侵權最新諮詢
侵權相關案例分享
蘇思鴻律師
▲蘇狀師談「自承風險」原則
assumption of risk 自承風險 風險承擔（assumption of risk、自承風險）屬於英美侵權法中的一種抗辯，如果被告能夠證明原告自願且明知地承擔了他所處的危險活動中所受的損害之固有的風險，則法律就會限制或減少原告對過失侵權行為人(被告)的追償權（故意侵權沒有適用）。 Attending baseball games and other sporting events is a quintessential American pastime. However, it is not uncommon that an accident can result in the injury of a fan. 參加棒球賽及其他運動賽事在美國是典型的消遣。 Hit by a foul ball:被界外球擊中 In July 2015, a fan attending a Brewers/Braves baseball game at Milwaukee’s Miller Park was struck in the face by a foul ball. The fan sustained near-fatal injuries that have resulted in over $200,000 in medical bills and will require lifelong care. In August 2016, another fan was struck by a line-drive at Miller Park. Unfortunately, Miller Park isn't alone when it comes to spectator injuries. A 2014 study by Bloomberg News found 1,750 fans per year were injured by foul balls at Major League games. In 2018, A woman died after being hit in the head with a foul ball at Dodgers Stadium, making her the first foul-ball fatality in nearly 50 years. Spectators of hockey and NASCAR are also at risk of potentially hazardous projectiles at games and races as well. But if you are injured by a foul ball or stray hockey puck that flies into the stands, who is responsible for your medical bills, or possible lost time at work? The answer, unfortunately, is you.很不幸，答案是你（亦即你自己要負擔醫療費用及所受的傷害、損害） “Assumed Risk” and your ticket: Assumed risk falls into the category of liability that applies to the so-called “baseball rule,” that is implemented in both professional and amateur leagues. If you read the fine print on the back of your ticket to a sporting event, it usually outlines refund policies and rules regarding flash photography. This is also where you will find that statement of assumed risk, which is why the venue isn’t liable for your injuries. It is assumed, that when choosing to attend a sporting event, the spectator understands that flying objects may enter the seats. And it is the spectator’s responsibility to avoid them. The exception: While most risks at sporting events are considered "inherent to the game," there are situations in which negligent circumstances would hold the stadium/venue liable for injuries. For example: If you were to fall due to a broken handrail or other forms of facility disrepair such as a damaged net or partition, one could find the ballpark negligent for improper maintenance of the grounds. In other cases, dram shop laws (like “social host” law) can be applied if a patron is over-served alcohol by stadium concessions and causes an accident of some sort while intoxicated. Unfortunately for many, this baseball rule was adopted when the game was quite different. Things happen a lot faster on the field these days and the entertaining nature of the sport often creates more “sideshows” that distract fans from what is happening on the field. We are forced to assume a certain level of risk any time we attend a spectator sport. So even with nets and barriers to protect fans, the most you can do is to always be alert while watching a game.
▲蘇狀師談侵權行為（assumption of risk）
