商業外觀的商標權保護―以美感功能性為中心

Abstract

近幾年興起新創風潮，許多產品包裝及產品設計(本文統稱為商業外觀)均別出心裁。商業外觀雖然也可以透過著作權與專利權保護，但著作權舉證困難，專利權無效率高，不若商標權簡明易行，若能以商標權來保護商業外觀，似乎對於創新的權利人較能提供周延保護。 然而，商標法有其立法目的，是否可以運用做為商業外觀保護之基礎，尚須回溯到商標制度的起源，究竟在商標法立法意旨下是否可以允許用商標權保護商業外觀設計?又傳統商標是保護具體文字圖形，多數廠商並不會將整個產品包裝或產品本身的設計拿去註冊為商標，縱使申請註冊，主管機關在審查時也比較不易核准，經常以不具識別性的理由予以核駁，但這樣的法律基礎是否充分?何以美國實務上針對有關商業外觀的案件，多著重功能性的討論? 本論文透過美國實務相關案例，探究美國歷史就商業外觀以商標權保護的發展軌跡及爭論的背景。由於本論文主要在探究獨特產品外觀的匠意保護，因此針對實用功能性僅略為介紹，主要著重在美感功能性的討論，希望透過美感功能性的理論，強化我國實務核駁商業外觀註冊申請的理論基礎，也提供被控侵權者另一個可能抗辯的理由(防禦性美感功能性)。

In recent years, with the tide of creativeness rising, many product packaging and product designs (collectively referred to as “trade dress”) are becoming increasingly ingenious. The trade dress can be protected through copyright and patent, but it is difficult to prove the existence of copyright, and the invalidation rate of patents is high, and thus, protection of copyrights and design patents is not as simple and easy as protection and enforcement of trademarks. Traditionally, a trademark registration is granted to protect specific words, characters, and graphics, and most manufacturers will not seek to register the product packaging or the product design as a trademark, and in the past, where manufacturers have applied for such registrations, TIPO has usually rejected these applications asserting that the product packaging or the product design lacked the required distinctiveness. It is perhaps time, now, to question whether this legal basis is sufficient to reject some of the more creative new trade dress being used by manufacturers. This thesis, by looking at practice related cases in the US, explores the development path and controversial background of the issue, namely using trademark registration to protect trade dress, in US history. As this thesis primarily discusses protection for ingenious and creative trade dress, utilitarian functionality is only briefly introduced, and the main focus is on discussion regarding aesthetic functionality. We hope that through discussion of the aesthetic functionality theory, we might be able to encourage TIPO to refine and clarify its reasons for rejecting trademark applications for trade dress, and to provide another possible defense to accused infringers.