트레이드드레스 보호의 소극적 요건으로서의 기능성 -미국 CAFC 2015. 5. 18. 선고 Apple v. Samsung 판결을 중심으로-
Functionality as an Exclusive Requirement for the Protection as a Trade Dress: Focusing on the C.A.F.C. decision on the Apple v Samsung Case
1
조회
0
다운로드
2
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Trade dress can be protected within the system of the intellectual property law in Korea as well as in the United States. In the U.S. it can be protected as design patents and/or Federal Trademark Law irrespective of the registration of the marks, while in Korea it can be the subject matter of Design Protection Act, Trademark Act and the Unfair Competition Act. As distinctiveness acknowledged, trade dress can be protected as registered and/or unregistered trademark in the U.S. while it can be protected as either registered trademark under the Trademark Act or well-known sign under the Unfair Competition Act of Korea. The paper addresses the functionality doctrine as an exclusive requirement for the protection as a trade dress focusing on the recent U.S. federal decision on the Apple v Samsung case. The federal court approves the utilitarian functionality of the trade dress while the trial court approved neither utilitarian functionality nor aesthetic functionality of the trade dress on the external shape of the smart phone. In Korea, the Apple did not complain the trademark infringement, while infringement of registered design right was claimed, which is attributable to the lack of registration of the trade dress as a trademark in Korea. Though the non-functionality of the design is required by the Design Protection Act, the functionality of the design was not claimed by the defendant. In the end, the alleged product was decided not to infringe the registered design of the Apple based on the substantial difference of the designs. The so-called chopstick case partly addressed the functionality of the design as a one factor affecting the determination of the infringement of registered design. Doctrine of functionality which is well established in the U.S. and consistently applied to restrict the scope of trademark, vitally serves to determine the boundary of the scopes among patent, design and trademark. More affirmative application of the doctrine in Korea is proposed.
Abstract
Trade dress can be protected within the system of the intellectual property law in Korea as well as in the United States. In the U.S. it can be protected as design patents and/or Federal Trademark Law irrespective of the registration of the marks, while in Korea it can be the subject matter of Design Protection Act, Trademark Act and the Unfair Competition Act. As distinctiveness acknowledged, trade dress can be protected as registered and/or unregistered trademark in the U.S. while it can be protected as either registered trademark under the Trademark Act or well-known sign under the Unfair Competition Act of Korea. The paper addresses the functionality doctrine as an exclusive requirement for the protection as a trade dress focusing on the recent U.S. federal decision on the Apple v Samsung case. The federal court approves the utilitarian functionality of the trade dress while the trial court approved neither utilitarian functionality nor aesthetic functionality of the trade dress on the external shape of the smart phone. In Korea, the Apple did not complain the trademark infringement, while infringement of registered design right was claimed, which is attributable to the lack of registration of the trade dress as a trademark in Korea. Though the non-functionality of the design is required by the Design Protection Act, the functionality of the design was not claimed by the defendant. In the end, the alleged product was decided not to infringe the registered design of the Apple based on the substantial difference of the designs. The so-called chopstick case partly addressed the functionality of the design as a one factor affecting the determination of the infringement of registered design. Doctrine of functionality which is well established in the U.S. and consistently applied to restrict the scope of trademark, vitally serves to determine the boundary of the scopes among patent, design and trademark. More affirmative application of the doctrine in Korea is proposed.
참고문헌 (31)
- 김관식, "애플사 대 삼성전자 사건에 비추어 본 트레이드드레스의 법적 보호 -한국과 미국에서의 보호요건의 비교를 중심으로-", 산업재산권, (39), pp.323~374 (2012), 한국지식재산학회
- "covering, adornment, or appearance appropriate or peculiar to a particular time", Merriam-Webster English Dictionary, ~ (2012)
- 사법연수원, "상표법" (2010)
- 유영선, "특허와 상표에 의한 보호영역을 구분하는 기능성원리(Functionality Doctrine)에 대한 연구", 박사, 법학, pp.2011
- "TrafFix Devices, Inc. v. Marketing Displays, Inc., 532 U.S. 23", ~ (2001)
- "Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK Document 1158", ~
- "Restatement of Torts, §742, comment a, at 629", ~ (1938)
- "15 U.S.C. §1052", ~
- Janice M. Mueller, "Patent Law", pp.287~ (2009), Aspen
- "Case No. 11-cv-01846-LB Document 11", ~
- "U.S. Registration No. 3,470,983, No. 3,475,218, No. 3,475,327", ~
- "Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK Document 1299-2", 10~
- "Clicks Billiards, Inc. v. Sixshooters, Inc., 251 F.3d 1252, 1258", ~ (2001)
- "15 U.S.C. §1125(a)(3)", ~ (2006)
- "532 U.S. at 33", ~
- "Talking Rain Beverage Co. v. S. Beach Beverage Co., 349 F.3d 601, 603", ~ (2003)
- "TrafFix, 532 U.S. at 33", ~
- Au-Tomotive Gold, "457 F.3d at 1070", ~
- "Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK Document 1931", 10~
- "2015 WL 2343543 (C.A.Fed.(Cal.)) at 7", ~
- "920 F.Supp.2d 1079, 1091", ~
- "종전 의장법 제6조 제4호", ~
- "현행 디자인 보호법 제34조 제4호", ~
- "상표법 제7조 제13호", ~
- "대법원 2010.7.22. 선고 2010후913 판결", ~ (2010)
- "디자인 등록번호 제315223호", ~
- "특허심판원 2009. 8. 17.자 2008당3118호 심결", ~ (2009)
- "특허법원 2010. 2. 12. 선고 2009허6670 판결", ~ (2010)
- Paul Goldstein, "Copyright Patent Trademark and Related State Doctrines Cases and Materials on the Law of Intellectual Property", pp.672~ (2008), Foundation Press
- Robert P. Merges, "Intellectual Property in the New Technological Age", pp.352~ (2003), Aspen
- Craig Noyce, "Copyright Law", pp.121~ (2006), LexisNexis