assumption of risk 自承風險 assumption of risk 自承風險 風險承擔（assumption of risk、自承風險）屬於英美侵權法中的一種抗辯，如果被告能夠證明原告自願且明知地承擔了他所處的危險活動中所受的損害之固有的風險，則法律就會限制或減少原告對過失侵權行為人(被告)的追償權（故意侵權沒有適用）。 Attending baseball games and other sporting events is a quintessential American pastime. However, it is not uncommon that an accident can result in the injury of a fan. 參加棒球賽及其他運動賽事在美國是典型的消遣。然而，球迷在球賽中被球擊中卻是普遍現象。 Hit by a foul ball:被界外球擊中 In July 2015, a fan attending a Brewers/Braves baseball game at Milwaukee’s Miller Park was struck in the face by a foul ball. The fan sustained near-fatal injuries that have resulted in over $200,000 in medical bills and will require lifelong care. In August 2016, another fan was struck by a line-drive at Miller Park. 2015年，一位球迷在密爾瓦基觀看釀酒人與勇士兩隊的大聯盟賽事被界外球擊中臉部。該名球迷遭受到幾近致命之傷害，進而支出超過20萬美元之醫療費用，同時需要終身醫療。2016年8月另一名球迷在同場地被平飛球擊中。 Unfortunately, Miller Park isn't alone when it comes to spectator injuries. A 2014 study by Bloomberg News found 1,750 fans per year were injured by foul balls at Major League games. In 2018, A woman died after being hit in the head with a foul ball at Dodgers Stadium, making her the first foul-ball fatality in nearly 50 years. Spectators of hockey and NASCAR are also at risk of potentially hazardous projectiles at games and races as well. But if you are injured by a foul ball or stray hockey puck that flies into the stands, who is responsible for your medical bills, or possible lost time at work? 當談到觀眾受傷，米勒棒球場（密爾瓦基釀酒人之主場）並不是唯一。2014年彭博新聞指出大聯盟賽事每年有1750名球迷被界外球擊中。2018年在道奇隊球場，一名婦人在被界外球擊中頭部後死亡，離之前首位被擊中身亡者將近50年。職業冰球的冰球及全國運動汽車競賽協會舉行的賽事裏的賽車在比賽中係極具淺在危險性之拋射體。假如你在觀眾席被界外球擊中或冰上曲棍球的冰球擊中，誰要負擔你的醫療費及工作能力之損失？ The answer, unfortunately, is you.很不幸，答案是你（亦即你自己要負擔醫療費用及所受的傷害、損害） “Assumed Risk” and your ticket:自承風險及你的賽票 Assumed risk falls into the category of liability that applies to the so-called “baseball rule,” that is implemented in both professional and amateur leagues. If you read the fine print on the back of your ticket to a sporting event, it usually outlines refund policies and rules regarding flash photography. This is also where you will find that statement of assumed risk, which is why the venue isn’t liable for your injuries. 「自承風險」落入適用所謂“棒球法則”責任歸屬之範疇，其在職業及業餘賽事都有適用。假如你閱讀你賽票背面小號字體印刷品，其通常會將補償方案及法則用以凸顯方式概略出來，你將會發現自承風險的聲明，這也是為何賽事場地對你所受之傷毋庸負責之理。 It is assumed, that when choosing to attend a sporting event, the spectator understands that flying objects may enter the seats. And it is the spectator’s responsibility to avoid them. 其已被自我承擔，當選擇觀看賽事時，觀眾意識到飛來物會進入觀眾席，同時觀眾有責任去迴避牠。 The exception:自承風險之例外： While most risks at sporting events are considered "inherent to the game," there are situations in which negligent circumstances would hold the stadium/venue liable for injuries. For example: 然而，在運動賽事裏大部分的風險被認為是“比賽中所固有的”，有些情況被認為是運動場/賽場對該傷害有過失，例如： If you were to fall due to a broken handrail or other forms of facility disrepair such as a damaged net or partition, one could find the ballpark negligent for improper maintenance of the grounds. 假如你摔倒係因扶手損壞或是其他設施維護失當，例如護網毀損或被劃開，會認為球場基於不當維護而有過失為由。 In other cases, dram shop laws (like “social host” law) can be applied if a patron is over-served alcohol by stadium concessions and causes an accident of some sort while intoxicated.