[ 邵胤植 ]——(2003-4-26) / 已阅36884次

[36] See Re Bose Corp., 772 F.2d 866 (Fed Cir. 1985). 本案中，五边形的扬声器被认为具有功能性。

[37] 亦有案例，并不要求“有限数种”，甚至只要求替代选择不为零即可。See Clamp Mfg. Co. v. Enco Mfg. Co., 870 F.2d 512, 516 (9th Cir. 1989).

[38] 可参见：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，法院认为，被告可以自由仿效原告之瓷器纹饰。

[40] See In re Mogen David Wine Corp., 328 F.2d 925 (C.C.P.A. 1964). 本案中，Rich J. 拒绝承认美感功能性原则的合理性。

[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] 参见：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] 相同观点另见Vornado, at 1507. 法院认为，商标法上之功能性定义，往往建立在经济与竞争需要的基础之上。

[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] 另可见：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.

总共6页　　[1] [2] [3] [4] 5 [6]

上一页　　　　下一页