專利權最新諮詢
2020/12/03 18:53
NCC證號誤用
2020/10/08 11:49
批貨賣衣服
2020/08/10 12:54
手作耳夾飾品專利
2020/04/18 19:04 有最佳解答
手做包包涉嫌妨礙商標權
2019/12/19 11:29
販售盜版商品起訴
2019/11/23 10:38
侵權
智慧財產相關案例分享
▲蘇狀師談娛樂法(搖頭公仔之保護)

搖頭公仔可受那些智慧財產權的保護                                                         我國旅美知名的棒球投手甲在大聯盟屢創佳績,某乙看準當下商機,竟未得其同意,仿效該投手之身形樣貌,製作成造型可愛的搖頭公仔〈娃娃〉,並將該球員投球的英姿縮小成一吋相片大小,使用於其發行筆記本、拖鞋等商品,以增加商品的買氣,某乙的行為可能涉及那些智慧財產權? 爭點解析 名人的身形樣貌受智慧財產保護否?搖頭公仔受何種智慧財產權保障?將名人身形樣貌予以縮小,使用於商品上涉及那些智慧財產權? 結論 首先知名度〈名氣〉是那一種權利?我國有無保護名氣?是否名人才享有名氣的保護?簡單的說,名氣就是個人姓名財產化的保護,姓名在我國是人格權非財產權,而在美國名氣不僅是一種財產權,更是一種智慧財產權,其是由隱私權演化而來,而此種權利並非僅存在於名人,而係人人都有,只是通常名人才會去主張,一般人比較不會主張;試想一個默默無名的人,廠商會否將其姓名或樣貌使用於其商品或服務來做廣告行銷之用,以提升其買氣?即使廠商如此為之,若他人未得該人同意,將其姓名或樣貌使用於商品或服務上,係增加該人的名氣,即使有所侵害,該人亦不會因之興訟。美國之所以將名氣認定為財產權,主要是因為財產權可以讓與或繼承,一旦認定為人格權,在權利的行使上就受到限縮,而不可否認的是,肖像或姓名這些屬於人格權範疇的權利,在利用上不可諱言地產生財產上利益,已非僅具人格權性質乃是不爭的事實,然在我國因受限於歐陸法系框架,仍堅守樣貌或姓名屬於人格權,對人民權利的保護實屬不周。據此;本題乙將甲的樣貌身形製作成搖頭公仔,可解釋成侵害甲的肖像權,但限於甲生存時才可以依民法相關規定主張財產上和非財產上損害而獲賠,至於搖頭公仔依著作權法第五條第一項各款著作內容例示〈行政命令〉,其中第二條〈四〉美術著作:包括繪畫…美術工藝品及其他之美術著作,可認定為美術工藝品而受著作權法保障。本題的乙雖有可能侵害甲的肖像權,但並不當然代表侵害著作權,端視該搖頭公仔是否為乙自行創作而定,畢竟侵害肖像權和著作權係兩碼子事,這點要特別分清楚。〈其餘部分待續〉 參拙著美國名人權法制研究

▲蘇狀師談娛樂法(名模吉吉哈蒂案深度解析一)

Just two months after prevailing in a copyright infringement lawsuit in connection with a photo she posted of herself on her Instagram account, Gigi Hadid has been named in a new lawsuit – this time for the “unauthorized reproduction and public display of a copyrighted photograph of English singer and songwriter Zayn Malik.” According to the copyright suit filed by professional photographer Robert O’Neil in a New York federal court on Friday, Hadid added a photo of former boyfriend Malik to her Instagram story in June 2018. The problem? She did not have O’Neil’s permission to do so. 名模吉吉哈蒂把自己的照片po在自己的instagram帳號涉及侵害著作權訴訟勝訴兩個月後,又在另一新訴訟中,列名為被告。所涉及之侵權情事為,非經授權重製及公開展示其與一位英國歌手及作曲人Zayn Malik同框有著作權之照片。根據職業攝影師Robert O’Neil 星期五於紐約聯邦法院提起侵害著作權之訴訟,哈蒂在2018年將含有其前男友Zayn Malik照片加入其instagram頁面裏。問題是?其並未獲得O’Neil’的同意。(待續)

▲蘇狀師談娛樂法(商標爭議篇)