在其他情形，適用酒類供應商責任法，假如球場攤商過度供酒予顧客，造成其酒醉時的一些意外。 Unfortunately for many, this baseball rule was adopted when the game was quite different. Things happen a lot faster on the field these days and the entertaining nature of the sport often creates more “sideshows” that distract fans from what is happening on the field. We are forced to assume a certain level of risk any time we attend a spectator sport. So even with nets and barriers to protect fans, the most you can do is to always be alert while watching a game.
▲蘇狀師談娛樂法(棒球篇)
assumption of risk 自承風險 assumption of risk 自承風險 風險承擔（assumption of risk、自承風險）屬於英美侵權法中的一種抗辯，如果被告能夠證明原告自願且明知地承擔了他所處的危險活動中所受的損害之固有的風險，則法律就會限制或減少原告對過失侵權行為人(被告)的追償權（故意侵權沒有適用）。 Attending baseball games and other sporting events is a quintessential American pastime. However, it is not uncommon that an accident can result in the injury of a fan. 參加棒球賽及其他運動賽事在美國是典型的消遣。然而，球迷在球賽中被球擊中卻是普遍現象。 Hit by a foul ball:被界外球擊中 In July 2015, a fan attending a Brewers/Braves baseball game at Milwaukee’s Miller Park was struck in the face by a foul ball. The fan sustained near-fatal injuries that have resulted in over $200,000 in medical bills and will require lifelong care. In August 2016, another fan was struck by a line-drive at Miller Park. 2015年，一位球迷在密爾瓦基觀看釀酒人與勇士兩隊的大聯盟賽事被界外球擊中臉部。該名球迷遭受到幾近致命之傷害，進而支出超過20萬美元之醫療費用，同時需要終身醫療。2016年8月另一名球迷在同場地被平飛球擊中。 Unfortunately, Miller Park isn't alone when it comes to spectator injuries. A 2014 study by Bloomberg News found 1,750 fans per year were injured by foul balls at Major League games. In 2018, A woman died after being hit in the head with a foul ball at Dodgers Stadium, making her the first foul-ball fatality in nearly 50 years. Spectators of hockey and NASCAR are also at risk of potentially hazardous projectiles at games and races as well. But if you are injured by a foul ball or stray hockey puck that flies into the stands, who is responsible for your medical bills, or possible lost time at work? 當談到觀眾受傷，米勒棒球場（密爾瓦基釀酒人之主場）並不是唯一。2014年彭博新聞指出大聯盟賽事每年有1750名球迷被界外球擊中。2018年在道奇隊球場，一名婦人在被界外球擊中頭部後死亡，離之前首位被擊中身亡者將近50年。職業冰球的冰球及全國運動汽車競賽協會舉行的賽事裏的賽車在比賽中係極具淺在危險性之拋射體。假如你在觀眾席被界外球擊中或冰上曲棍球的冰球擊中，誰要負擔你的醫療費及工作能力之損失？ The answer, unfortunately, is you.很不幸，答案是你（亦即你自己要負擔醫療費用及所受的傷害、損害） “Assumed Risk” and your ticket:自承風險及你的賽票 Assumed risk falls into the category of liability that applies to the so-called “baseball rule,” that is implemented in both professional and amateur leagues. If you read the fine print on the back of your ticket to a sporting event, it usually outlines refund policies and rules regarding flash photography. This is also where you will find that statement of assumed risk, which is why the venue isn’t liable for your injuries. 「自承風險」落入適用所謂“棒球法則”責任歸屬之範疇，其在職業及業餘賽事都有適用。假如你閱讀你賽票背面小號字體印刷品，其通常會將補償方案及法則用以凸顯方式概略出來，你將會發現自承風險的聲明，這也是為何賽事場地對你所受之傷毋庸負責之理。 It is assumed, that when choosing to attend a sporting event, the spectator understands that flying objects may enter the seats. And it is the spectator’s responsibility to avoid them. 其已被自我承擔，當選擇觀看賽事時，觀眾意識到飛來物會進入觀眾席，同時觀眾有責任去迴避牠。 