外观设计功能性外观特征排除标准在欧盟的新发展——由DOCERAM有限责任公司诉CeramTec有限责任公司侵犯外观设计案说起
|
摘要
欧盟法院于2018年3月8日对DOCERAM有限责任公司诉CeramTec有限责任公司侵犯外观设计一案作出先行裁决。欧盟法院在该判决中首次确认"因果关系标准"是判断《欧盟理事会共同体外观设计保护条例》第8条第1款中"仅取决于技术功能"的外观特征的主要判断标准,并明确适用该标准应考虑个案中所有客观的关键情况,而不是以"合理观察者"的角度出发。该判决保障了欧盟成员国在未来的司法实践中适用工业产品外观特征功能性排除规定的一致性,并在外观设计法与专利法之间划出一条更清晰的界限,也为我国外观设计司法实践提供了理论和实践方面的借鉴。
On March 08 th, 2018, the Court of Justice of the European Union(CJEU) delivered a preliminary ruling on the assessment functionality in Designs in the case DOCERAM GmbH vs. CeramTec GmbH. The CJEU confi rmed for the fi rst time its view that the causality criteria should be the primary criteria to determine whether a relevant feature is ‘solely dictated by its technical function', within the meaning of Article 8(1) Community Design Regulation. In order to apply the causality criterion, the national court must take account of all the relevant objective circumstances of each individual specifi c case. The perception of the objective observer is not important. The judgment guarantees the consistency of interpretation of the technical function exclusion between national courts and helps clarify the boundary between design law and patent law. This case also provides theoretical and practical guidance for the judicial practice of China.
On March 08 th, 2018, the Court of Justice of the European Union(CJEU) delivered a preliminary ruling on the assessment functionality in Designs in the case DOCERAM GmbH vs. CeramTec GmbH. The CJEU confi rmed for the fi rst time its view that the causality criteria should be the primary criteria to determine whether a relevant feature is ‘solely dictated by its technical function', within the meaning of Article 8(1) Community Design Regulation. In order to apply the causality criterion, the national court must take account of all the relevant objective circumstances of each individual specifi c case. The perception of the objective observer is not important. The judgment guarantees the consistency of interpretation of the technical function exclusion between national courts and helps clarify the boundary between design law and patent law. This case also provides theoretical and practical guidance for the judicial practice of China.
引文
1.参见苏杭:《论外观设计的创作性》,载《外观设计专利保护实务》(程永顺主编),法律出版社2005年版,第35页;最高人民法院行政判决书(2012)行提字第14号;最高人民法院民事判决书(2015)民提字第23号。
2.Council Regulation(EC)No 6/2002 of 12 December 2001 on Community design.
3..EuGH,Rs.C-395/16,GRUR 2018,612-DOCERAM GmbH/CeramTec GmbH.
4.LG Düsseldorf,Urt.v.13.08.2015-14c O 98/13,BeckRS 2016,13580.
5.OLG Düsseldorf,Beschluss vom 07.07.2016-I-20 U 124/15,BeckRS 2016,13903.
6.见注释3.
7.See Jason J.Du Mont/Mark D.Janis,“Functionality in Design Protection Systems”,19 Journal of Intellectual Property Law,261(2012),p.287;Tiffany Mahmood,“Design Law in the United States as Compared to the European Community Design System:What Do We Need to Fix?”,24 Fordham Intellectual Property,Media and Entertainment Law Journal 555(2014),p.567;Graeme Dinwoodie,“Federalized Functionalism:The Future of Design Protection in the European Union”,24 American Intellectual Property Law Assocation Quarterly Journal 611(1996),p.647-648.
8.见注释2,recital 10.
9.Christine Fellner,Industrial Design Law,London:Sweet&Maxwell(1995),p.274.
10.Vgl.Müller-Broich,GRUR-Prax 2018,5,6.
11.Vgl.3.Beschwerdekammer des HABM v.22.10.2009,Sache R 690/2007-3,Lindner Recylingtech/Franssons Verkst?der-Chaff cutters,Rn.37;Beschwerdekammer des HABM v.29.04.2010,Sache R 0211/2008-3,Fluid distribution equipment,Rn.36.
12.E.C.Green Paper on the Legal Protection of Industrial Design,06.1991,III/F/5131/91/EN.,5.4.1.at 56.
13.见注释7,Jason J.Du Mont/Mark D.Janis,p.288.
14.见注释3,Rn.19.
15.见注释3,Rn.19,Rn.20-21.
16.Landor&Hawa International Ltd v Azure Designs Ltd[2006]EWCA Civ 1285,[2006]E.C.D.R.31;Bailey&Anor v Haynes&Ors[2006]EWPCC 5,[2007]FSR 10;Silverlit Toys Manufactory Ltd v.Ditro Ocio 2000 SL;Court of Appeal for Western Sweden[2010]-Case T-3469-09 and others.
17.OLG Düsseldorf,Urt.v.3.4.2007-20 U 128/06,BeckRS 2007,11285-Autofelgen;OLG Düsseldorf,GRUR-RR 2012,200,205-Tablet PC;LG Düsseldorf,Urt.v.26.6.2014-14 c O 37/13;LG Düsseldorf,GRUR-RS 2015,05506-DentalMischer.
18.Regulation(EU)2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2017 on the European Union trade mark.
19.EuGH,Rs.C-299/99,GRUR 2002,804-Koninklijke Philips Electronics NV/Remington Consumer Products Ltd.