Central Manufacturing, Inc. v. Brett et al. 492 F. 3d 876 (7th Cir. 2007)  Central Manufacturing, Inc. (“Central”), the registrar of the “Stealth” trademark for baseballs, brought a Lanham Act and state law infringement action against Brett Brothers Sports (“Brett Bros.”), a baseball bat manufacturer that produced a bat of the same name. Brett Bros. is owned in part by Baseball Hall of Famer George Brett. The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted summary judgment which Central subsequently appealed. The issues on appeal are whether the evidence presented by Central was sufficient for a finding of infringement, whether the district court abused its discretion by ordering cancellation of the registration, and whether the granting of attorney’s fees to Brett Bros. was warranted. The district court’s judgment was affirmed. Central製造公司是有關棒球相關製品“Stealth”商標之所有人,其對Brett Brothers Sports公司,該公司係由棒球名人堂成員George Brett部分持股,提起聯邦商標和州法商標侵權訴訟。美國伊利諾州北區地方法院准予即決判決,Central製造公司隨後提起上訴,上訴的爭點在於,Central所提呈的證據是否足以認定對造侵權,法院是否濫用裁量為撤銷商標註冊令,是否判決應給付Brett Brothers律師費係有正當理由,二審維持一審之判決。 An action for trademark  infringement can only succeed if the plaintiff owns the mark. Registration provides prima facie evidence of ownership that can be rebutted by competent evidence. More importantly, the mark must be used in commerce to ensure that entrepreneurs do not reserve brand names, making their competitors’ products more costly. If a court decision raises doubts about the validity of a trademark registration, a court may cancel the mark, so long as there is no abuse of discretion. Attorney’s fees and other costs may be awarded to the prevailing party “in exceptional circumstances.” 一個商標侵權訴訟,只能在原告擁有該商標時勝訴。商標註冊只是證明商標所有權之初步表面證證,其是可被有利的證據所推翻。更重要的是,商標需確保企業無保留於商業上使用該品牌名稱,使其競爭對手之產品更昂貴。假如法院對商標註冊之有效性生疑。只要無濫用其裁量權,法院可撤銷該商標註冊。在特別的情狀下,律師費及其他費用可判賠給勝訴之一造。 In 1984, Central’s owner and sole shareholder, Leo Stoller registered the Stealth mark for a variety of sporting goods and registered the mark for baseball bats in 2001. Brett Bros. sold its first Stealth bat in 1999 and has sold 25,000 since.Stoller has licensed the mark and sent various cease-and-desist letters to business such as Kmart, Panasonic and even the stealth bomber.Similarly, Stoller sent a letter to Brett Bros. demanding $100,000. Brett Bros. argued that the mark was never used in commerce and requested that Stoller produce evidence to the contrary. The district court found that no valid evidence was produced that the mark was ever used in commerce and the court of appeals agreed. The court of appeals also found that there was no abuse of discretion in cancelling the mark as the registrant’s asserted rights to the mark were invalid.Finally, the court of appeals determined that under the Lanham Act there was no clear error in awarding attorney’s fees as Central’s actions in bringing the case were oppressive. The court of appeals affirmed the district court’s finding that Central produced no evidence of trademark infringement in that no documents were filed, that Stoller mislead the court with his testimony, and that his documents made a mockery of the proceeding. Therefore, the cancellation of the mark and the grant of attorney’s fees were justified. 1984年Central公司的所有人兼唯一股東Leo Stoller將Stealth標記申請註冊於運動用品,同時於2001年將該標記申請商標註冊於棒球棒。 Brette Bros於1999年售出印有Stealth第一枝棒球棒,從那時起共賣出25,000枝。Stoller有將該商標予以授權,同時發出警告信予諸如像Kmart, Panasonic ,甚至像stealth bomber等廠商。同樣地,Stoller對Brette Bros.發出警告函,要求100,000的賠償金。Brette Bros爭執該標記從未用於商業使用,要求Stoller提出證據。地方法院判決無任何有效證據可證該標記曾用於商業,上訴審亦同此見解。終審法院亦認定撤銷商標註冊無濫用裁量,商標權人主張就該標記有商標權,是無效的。最終,終審法院認定Central's提起本件訴訟判予律師費係苛刻的,在藍能法下並無明顯錯誤。 終審法院確認地院判決Central公司提不出商標侵害之證據,而Stoller用其證詞誤導法院,同時其文件對訴訟程序無助。是故,撤銷該商標及判賠律師費予以判決確定。