The exception:自承風險之例外： While most risks at sporting events are considered "inherent to the game," there are situations in which negligent circumstances would hold the stadium/venue liable for injuries. For example: 然而，在運動賽事裏大部分的風險被認為是“比賽中所固有的”，有些情況被認為是運動場/賽場對該傷害有過失，例如： If you were to fall due to a broken handrail or other forms of facility disrepair such as a damaged net or partition, one could find the ballpark negligent for improper maintenance of the grounds. 假如你摔倒係因扶手損壞或是其他設施維護失當，例如護網毀損或被劃開，會認為球場基於不當維護而有過失為由。 In other cases, dram shop laws (like “social host” law) can be applied if a patron is over-served alcohol by stadium concessions and causes an accident of some sort while intoxicated.在其他情形，適用酒類供應商責任法，假如球場攤商過度供酒予顧客，造成其酒醉時的一些意外。 Unfortunately for many, this baseball rule was adopted when the game was quite different. Things happen a lot faster on the field these days and the entertaining nature of the sport often creates more “sideshows” that distract fans from what is happening on the field. We are forced to assume a certain level of risk any time we attend a spectator sport. So even with nets and barriers to protect fans, the most you can do is to always be alert while watching a game.
陳禾原律師
千金難買早知道 律師教你假扣押防脫產
王小姐跟隔壁張太太是多年老友，出於信任，便借了30萬元給張太太周轉。殊不知張太太嗜賭成性，到期了也還不出錢來，王小姐不得已只好上法院，辛辛苦苦繳了裁判費、請假上法庭，終於拿到了勝訴判決。正當王小姐興高采烈拿著勝訴判決準備去執行時，才發現張太太名下財產早就被其他債主分配光了，辛辛苦苦取得的勝訴判決，只能淪為一張壁紙…. Q：假扣押是什麼？ A：大家都知道起訴打官司，一直到判決確定是一件很漫長的事，往往是以年為計算單位。為了避免辛辛苦苦打了官司，結果等到要執行時債務人早已脫產，民事訴訟法第522條第1項規定：「債權人就金錢請求或得易為金錢請求之請求，欲保全強制執行者，得聲請假扣押。」，也就是法院讓債權人可以在官司勝訴前，先凍結債務人的財產，以免脫產。 Q：聲請假扣押需要符合什麼條件？ A：聲請假扣押需要向法院說明兩個重點，請律師處理的價值就在這邊了： 1. 假扣押的請求 意思是要向法院說明你對於債務人所有的債權為何，有契約就附契約，有本票就附本票，如果是侵權行為(例如車禍)，就要說明侵權行為的狀況，並且檢附相關事證。 2. 假扣押的原因 法院不會單憑債權人片面之詞就任意准許假扣押，想要說服法院假扣押，就必須檢附債務人有脫產或是之後無法清償債務的相關證據，這也是最難證明的一塊，實務上常見的證據包含： (1) 已發函催告對方付款，對方拒絕或置之不理 (2) 對方行蹤不定，例如已移民 (3) 對方票據信用有問題，例如遭退票、拒絕往來等等 (4) 將財產移轉或設定抵押，例如把名下的房子設定抵押 (5) 如果債務人是公司，公司的資本額跟債務相差懸殊 Q：聲請假扣押要付費嗎？ A：聲請規費是1000元。除此之外，一般實務上在准假扣押的同時，都會要求債權人必須先將扣押金額的三分之一提存到法院作為擔保，待勝訴確定後或符合其他法定要件時才可以取回。
▲蘇狀師談「自承風險」原則
assumption of risk 自承風險 風險承擔（assumption of risk、自承風險）屬於英美侵權法中的一種抗辯，如果被告能夠證明原告自願且明知地承擔了他所處的危險活動中所受的損害之固有的風險，則法律就會限制或減少原告對過失侵權行為人(被告)的追償權（故意侵權沒有適用）。 Attending baseball games and other sporting events is a quintessential American pastime. However, it is not uncommon that an accident can result in the injury of a fan. 參加棒球賽及其他運動賽事在美國是典型的消遣。然而，球迷在球賽中被球擊中卻是普遍現象。 Hit by a foul ball:被界外球擊中 In July 2015, a fan attending a Brewers/Braves baseball game at Milwaukee’s Miller Park was struck in the face by a foul ball. The fan sustained near-fatal injuries that have resulted in over $200,000 in medical bills and will require lifelong care. In August 2016, another fan was struck by a line-drive at Miller Park. 2015年，一位球迷在密爾瓦基觀看釀酒人與勇士兩隊的大聯盟賽事被界外球擊中臉部。該名球迷遭受到幾近致命之傷害，進而支出超過20萬美元之醫療費用，同時需要終身醫療。2016年8月另一名球迷在同場地被平飛球擊中。 Unfortunately, Miller Park isn't alone when it comes to spectator injuries. A 2014 study by Bloomberg News found 1,750 fans per year were injured by foul balls at Major League games. In 2018, A woman died after being hit in the head with a foul ball at Dodgers Stadium, making her the first foul-ball fatality in nearly 50 years. Spectators of hockey and NASCAR are also at risk of potentially hazardous projectiles at games and races as well. But if you are injured by a foul ball or stray hockey puck that flies into the stands, who is responsible for your medical bills, or possible lost time at work? 