我國工業設計權利保護制度之再探求-檢視我國以專利制度保護工業設計之合理性

The re-explore of the industrial design protection system- the rationality of protection of industrial design under patent law

蔣昕佑(Hsin-You Chiang)

指導教授 ： 謝銘洋

國立臺灣大學/法律學院/科際整合法律學研究所/碩士(2016年)

https://doi.org/10.6342/NTU201603177

摘要

「工業設計」於國際智慧財產組織之意義，係指對於物品之外觀產生之視覺效果之創作，各國均以智慧財產權予以保護，我國係將其以「設計專利」予以保護。良好之物品外觀設計，將使商品於市場上能快速吸引消費者之眼光並選購，尤其我國目前已經入發展「文創產業」之時代，市場上衣充斥各種外觀經過精心設計之商品，工業設計之保護制度是否適切，乃係十分重要之議題。
本論文以工業設計發展之歷史歷史切入，發現係因工業革命後，生產方式由傳統少量之手工製作，轉變為運用機械而大量生產之情況，而其保護者主要係「視覺性」之創作，其與保護「技術創作」之專利制度顯然不同，我國法將其歸為專利之一種，顯有疑問。經本論文分析現行法規範後，發現對於工業設計之保護，於保護客體、保護要件、審查程序與侵害鑑定四大層次中，均與以技術創作為導向之「專利」毫無關聯，以專利法予以保護，顯然更加體現工業設計「客子」或「寄養」之地位。
我國法因歷史因素，以「設計專利」制度，強行將工業設計規範於專利法中，長期下來之結果，不但造成體系定位之錯誤，更造成對於工業設計之誤解，忽略其本身係保護「視覺性創作」之本質。而此種結果，亦造成工業設計並無自己之主體性，以促進產業發展之角度而言，將造成工業設計被歸類為專利法之一支，而無適宜之規範供業界利用。本論文認為，主管機關應針對工業設計重行理解，本於產業界之需求，妥適規劃關於其保護目的、構成要件、審查程序、侵害判斷之準則，以及架設規費、註冊或登記等管理制度，祈能藉此重新建立正確之智慧財產權法體系，達到促進國家設計發展之目的。

關鍵字

工業設計 ； 專利 ； 設計專利 ； 應用美術著作 ； 工業產品

並列摘要

The meaning of “industrial design” in the World Intellectual Property Organization refers to the creation of visual effects produced by the outward appearance of an article, which is protected in countries all over the world by intellectual property rights. In Taiwan, however, industrial designs are protected by “design patents.” A good design of an article’s appearance can help a product to quickly catch the eyes of the purchasing consumers in the market. As Taiwan has now entered the era of “cultural and creative industry,” where the market is filled with all sorts of products that have well-designed appearances, whether the protection system for industrial designs is appropriate has become a very important issue.
This thesis begins with the history of industrial design and discusses how the method of production has transformed from traditional handicraft manufactures to mass machinery production due to the Industrial Revolution; what needs to be protected in industrial design is mainly its “visual” creation, which is obviously different from “technical creations” protected by the patent system. Thus, classifying industrial design as a type of patent is questionable. Having analyzed the norms of the laws now in force, this thesis finds that with respect to the protection of industrial design, the four main dimensions of object of protection, protection requirements, review procedures, and infringement assessment are all unrelated to the technical creation-oriented “patents”. Protecting industrial design with the Patent Act further enforces its “guest” or “foster” status.
For historical reasons, Taiwanese laws, based on the “design patent” system, placed industrial design under the Patent Act. Over the years, this has not only resulted in mispositioning industrial design but has also contributed to the misunderstanding of industrial design, overlooking that protection lies in protecting the essence of “visual creation”. This also causes industrial design to lose its subjectivity. In terms of promoting industrial development, this renders industrial design to be categorized as a branch of the Patent Act, with no proper norms for the industry to rely on. This thesis holds that the authorities in charge should rethink the meaning of industrial design. Based on the needs of the industry, the criteria regarding the purpose of the protection, the element requirements, the apply procedures, and the infringement judgment should all be developed. A management system should be created to handle charges, fees, applications, and registrations. It is hoped that through the above recommendations, a proper intellectual property rights system can be established while supporting the goal of facilitating the country’s design development.

並列關鍵字

industrial design ； patent ； patent right ； works of applied arts ； industrial product

參考文獻

1、 蔡明誠，論著作之原創性與創作性要件，國立台灣大學法學論叢，第26卷第1期，1996年，頁177-194。

5、 葉哲維，從工業設計的觀念探討新式樣專利，政大智慧財產評論，第4卷第1期，2006年4月，頁91-103。

7、 曾耀德，設計專利侵權判斷之相關法律問題研究-以美國、日本及我國法制為中心，中原大學財經法律研究所，2010年。

2、 蔡明誠，新式樣專利要件問題之評析，律師雜誌，第237期，1999年6月，頁17-29。

14、 謝銘洋，從歐洲設計專利規範與實踐探討我國對新式樣專利創作性之判斷：智慧財產法院99年度民專上更（一）字1號民事判決解析，法令月刊，第62卷11期，2011年11月，頁1-9。