時尚設計之智慧財產權保護－以美國時尚設計保護草案為中心

Intellectual Property Protection of Fashion Designs

巫俊毅(Chun-I Wu)

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(2013年)

https://doi.org/10.6342/NTU.2013.10978

摘要

隨著網路等通訊科技發展，各類訊息傳遞變得極為快速且方便，對時尚有興趣者能在網路或電視上即時觀賞奧斯卡金像獎等紅毯走秀，或是在各類時尚發表會結束後的數小時就在網路上欣賞到現場照片，在驚艷於此類高級訂製服或伸展台上最新時尚作品的同時，這些設計師花費數個月到數年才設計完成的產品，轉瞬間就已藉由數位影像傳送到亞洲地區的廉價成衣工廠，並能在數星期內就縫製完成並送往美國的服飾店銷售。
此類仿製者之所以能肆無忌憚的仿製這些商品，係因美國現行智慧財產權法幾乎不對其提供保護，在此情形下，美國近年出現試圖以特別立法的方式賦予「時尚設計」類似著作權之保護。本文將從介紹美國近年時尚設計相關法案，以及歐盟等世界上相關保護制度介紹開始，並簡介美國對於該草案之學說論述；我國法上則依序闡述時尚設計產品受著作權法、專利法、商標法與公平法保護之現狀，主要著重於在該制度下尋求保護時會遭遇之困難點，以實務見解或判決為觀察主軸。
既然各國對美術工藝品或應用美術受保護之限制主要目的都是要在著作權法與專利法間畫出界線，避免其保護不慎及於實用功能，造成技術壟斷阻礙進步，本文最後提出建議，我國現行法下其實可容許美術工藝品本身直接尋求著作權保護，但基於其實用性質，常有壟斷於技術、思想之疑慮，或可嘗試在著作權法中透過「思想與表達合併原則」延伸出對此類實用物品的非功能性要求，或是採取類推適用設計專利的非功能性要求；同時輔以提高侵害判斷近似程度以配合此類物品個別性不高的特質，如此再搭配設計專利、商標法、公平法之體系似可適當保障時尚設計產品。

關鍵字

時尚設計 ； 美術工藝品 ； 應用美術 ； 立體商標 ； 功能性 ； 設計專利 ； 公平交易法

並列摘要

Nowadays, a designer can have the fruits of her labor stolen in a flash. Companies that specialize in fashion knockoffs often send representatives to runway shows or red-carpet events to take digital photographs of the designs. These photographs are then sent to factories in China that mass-produce less expensive copies of the designs quickly enough to put the knockoffs on the market months before the original design appears, thus leaving designers little chance to recoup the costs of production.

Because current U.S. intellectual property laws do not address the unique issues involved in fashion design, pirates appropriate, or even directly replicate, others' designs even in the face of a constant stream of lawsuits. In recent years, there has been much debate about the need for intellectual property protection for fashion designs. Several bills introduced to provide a solution for this need. The Design Piracy Prohibition Act (DPPA), which was introduced in the House April 30, 2009, and the Innovative Design Protection and Piracy Prevention Act (IDPPPA), which was introduced in the Senate on August 5, 2010, would have amended Chapter 13 of the Copyright Act to provide “sui generis” protection for fashion designs. On September 12, 2012, Senator Charles Schumer introduced the Innovative Design Protection Act (IDPA) as a companion bill to the IDPPPA legislation.

This article discusses why current jurisprudence insufficiently addresses the needs of fashion industry, and analyzes the need to protect fashion designs, as well as proponents’ and opponents' concerns. This article further discusses difficulties that fashion designs would encounter while seeking intellectual property protection in Taiwan, including copyright, patent, trademark, and unfair competition laws. Finally, it will suggest that apparels “itself” can be protected through copyright, not necessarily from design documents, and limited by non-functionality test, as in U.S. restatement (third) of unfair competition, to prevent improper monopoly of technics or functions.

並列關鍵字

fashion design ； work of artistic craftsmanship ； applied art ； trade dress ； non-functional ； design patent ； unfair competition law

參考文獻

范智達（2012）。〈由實務見解探討我國應用美術之著作權保護－以美國實務見解為啟示〉，《法令月刊》，63卷4期，頁91-110。

蔡明誠（2000）。〈論商標之抽象識別性與具體識別力要件：以行政法院八十九年度判字第二五一號判決為例〉，《法令月刊》，51卷10期，頁526-538。

鄧志松、唐代彪（2006）。〈兩岸賽局：一個新情勢的開始〉，《國家發展研究》，第5卷2期，頁21-50。

謝銘洋（1994）。〈智慧財產權之概念與法律體系〉，《台大法學論叢》，第24卷第1期，頁411-442。

謝銘洋（1995）。〈智慧財產權與公平交易法之關係：以專利權為中心〉，《國立臺灣大學法學論叢》，第24卷2期，頁 495-584。