期刊文献+

论外观设计专利的整体观察、综合判断原则 被引量:4

Doctrine of Overall Observation and Comprehensive Assessment for Design Patent
下载PDF
导出
摘要 外观设计专利的确权和侵权判断均采用整体观察、综合判断原则。根据这一原则,所有设计特征在外观设计专利的确权和侵权判断中均发挥相应的作用。外观设计专利区别于现有设计的设计特征,虽然往往对产品外观的整体视觉效果更具有影响,但这并不能否认其他设计特征对外观设计整体视觉效果的作用。"授权性设计特征"的表述反映了法院保护设计创新的思想,但是容易引起误解,导致忽略其他设计特征在外观设计专利的确权和侵权判断中的作用。 The doctrine of overall observation and comprehensive assessment applies both in assessing patentability of a design patent and in finding design patent infringement. This doctrine requires that all design features of a design patent is considered in said two scenarios. Normally, those design features distinguishing a patented design from prior designs have more impact to the overall visual effect of the patented design, which, however, doesn’t mean that the remaining features make no sense in assessing the overall visual effect of the patented design. The term "patentability-related design features" does demonstrate that the court is inclined to pay more attention to the innovation portion of a patented design, elsewhere it readily causes misunderstanding and neglect of the impact of the remaining design features to say overall visual effect.
作者 郭小军
出处 《电子知识产权》 CSSCI 2018年第4期12-21,共10页 Electronics Intellectual Property
关键词 外观设计专利 区别设计特征 确权 侵权 创新 Design patent Distinguishing features Patentability Infringement Innovation
  • 相关文献

二级参考文献14

  • 1董红海.中美外观设计专利侵权判定比较——基于美国外观设计案例的分析[J].知识产权,2005,15(4):52-57. 被引量:10
  • 2Saidman J. Perry. What Is the Point of the Point of Novelty Test for Design Patent Infringement-Nail Buffiers and Saddles: An Analysis Fit for an Ebwptian Goddess [J] . Journal of the Patent and Trademark Office Society, 2008, 90(6): 401-422.
  • 3P.ebecca Tusknet. Eye Alone Is the Judge: hnages and Design Patents [ J ] . Journal ot Intellectual Property Law,2012,19(2) :4(19-426.
  • 4Jason J. Du Mont. A Non Obvious Design:Recxamining the Origins of the Design Patent Standard [J ] . Gonzaga Law Review, 2010, 45(3):531- 610.
  • 5Zidell v. Dexter 262 F. 145; 1920 U.S. App. LEXIS 1553.
  • 6Sears, Roebut k & Co. v. Talge. 140 F.2d 395; 1944 U.S. App. LEXIS 3949; 60 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 434.
  • 7Unette Corp. v. Union Pack Co., 226 USPQ 715 (D.D.N.J. 1985).
  • 8Egyptian Goddess hlc. v. Swisa Inc. No 2006-1562, 2008 WL 4290856 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 22 2008).
  • 9Gorham v. White, 14 Wall. 511, 81 U.S. 511, 20 L.Ed. 731 (1871).
  • 10Arc' teryx 1 quipnent, Inc. v. Westcomb Outerwear, Inc., No. 2:07 CV-59 TS, 2008 WL 4838141 (D. Utah Nov. 4, 2008).

共引文献7

同被引文献23

引证文献4

二级引证文献3

相关作者

内容加载中请稍等...

相关机构

内容加载中请稍等...

相关主题

内容加载中请稍等...

浏览历史

内容加载中请稍等...
;
使用帮助 返回顶部