當談到觀眾受傷，米勒棒球場（密爾瓦基釀酒人之主場）並不是唯一。2014年彭博新聞指出大聯盟賽事每年有1750名球迷被界外球擊中。2018年在道奇隊球場，一名婦人在被界外球擊中頭部後死亡，離之前首位被擊中身亡者將近50年。職業冰球的冰球及全國運動汽車競賽協會舉行的賽事裏的賽車在比賽中係極具淺在危險性之拋射體。假如你在觀眾席被界外球擊中或冰上曲棍球的冰球擊中，誰要負擔你的醫療費及工作能力之損失？ The answer, unfortunately, is you.很不幸，答案是你（亦即你自己要負擔醫療費用及所受的傷害、損害） “Assumed Risk” and your ticket:自承風險及你的賽票 Assumed risk falls into the category of liability that applies to the so-called “baseball rule,” that is implemented in both professional and amateur leagues. If you read the fine print on the back of your ticket to a sporting event, it usually outlines refund policies and rules regarding flash photography. This is also where you will find that statement of assumed risk, which is why the venue isn’t liable for your injuries. 「自承風險」落入適用所謂“棒球法則”責任歸屬之範疇，其在職業及業餘賽事都有適用。假如你閱讀你賽票背面小號字體印刷品，其通常會將補償方案及法則用以凸顯方式概略出來，你將會發現自承風險的聲明，這也是為何賽事場地對你所受之傷毋庸負責之理。 It is assumed, that when choosing to attend a sporting event, the spectator understands that flying objects may enter the seats. And it is the spectator’s responsibility to avoid them. 其已被自我承擔，當選擇觀看賽事時，觀眾意識到飛來物會進入觀眾席，同時觀眾有責任去迴避牠。 The exception:自承風險之例外： While most risks at sporting events are considered "inherent to the game," there are situations in which negligent circumstances would hold the stadium/venue liable for injuries. For example: If you were to fall due to a broken handrail or other forms of facility disrepair such as a damaged net or partition, one could find the ballpark negligent for improper maintenance of the grounds. In other cases, dram shop laws (like “social host” law) can be applied if a patron is over-served alcohol by stadium concessions and causes an accident of some sort while intoxicated. Unfortunately for many, this baseball rule was adopted when the game was quite different. Things happen a lot faster on the field these days and the entertaining nature of the sport often creates more “sideshows” that distract fans from what is happening on the field. We are forced to assume a certain level of risk any time we attend a spectator sport. So even with nets and barriers to protect fans, the most you can do is to always be alert while watching a game.
侵權相關律師專欄
梁雨安律師
身經百戰訴訟律師-梁雨安律師
一個律師的辦案能力，絕大多數取決於他的辦案經驗。 本律師做過民事律師、刑事律師、家事律師、智財律師、法務律師，因接觸的領域甚多，故多能鄙事，基本上甚麼案件都會辦，且因各領域案件的承辦量老實說都挺大的(總案件數破百件，總開庭數破800庭，總審約量破300份，名符其實的身經百戰)，故相關領域的專精程度亦值得安心(・∀・)~/ 本律師已辦過案件類型約略如下： (一) 民事 1.勞資糾紛-薪資、解雇無效、職業災害補償 2.給付承攬報酬、票款、工程款、仲介報酬 3.返還借款、租金、保險金、徵收款、代墊款、土地、停車位 4.分割遺產/共有物、酌給、遺囑、拋棄繼承、特留分扣減 5.給付扶養費、離婚、確認婚姻關係不存在、保護令、監護宣告 6.損害賠償-漏水、凶宅、海砂屋、鄰損、車禍 7.假扣押、假執行、假處分、分配表異議之訴、債務人異議之訴 8.優先承購權、借名登記、合夥清算、撤銷信託、返還信託物 9.確認本票債權不存在、確認抵押權不存在 10.375減租、國家賠償、確認親子關係存在、召開親屬會議、確認通行權 11.當選無效 12.專利舉發訴訟、專利侵權訴訟、商標、專利侵權警告函 13.商標評定、異議、申復、廢止 (二) 刑事 1.詐欺、侵占、竊盜、毀損、贓物、強盜 2.傷害、殺人、過失致死 3.銀行法、恐嚇取財、重利、廢棄物清理法 4.公然侮辱、毀謗、通姦 5.妨害性自主、兒少條例 6.貪汙、偽造文書、背信、證卷交易法 7.槍砲彈刀、公共危險 8.毒品、藥事法 9.誣告、選罷法、妨害投票 10.商標、著作權、營業秘密、公平交易法 (三) 契約 1.NDA、MOU 2.商標授權契約書 3.專利授權契約書 4.著作權讓與契約書 5.供貨合約書 6.特別股認購合約書 7.加盟合約書 8.人事聘雇合約書 9.業務承攬合約書 10.合夥契約書 11.消費借貸契約書 12.檢測服務契約書 13.股份讓與契約書 14.經銷契約書 15.租賃契約書 16.技術服務契約書 17.學界分包契約