20.EuGH,Rs.C-48/09 P,GRUR 2010,1008-Lego Juris A/S/HABM.
21.见注释10,Müller-Broich,S.6;Koschtial,GRUR Int 2003,973,979.
22.GA Colomer,Schlussantr?ge vom 23.01.2001-Rs.C-299/99.
23.Kur,GRUR 2002,661,664.
24.见注释22,Rn.38.
25.Hackbarth,Anmerkung zu EuGH v.8.3.2018-C-395/16,GRUR 2018,612,614.
26.见注释3,Rn.30.
27.Vgl.3.Beschwerdekammer des HABM v.22.10.2009,Sache R 690/2007-3,Lindner Recylingtech/Franssons Verkst?derChaff cutters.
28.见注释3,Rn.31-32.
29.见注释25,S.615.
30.见注释25,S.615.
31.Vgl.3.Beschwerdekammer des HABM v.22.10.2009,Sache R 690/2007-3,Lindner Recylingtech/Franssons Verkst?derChaff cutters.
32.见注释2,Article 6(1)and Article 10(1).
33.见注释25,S.615.
34.法释[2009]21号。
35.参见最高人民法院行政判决书(2012)行提字第14号。
36.参见最高人民法院民事判决书(2015)民提字第23号。
2.Council Regulation(EC)No 6/2002 of 12 December 2001 on Community design.
3..EuGH,Rs.C-395/16,GRUR 2018,612-DOCERAM GmbH/CeramTec GmbH.
4.LG Düsseldorf,Urt.v.13.08.2015-14c O 98/13,BeckRS 2016,13580.
5.OLG Düsseldorf,Beschluss vom 07.07.2016-I-20 U 124/15,BeckRS 2016,13903.
6.见注释3.
7.See Jason J.Du Mont/Mark D.Janis,“Functionality in Design Protection Systems”,19 Journal of Intellectual Property Law,261(2012),p.287;Tiffany Mahmood,“Design Law in the United States as Compared to the European Community Design System:What Do We Need to Fix?”,24 Fordham Intellectual Property,Media and Entertainment Law Journal 555(2014),p.567;Graeme Dinwoodie,“Federalized Functionalism:The Future of Design Protection in the European Union”,24 American Intellectual Property Law Assocation Quarterly Journal 611(1996),p.647-648.
8.见注释2,recital 10.
9.Christine Fellner,Industrial Design Law,London:Sweet&Maxwell(1995),p.274.
10.Vgl.Müller-Broich,GRUR-Prax 2018,5,6.
11.Vgl.3.Beschwerdekammer des HABM v.22.10.2009,Sache R 690/2007-3,Lindner Recylingtech/Franssons Verkst?der-Chaff cutters,Rn.37;Beschwerdekammer des HABM v.29.04.2010,Sache R 0211/2008-3,Fluid distribution equipment,Rn.36.
12.E.C.Green Paper on the Legal Protection of Industrial Design,06.1991,III/F/5131/91/EN.,5.4.1.at 56.
13.见注释7,Jason J.Du Mont/Mark D.Janis,p.288.
14.见注释3,Rn.19.
15.见注释3,Rn.19,Rn.20-21.
16.Landor&Hawa International Ltd v Azure Designs Ltd[2006]EWCA Civ 1285,[2006]E.C.D.R.31;Bailey&Anor v Haynes&Ors[2006]EWPCC 5,[2007]FSR 10;Silverlit Toys Manufactory Ltd v.Ditro Ocio 2000 SL;Court of Appeal for Western Sweden[2010]-Case T-3469-09 and others.
17.OLG Düsseldorf,Urt.v.3.4.2007-20 U 128/06,BeckRS 2007,11285-Autofelgen;OLG Düsseldorf,GRUR-RR 2012,200,205-Tablet PC;LG Düsseldorf,Urt.v.26.6.2014-14 c O 37/13;LG Düsseldorf,GRUR-RS 2015,05506-DentalMischer.
18.Regulation(EU)2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2017 on the European Union trade mark.
19.EuGH,Rs.C-299/99,GRUR 2002,804-Koninklijke Philips Electronics NV/Remington Consumer Products Ltd.
20.EuGH,Rs.C-48/09 P,GRUR 2010,1008-Lego Juris A/S/HABM.
21.见注释10,Müller-Broich,S.6;Koschtial,GRUR Int 2003,973,979.
22.GA Colomer,Schlussantr?ge vom 23.01.2001-Rs.C-299/99.
23.Kur,GRUR 2002,661,664.
24.见注释22,Rn.38.
25.Hackbarth,Anmerkung zu EuGH v.8.3.2018-C-395/16,GRUR 2018,612,614.
26.见注释3,Rn.30.
27.Vgl.3.Beschwerdekammer des HABM v.22.10.2009,Sache R 690/2007-3,Lindner Recylingtech/Franssons Verkst?derChaff cutters.
28.见注释3,Rn.31-32.
29.见注释25,S.615.
30.见注释25,S.615.
31.Vgl.3.Beschwerdekammer des HABM v.22.10.2009,Sache R 690/2007-3,Lindner Recylingtech/Franssons Verkst?derChaff cutters.
32.见注释2,Article 6(1)and Article 10(1).
33.见注释25,S.615.
34.法释[2009]21号。
35.参见最高人民法院行政判决书(2012)行提字第14号。
36.参见最高人民法院民事判决书(2015)民提字第23号。