▲蘇狀師談娛樂法(名人授權)

CELEBRITY LICENSING 名人授權 In the licensing business, celebrity licensing refers to granting the right to a third party to use the name, image, brand, or likeness of a celebrity. By acquiring these rights under license, the third party can utilize them in the promotion or sale of their goods or services.  於授權實務,名人之授權指,授權第三人得利用其姓名、圖像、品牌或樣貌。藉由授權,第三人可於促銷或銷售其產品或服務下,利用上開標的。 A celebrity who licenses intellectual property (IP) related to their image, name, or likeness is allowing a third party (usually a group or business) to use those assets for the benefit of the third party’s business interests. In exchange for granting the licensing rights, the celebrity receives financial compensation, typically in the form of royalties. Depending upon the nature of the licensing contract, there may be limitations to what the third party can do with the intellectual property of the celebrity. They may only be able to utilize the property in certain markets, or for a specific period of time. In addition, there may be terms limiting the types of services or goods in connection with which the celebrity’s IP can be used. 名人授與有關其圖像、姓名、樣貌等智慧財產權與第三人時,該人可為其商業利益而利用之。名人可因上開權利之授與而取得酬償,通常以取得權利金方式作為授權之對價。基於授權契約之內容,對第三人得利用上開智慧財產權,得加以限制。諸如限制第三人只能在特定市場或特定期間利用上開智慧財產權。此外,還可限制上開智慧財產權只能用於某類型之服務或商品。 ※尊重著作權;違法利用,本人必究。  

▲蘇狀師談娛樂法

'Resident Evil' Stunt Performer Drops Injury Lawsuit in L.A. 惡靈古堡的特技演員撤回在洛杉磯的訴訟 Its possible, however, that Olivia Jackson may pursue the case elsewhere. Attorneys for British stunt performer Olivia Jackson have dropped a Los Angeles-based lawsuit against the makers of Resident Evil: The Final Chapter.  英國特技演員奧利佛傑克森的律師撤回對“惡靈古堡:最終章”之製作公司在洛杉磯的訴訟。 The defendant argued in the motion to dismiss that Jackson's stunt performer contract specifically includes a provision requiring dispute resolution in South Africa. So it's possible that Jackson may pursue the case elsewhere.  被告爭執到該特技演員契約內容明確規定,本契約如發生爭議其訴訟管轄地為南非,因此該特技演員可能在他地另行起訴。 In September 2016, during the filming of Resident Evil: The Final Chapter, in Cape Town, South Africa, Jackson was badly injured during a stunt. While riding a motorcycle at a high speed, the 34-year-old veteran stunt performer collided with a crane-mounted camera that was traveling in the opposite direction. Her left arm was amputated above the elbow and she suffered lasting nerve damage and facial scarring. 2016年9月,在南非開普敦拍攝上開影片期間,34歲特技演員傑可森在為特技時受了很重的傷。事發時以高速騎著摩托車與反向行進之吊掛攝影機相撞。左手臂手肘以下截肢,同時受有持續性神經損害及面部傷疤。 Jackson’s initial U.S lawsuit, filed in September 2019 in Los Angeles, alleged that Resident Evil director Paul W. Anderson and his longtime producing partner, Jeremy Bolt, were responsible, and requested unspecified damages. 傑克遜最初於2019年9月在美國洛杉磯起訴,主張“惡靈古堡”導演Paul W. Anderson及其長期合作夥伴Jeremy Bolt要對其受傷負責,同時要求未定額的損害賠償金。 “The dismissal of the lawsuit included no settlement or payment of any kind,” said Joseph R. Taylor, an attorney with Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz, the firm representing the defendants, which included director Anderson and producer Bolt, along with their respective production companies. “該訴訟無透過和解或給付任何金額而撤回,包括導演及製片和他們各自的製作公司” 代表被告的Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz律師事務所之 Joseph R. Taylor這樣說道。 Jackson’s attorneys didn’t respond to requests for comment.  傑克遜的律師對該上開陳述未做任何回應及評論。