王崇品律師
台灣燈具大廠遭賓士原廠控告侵權，賓士全勝，為什麼？
台灣汽車燈具大廠帝寶工業股份有限公司，專門生產汽車副廠頭燈，106年遭賓士原廠控告侵權， 一審智慧財產法院判決帝寶敗訴，需賠償賓士3000萬元，並禁止帝寶繼續生產賓士汽車副廠大燈， 這令許多台灣汽車副廠零件廠商人人自危，因為如果帝寶上訴後二審賓士仍然勝訴，將有可能會有許多國外汽車大廠跨海提告，控告台灣自製的汽車副廠零組件侵權， 以後台灣民眾將買不到便宜的副廠零件，將只能購買昂貴的原廠材料。 ---------------------------------------- 本件判決案號：智慧財產法院106年度民專訴字第34號民事判決 1、帝寶公司自行製造賓士E系列汽車之W212型頭燈，經過相關的專家證人的鑑定（如楊智傑教授、李素華教授等），上面並有標示「MADE IN TAIWAN」「DEPO」，顯然侵害賓士公司的專利權，因為賓士公司屬於系爭頭燈的設計專利權人，依照專利法第96條第1項至第3項及第142條第1項的規定，賓士對於侵害其專利權的帝寶公司，可以請求除去該侵害；有侵害疑慮的，可以請求防止帝寶繼續侵害。且賓士也可以向帝寶請求損害賠償。而賓士提起本件訴訟後，也可以要求帝寶銷毀製造這些頭燈的原料或器具以及半成品（法條依據為專利法第142條第1 項準用第96條第3 項）。 ---------------------------------------- （1）法官認為，帝寶製造的非美規頭燈，與賓士的專利圖式比對後，可以看得出兩者至少有六項共同特徵，整體看來，也十分相似，可以認定非美規產品，已經落入賓士的專利權範圍，而侵害賓士的專利。 ---------------------------------------- （2）被告雖然抗辯非美規產品與系爭專利存有至少七項的特徵差異，然而，被告所說的這些特徵不是存在產品的背面，就是在產品邊緣、角落的一些細微差異，普通消費者在選購此類產品時，其觸目所及的印象，應該幾乎不會注意到這些差異，而認為是不同設計的產品。 ---------------------------------------- （3）就美規頭燈部分，被告帝寶雖然主張美規頭燈與賓士的美規頭燈仍然有設計上的不同，但是在開庭時，帝寶是用「放大照片」的方式呈現他所製造的美規頭等與賓士的美規頭燈的不同之處，法官認為，其實並不容易看出來被告所說的上述美規產品特徵。而設計專利的侵權與否應該要以容易引起普通消費者注意的部位或特徵」為重點，像被告這樣以局部放大的方式來凸顯的特徵，並不能作為比對區別基礎。因此，被告這部分的抗辯，也無法採信。 ---------------------------------------- （4）帝寶也另外主張，賓士所設計的頭燈不具備「創作性」，應該不屬於所謂的「專利」，所以被告當然沒有侵害賓士的專利權的問題，但是這個說法並不被法官所採信，法官認為系爭專利相較於先前技藝具有創作性。 ---------------------------------------- （5）而帝寶則主張，賓士違反了「公平交易法」，帝寶主張，賓士拒絕授權給其他廠商來製造賓士的頭燈，造成了市場壟斷，因為只有賓士自己可以製造該款頭燈，其他廠商都不能生產，但是法院認為，賓士不具備市場獨佔的地位，當然沒有所謂的壟斷。 ---------------------------------------- 2、因帝寶公司已有侵害系爭專利行為，甚至在本案訴訟中自己說已經停止產製侵權產品，卻都還繼續生產銷售，本判決就此有清楚認定，所以可認為帝寶公司未來有可能繼續侵害的疑慮，而有以禁制令防止的必要（也就是禁止帝寶繼續製造這些台製頭燈）。 ---------------------------------------- 3、法院駁回了賓士要求帝寶登報道歉的請求：根據法院判決，原告並沒有說明此項請求的法律依據何在，也沒有舉證其名譽權有受到系爭產品如何的侵害。再審視原告提出其所購買用以進行侵權比對的系爭產品（賓士為了對帝寶提告，有向帝寶購買副廠大燈），大燈產品的外包裝完全是冠以被告的英文名稱（DEPO），並沒有冒充為原告產品的情形，應可認為原告並沒有任何名譽損害。因此，原告此部分的請求，實無依據及基礎，無法加以支持，應該予以駁回。 ---------------------------------------- 結論就是，法院認為帝寶燈具公司製造了賓士的副廠頭燈，侵害了賓士原廠的設計專利權，應該要賠償賓士原廠3000萬元，並且停止繼續製造該款頭燈，也要銷毀製造頭燈的相關器具及正在製造的半成品，但是賓士要求帝寶登報道歉的請求則不被允許。 因為這個因素，台灣許多的汽車副廠製造商便變得十分恐慌，因為之後各國的汽車原廠有可能跨海對台灣的副廠提告，告贏了以後，台灣的廠商都不能再繼續生產副廠零件了，消費者以後也只能選購原廠零件，將沒有副廠零件可以繼續使用。 而本件帝寶已經上訴到二審了，將交由二審法官審理，預計於明年宣判，所以是否還有可能翻盤，仍有待觀察。 ---------------------------------------- 法條補充： 專利法第96條： （第一項）發明專利權人對於侵害其專利權者，得請求除去之。有侵害之虞者，得請求防止之。 （第二項）發明專利權人對於因故意或過失侵害其專利權者，得請求損害賠償。 （第三項）發明專利權人為第一項之請求時，對於侵害專利權之物或從事侵害行為之原料或器具，得請求銷毀或為其他必要之處置。 （第四項）專屬被授權人在被授權範圍內，得為前三項之請求。但契約另有約定者，從其約定。 （第五項）發明人之姓名表示權受侵害時，得請求表示發明人之姓名或為其他回復名譽之必要處分。 （第六項）第二項及前項所定之請求權，自請求權人知有損害及賠償義務人時起，二年間不行使而消滅；自行為時起，逾十年者，亦同。
梁雨安律師-超囉嗦自我介紹
一、102年律師高考55名-司法官等級的律師名次。 二、近乎判決等級的訴狀-因狀紙是檢索大量判決後生成的產物，故該狀紙通常會出現大量判決文字。 三、破億級訴訟全勝-臺灣臺中地方法院103年度重訴字第382號民事判決，算是執業生涯新里程碑。 四、千萬級契約-審約經驗為300多份契約，其中幾份契約之金額近千萬元。 五、執業六年多，身經百戰，辦案經驗豐富(總開庭數破800、總撰狀數破700)，近期剛打出一波8連勝。 六、於一案幫六位被告辯護並取得六個無罪判決。 七、本律師已辦過案件類型約略如下(總承辦案件破200件)： (一) 民事 1.勞資糾紛-薪資、解雇無效、職業災害補償 2.給付承攬報酬、票款、工程款、仲介報酬 3.返還借款、租金、保險金、徵收款、代墊款、土地、停車位 4.分割遺產/共有物、酌給、遺囑、拋棄繼承、特留分扣減 5.給付扶養費、離婚、確認婚姻關係不存在、保護令、監護宣告 6.損害賠償-漏水、凶宅、海砂屋、鄰損、車禍 7.假扣押、假執行、假處分、分配表異議之訴、債務人異議之訴 8.優先承購權、借名登記、合夥清算、撤銷信託、返還信託物 9.確認本票債權不存在、確認抵押權不存在 10.375減租、國家賠償、確認親子關係存在、召開親屬會議、確認通行權 11.當選無效 12.專利舉發訴訟、專利侵權訴訟、商標、專利侵權警告函 13.商標評定、異議、申復、廢止 (二) 刑事 1.詐欺、侵占、竊盜、毀損、贓物、強盜 2.傷害、殺人、過失致死 3.銀行法、恐嚇取財、重利、廢棄物清理法 4.公然侮辱、毀謗、通姦 5.妨害性自主、兒少條例 6.貪汙、偽造文書、背信、證卷交易法 7.槍砲彈刀、公共危險 8.毒品、藥事法 9.誣告、選罷法、妨害投票 10.商標、著作權、營業秘密、公平交易法
