[ 邵胤植 ]——(2003-4-26) / 已閱39190次
[36] See Re Bose Corp., 772 F.2d 866 (Fed Cir. 1985). 本案中，五邊形的揚(yáng)聲器被認(rèn)為具有功能性。
[37] 亦有案例，并不要求“有限數(shù)種”，甚至只要求替代選擇不為零即可。See Clamp Mfg. Co. v. Enco Mfg. Co., 870 F.2d 512, 516 (9th Cir. 1989).
[38] 可參見：Warner Brothers, Inc. v. Gay Toys, Inc.,724 F.2d 327, 331 (2d Cir. 1983).
[39] "An aesthetic product feature is functional if it is an "important ingredient in the commercial success of the product". See Pagliero v. Wallace China Co., 198 F.2d 339 (9th Cir. 1952). 本案中，法院認(rèn)為，被告可以自由仿效原告之瓷器紋飾。
[40] See In re Mogen David Wine Corp., 328 F.2d 925 (C.C.P.A. 1964). 本案中，Rich J. 拒絕承認(rèn)美感功能性原則的合理性。
[41] See Christopher J. Kellner, Rethinking The Procedural Treatment Of Functionality: Confronting The Inseparability Of Useful, Aesthetically Pleasing, And Source-Identifying Features Of Product Designs, 46 Emory L.J. 913, 1997, at 939.
[42] 參見：Peter E. Mims, Promotional Goods and the Functionality Doctrine: An Economic Model of Trademarks, 63 Tex. L. Rev. 639, 1984, at 661.
[43] Id., at 662.
[44] See Mitchell M. Wong, The Aesthetic Functionality Doctrine And The Law Of Trade-Dress Protection, 83 Cornell L. Rev. 1116, 1998, at 1120.
[45] Id., at 1142.
[46] See SK & F Co. v. Premo Pharm. Lab., Inc., 625 F.2d 1055, 1063 (3d Cir. 1980).
[47] See Vuitton et Fils S.A. v. J. Young Enters., 644 F.2d 769, 774 (9th Cir. 1981).
[48] See George J. Stigler, The Theory of Price 180, 182 (4th ed. 1987) at 197-98 & Fig.12-1.
[49] 相同觀點另見Vornado, at 1507. 法院認(rèn)為，商標(biāo)法上之功能性定義，往往建立在經(jīng)濟(jì)與競爭需要的基礎(chǔ)之上。
[50] See Vornado Air Circulation Systems, Inc. v. Duracraft Corp., 58 F.3d 1498, 35 U.S.P.Q.2d 1332 (10th Cir. 1995), at 1506.
[51] 同上注。Product configuration may be "patentably useful, novel, and non-obvious and also non-functional, in trade dress parlance".
[52] See Thomas McCarthy, McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition, 4th ed., West 2001, at 7.63.
[53] See Vornado Air Circulation Systems, Inc. v. Duracraft Corp., 58 F.3d 1498 (10th Cir. 1995).
[54] [It] is a... significant inventive aspect of the invention.
[55] See Michael S. Perez, Reconciling the Patent Act and the Lanham Act: Should Product Configurations Be Entitled to Trade Dress Protection After the Expiration of a Utility or Design Patent?, 4 Tex. Intell. Prop. L.J. 383, 384 n.2 (1996), at 411-12.
[56] See Judith Beth Prowda, The Trouble With Trade Dress Protection Of Product Design, 1998 Albany Law Review, at 1333.
[57] Id., at 1356.
[58] See Zip Dee, Inc. v. Dometic Corp., 931 F. Supp. (N.D. Ill. 1996), at 611.
[59] See Thomas & Betts Corp. v. Panduit Corp., 935 F. Supp. 1399, 1404 (N.D. Ill. 1996).
[60] 另可見：Christopher J. Kellner, Rethinking The Procedural Treatment Of Functionality: Confronting The Inseparability Of Useful, Aesthetically Pleasing, And Source-Identifying Features Of Product Designs, 46 Emory L.J. 913, 1997, at 949.
總共6頁 [1] [2] [3] [4] 5 [6]
上一頁 下一頁
