[ 邵胤植 ]——(2003-4-26) / 已閱37972次
[61] See TrafFix Devices, Inc. v. Marketing Displays, Inc.,121 S. Ct. 1255 (2001).
[62] See Brief for Respondent at 26, TrafFix Devices, Inc. v. Marketing Displays, Inc., 121 S. Ct. 1255 (2001) (No. 99-1571).
[63] "[A] product feature is functional when it is essential to the use or purpose of the article or if it affects the cost or quality of the article"., Id., at 1261.
[64] "Where the expired patent claimed the feature in questions, one who seeks to establish trade dress protection must carry the heavy burden of showing that the feature is not functional, for instance by showing that it is merely ornamental, incidental, or arbitrary aspect of the device..." Id., at 1260.
[65] See Kerry S. Taylor, Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 17 Berkeley Tech. L.J. 205, 2002, at 206.
[66] See U.S. Constitution, Art I 8.
[67] See L.A. Gear, Inc. v. Thom McAn Shoe Co., 988 F.2d 1117, 1123 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 908 (1993). 當(dāng)然，兩者對(duì)于功能性的定義，并不必然相同。
[68] Koninklijke Philips Electronics NV v. Remington Consumer Products Ltd, (Case C-299/99).
[69] It is not possible to obtain trademark registration if the functional characteristics of the shape of the product are attributable solely to a technical result whether or not other shapes could achieve the same technical result.
[70] 參見：李韻薇，形狀標(biāo)記可否注冊(cè)為商標(biāo)，online at
(last visited 19 September 2002).
總共6頁 [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] 6
上一頁