▲蘇狀師談娛樂法(著作權法篇)
▲蘇狀師談娛樂法(著作權法篇) 著作權法與娛樂事業息息相關，例如將中文小說翻譯成英文版本，或改編成電視、電影劇本，或將改編後的劇本拍成電視、電影。要翻譯、改編（翻譯、改寫、拍攝影片屬於著作權法之改作），即需要取得原創作者之同意或授權。於是衍生出授權及著作權財產權、著作人格權歸屬的問題。 問題 某甲性喜古代經典小說，亦喜愛寫作；時常在自己的部落格或臉書連載一些自創的小說或札記。某日，甲突發奇想；將經典小說西遊記改寫成自己的版本，連載在自己的部落格或臉書予人觀覽。試問甲有無侵害西遊記作者的著作財產權？ 解析 首先探究甲可能侵害到著作人的何種著作財產權。 按我國著作權法（下稱著作權法）第22條，著作人除本法另有規定外，專有重製其著作的權利。第28條，著作人專有將其著作改作成衍生著作或編輯成編輯著作之權利。但表演不適之。復著作權法第3條第1項第5款，重製：指以印刷、複印、錄音、錄影、攝影、筆錄或其他方法直接、間接、永久或暫時之重複製作。於劇本、音樂著作或其他類似著作演出或播送時予以錄音或錄影；或依建築設計圖或建築模型建造建築物者，亦屬之。著作權法第3條第1項第11款，改作：指以翻譯、編曲、改寫、拍攝影片或其他方法就原著作另為創作。依此，甲的行為涉及著作權法所欲規範的重製及改作行為，而重製及改作屬於著作人的著作財產權，故甲的行為有可能侵害上開著作財產權。為避免討論過於龐雜，本文僅討論甲之改作行為所涉及的法律問題。 惟著作財產權有存續期間，此可見著作權法第30條第1項(本條規定的是自然人著作財產權的存續期間)，著作財產權，除本法另有規定外，存續於著作人之生存期間及其死亡後五十年。西遊記的作者吳承恩離世距今已四百餘年，由此論斷其著作財產權已消滅，任何人皆可利用。而且吳承恩係生前就公開發表其所作之西遊記，因此也無適用同條第2項死後發表其著作財產權存續期間規定之餘地。 那甲可盡情地改寫西遊記？例如將孫悟空誕生的花果山寫成武當山，將好色的豬八戒寫成正義凜然的帥哥，原則上可以。不過著作權法除保護著作人之著作財產權外，尚有保護著作人的著作人格權，此點要特別注意。苟行為人(非指本案之甲)的改作行為侵害到著作人的名譽時，即涉及所謂著作權法第17條的禁止不當變更權；若符合該條的構成要件，除了可能要負民事責任外，還可能要負刑事責任。 ※本案甲若涉及侵害著作人的不當變更權，請求民、刑事救濟可獲救濟否？ 要注意著作人格權具有一身專屬性，不得讓與或繼承，著作權法第21條有明文。另依著作權法第18條，著作人(自然人)死亡或(法人)消滅者，關於其著作人格權之保護，視同生存或存續，任何人不得侵害。但依利用行為之性質及程度，社會之變動或其他情事可認為不違反該著作人之意思者，不構成侵害。 假設甲侵害著作權法第17條所謂的不當變更權，就民事侵權行為部分，著作人已死亡，無法請求，他人可否請求？著作權法第86條設有保護規定但有限制。依該條所示除吳承恩遺囑另有指定外，只限於吳承恩的配偶、子女、父母、孫子女、兄弟姊妹、祖父母才可請求，不過該等請求救濟權人想必都已離世，故無法主張著作權法第84條（侵害除去，侵害防止）、第85條第2項的請求權（表示姓名、更正內容或為其他回復名譽之適當處分）。 而著作權法第85條第1項，侵害著作人格權之損害賠償請求權（財產及非財產損害）及第88條侵害著作財產權之損害賠償請求權，依其文義僅被害人始得請求（此可理解，限縮以被害人可請求為限，避免過度擴張；而且金錢之賠償與侵害權利行為之即時排除或防止之本質與立法目的均有不同，故有相異之規定）。據此，吳承恩已過世，亦無法主張。 刑事部分；依著作權法第93條第1款，有下列情形之一者，處二年以下有期徒刑、拘役、或科或併科新臺幣五十萬元以下罰金：一 侵害第十五條至第十七條規定之著作人格權。又同法第100條，本章之罪，須告訴乃論。但犯第91條第3項及第91條之1第3項之罪，不在此限。而依刑事訴訟法第232條之規定，犯罪之被害人，得為告訴。而西遊記之著作人吳承恩(即被害人)已死亡，無法再提出告訴，是否即因此不得處罰？依刑事訴訟法第233條第2項，被害人已死亡者，得由其配偶、直系血親、三親等旁系、二親等內之姻親或家長、家屬告訴。但告訴乃論之罪，不得與被害人明示之意思相反。條文中明示被害人已死亡者，其直系血親可提出刑事告訴，但未言明幾親等的直系血親可提出刑事告訴，既然未言明幾親等，故只要是吳承恩的後代直系血親都可提刑事告訴；況名譽這一部分，是人都很在意，更何況像吳承恩這種有知名度的人應該會更在意，所以如果他有直系血親後代還是可以提起刑事告訴。不過據本人的查考，他並無留有子嗣，所以應該不會有直系血親提起刑事告訴。 另我國刑法第312條亦設有保護死者名譽之規定，其第1項，對於已死之人公然侮辱者，處拘役或九千元以下罰金。第2項，對於已死之人，犯誹謗罪者，處一年以下有期徒刑、拘役或三萬元以下罰金。犯上揭二罪項須告訴乃論，見刑法第314條。此與前述侵害著作人格權涉及刑事部分，均以告訴為訴追條件。惟刑法對死者誹謗罪的構成要件與著作權法第17條的構成要件不盡相同（最大不同點，主張著作權法第17條者，要有著作存在）；著作權法第17條規定，著作人享有禁止他人以歪曲、割裂、竄改或其他方法改變其著作之內容、形式或名目致損害其名譽之權利；誹謗係意圖散布於眾，而指摘或傳述足以毀損他人名譽之事，包括以言語或散布文字、圖畫，兩者有可能競合；若有競合的情形產生，依特別法優於普通法之規定，著作權法應先適用。 諸不論援引的係刑法或著作權法之規定，就侵害名譽涉及刑事部分，因吳承恩無後代直系血親，原則上無人可提告(現今還未發現其有直系血親後代之事實，不過難保有天某人跳出來自承其是吳承恩之後代直系血親，而且經查、考證屬實。所以還是不要亂改寫幾百年前的小說，致妨害該已逝著作人之名譽，而負擔刑事責任；若改寫的內容不涉及妨害名譽，就比較沒關係)。 ※請尊重著作權，不得違法利用。 省思 甲改寫的作品，如果是每三天一回，布告在自己的部落格，總共寫了一百回，那他的著作係各自獨立，亦即一回即一個著作，還是一百回係一個著作？那著作財產權的存續期間又該如何計算？
▲英美法之「自承風險」原則
