何a魑，
本文编号：2231651
本文链接：https://www.wllwen.com/falvlunwen/minfalunwen/2231651.html
