我國設計專利制度之檢討：以德國及歐盟立法例為比較初探

近年來產業界對於工業設計之智慧財產保護需求，日益增加。所謂的設計，乃對物品之全部或部分之形狀、花紋、色彩或其結合，透過視覺訴求之創作，係保護「外觀及感覺」之創作，從而設計有關智慧財產法律，夾雜著作、專利、商標及不公平競爭法之概念。臺灣與歐洲針對設計之智慧財產法律，最大差異在保護方式。臺灣以專利法之設計專利權保護工業設計，同於美國；德國及其他歐洲國家則採單獨立法（sui generis）。歐洲之設計與時尚市場有相當完善發展，甚早即保護設計及紡織品。有鑑於此，本文分析歐洲將設計納入保護之起源及制度重點，包括創作性要件、創作自由、保護範圍、排他權內容及侵權認定，並以德國設計法為主。檢討及解析臺灣設計專利規定與概念後，本文認為，我國對於設計之保護是置於專利法，致使諸多條文規定與概念不當的受到發明與新型專利之影響，此為設計專利制度之最大挑戰，亦使法院判決逸脫設計之保護，忽略應以「外觀及感覺」、整體印象為核心概念。強化工業設計保護，不僅能鼓勵個別設計人從事創作，亦能促進新商品之創新與投資，攸關相關產業發展。本文認為，臺灣關於設計之智慧財產權，應參考德國及歐盟之法規範架構與邏輯，使設計有足夠的保護。

關鍵字

設計；專利；設計專利；專利權侵害；表徵；整體印象；不公平競爭；智慧財產法院；專利訴訟；仿冒

並列摘要

Design, which encompasses everything from shape, pattern, color or any combination thereof of an article as a whole or in part by visual appeal, is increasingly the subject of intellectual property claims. The design protection is named the protection on ＂look and feel＂. The law of design is confused and splintered among various conceptions in copyright, patent, trademark and unfair competition laws. The key difference between the IP law governing design in Taiwan and Europe is the design protection system. In Taiwan, industrial design is protected by patent right, same as in the USA. Germany and other European countries follow sui generis protection for design. European design and fashion markets are significantly well developed, since IP law for design and textiles has existed for much longer and is more expansive in Europe. For this reason, this article traces back the history of design protection in Europe and reviews the normative conceptions and doctrines of specific design protection system, including the requirement of individual character, freedom of the designer in developing the design, scope of protection, right conferred by the protected design as well as determination of infringement of design right. To address these issues, this article provides comprehensive assessment of the articles and decisions, particularly the German laws. After analyzing the regulations of design patent in Taiwan, this article asserts that Taiwan should reconsider the legal framework of IP protection for industrial design. The main challenge of protection and enforcement of design patent in Taiwan is that lots of regulations and conception of design patent are improperly influenced by the invention patent and utility model patent, since design protection is incorporated into the Patent Act. Consequently, the court decisions depart quite starkly from the normative protection for the subject matter of ＂look and feel＂, namely the overall impression. Enhanced protection for industrial design not only promotes the contribution of individual designers, but also encourages innovation and development of new products and investment in their production. A more accessible design-protection legal system is essential for the industries. This article argues that it is important to bring the IP protection for industrial design in Taiwan into line with the legal framework of German and European design laws, which provides designers with significant levels of protection.

並列關鍵字

design ； patent ； design patent ； patent infringement ； trade dress ； overall impression ； unfair competition ； intellectual property court ； patent litigation ； counterfeit

參考文獻

謝銘洋（2011），〈從歐洲設計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》，62 卷 11 期，頁 1-9。https://doi.org/10.6509/TLM.201111_62(11).0001

李素華（2020），〈專利權範圍與均等侵權之理論基礎：以德國法為比較初探〉，《月旦法學雜誌》，304 期，頁 15-35。https://doi.org/10.3966/1025593130402

李素華（2021），〈設計專利權保護與權利行使：從維修免責條款之立法提案與新近訴訟案談起〉，《專利師季刊》，44 期，頁 96-121。https://doi.org/10.3966/221845622021010044007

李素華、張哲倫（2015），〈專利進步性判斷之法學方法論：美、德之借鏡及臺灣實務之檢討〉，《月旦法學雜誌》，242 期，頁 227-259。https://doi.org/10.3966/102559312015070242011

徐銘夆（2017），〈「機車」與「電動自行車」為非近似物品？：從智慧財產法院 105 年度民專訴字第 62 號判決解析設計專利之物品近似原則〉，《專利師季刊》，31期，頁63-92。https://doi.org/10.3966/221845622017100031005

被引用紀錄

李素華（2021）。我國設計專利侵權判斷方法論之檢討：以整體觀察法及德國立法例為比較初探。臺大法學論叢，50(4)，1639-1723。https://doi.org/10.6199/NTULJ.202112_50(4).0001

國際替代計量

我國設計專利制度之檢討：以德國及歐盟立法例為比較初探

全文下載

主題瀏覽