assumption of risk 自承風險 風險承擔（assumption of risk、自承風險）屬於英美侵權法中的一種抗辯，如果被告能夠證明原告自願且明知地承擔了他所處的危險活動中所受的損害之固有的風險，則法律就會限制或減少原告對過失侵權行為人(被告)的追償權（故意侵權沒有適用）。 Attending baseball games and other sporting events is a quintessential American pastime. However, it is not uncommon that an accident can result in the injury of a fan. 參加棒球賽及其他運動賽事在美國是典型的消遣。然而，球迷在球賽中所生意外造成傷害卻是普遍現象。 Hit by a foul ball:被界外球擊中 In July 2015, a fan attending a Brewers/Braves baseball game at Milwaukee’s Miller Park was struck in the face by a foul ball. The fan sustained near-fatal injuries that have resulted in over $200,000 in medical bills and will require lifelong care. In August 2016, another fan was struck by a line-drive at Miller Park. 2015年，一位球迷在密爾瓦基觀看釀酒人與勇士兩隊的大聯盟賽事被界外球擊中臉部。該名球迷遭受到幾近致命之傷害，進而支出超過20萬美元之醫療費用，同時需要終身醫療。2016年8月另一名球迷在同場地被平飛球擊中。 Unfortunately, Miller Park isn't alone when it comes to spectator injuries. A 2014 study by Bloomberg News found 1,750 fans per year were injured by foul balls at Major League games. In 2018, A woman died after being hit in the head with a foul ball at Dodgers Stadium, making her the first foul-ball fatality in nearly 50 years. Spectators of hockey and NASCAR are also at risk of potentially hazardous projectiles at games and races as well. But if you are injured by a foul ball or stray hockey puck that flies into the stands, who is responsible for your medical bills, or possible lost time at work? 當談到觀眾受傷，米勒棒球場（密爾瓦基釀酒人之主場）並不是唯一。2014年彭博新聞指出大聯盟賽事每年有1750名球迷被界外球擊中。2018年在道奇隊球場，一名婦人在被界外球擊中頭部後死亡，離之前首位被擊中身亡者將近50年。職業冰球的冰球及全國運動汽車競賽協會舉行的賽事理的賽車在比賽中系極具淺在危險性之拋射體。假如你在觀眾席被界外球擊中或冰上曲棍球的冰球擊中，誰要負擔你的醫療費及工作能力之損失？ The answer, unfortunately, is you.很不幸，答案是你（亦即你自己要負擔醫療費用及所受的傷害、損害） “Assumed Risk” and your ticket:自承風險及你的賽票 Assumed risk falls into the category of liability that applies to the so-called “baseball rule,” that is implemented in both professional and amateur leagues. If you read the fine print on the back of your ticket to a sporting event, it usually outlines refund policies and rules regarding flash photography. This is also where you will find that statement of assumed risk, which is why the venue isn’t liable for your injuries. 「自承風險」落入適用所謂“棒球法則”責任歸屬之範疇，其在職業及業餘賽事都有適用。假如你閱讀你賽票背面小號字體印刷品，其通常會將補償方案及法則用以凸顯方式概略出來，你將會發現自承風險的聲明，這也是為何賽事場地對你所受之傷毋庸負責之理。 It is assumed, that when choosing to attend a sporting event, the spectator understands that flying objects may enter the seats. And it is the spectator’s responsibility to avoid them. 其已被自我承擔，當選擇觀看賽事時，觀眾意識到飛來物會進入觀眾席，同時觀眾有責任去迴避牠。 The exception:自承風險之例外（待續）點擊觀看，將視點擊數多寡，續行翻譯。 While most risks at sporting events are considered "inherent to the game," there are situations in which negligent circumstances would hold the stadium/venue liable for injuries. For example: If you were to fall due to a broken handrail or other forms of facility disrepair such as a damaged net or partition, one could find the ballpark negligent for improper maintenance of the grounds. In other cases, dram shop laws (like “social host” law) can be applied if a patron is over-served alcohol by stadium concessions and causes an accident of some sort while intoxicated. Unfortunately for many, this baseball rule was adopted when the game was quite different. Things happen a lot faster on the field these days and the entertaining nature of the sport often creates more “sideshows” that distract fans from what is happening on the field. We are forced to assume a certain level of risk any time we attend a spectator sport. So even with nets and barriers to protect fans, the most you can do is to always be alert while watching a game.