智權報總覽 > 侵權訴訟探討           
 
美國設計專利歸屬方法基礎關鍵詞:Ornamentality
張修明/北美智權 教育訓練處 研發創新顧問
2014.12.03

Ornamentality=裝飾性?

Louvre Department of Decorative Arts period room featuring the furniture and collections of Marie-Antoinette (Photo © 2014 Musée du Louvre, dist. RMN-GP / Olivier Ouadah) (註1

美國設計專利歸屬方法基礎之關鍵詞──專利審查程序手冊(MPEP (註2 )Chapter 1500 Design Patents (註3 裡,用以分析標的物應該歸屬於 Utility Patents 或是 Design Patents 的保護範圍的 “Functionality” 與 “Ornamentality”,在過往諸多研究文獻中都將 Ornamentality 譯作「裝飾性」,雖可讓人易於閱讀,但深入研究後,並以工業設計專業的角度,辨析美國專利以「功能」與「裝飾」二分方法,我認為「裝飾性」並無法清楚表達其意涵且易致混淆。原因是由判例構成的 MPEP仍在演化中 (註4 ,即使演化到極致,由於法治仍須為人治,若要將之科學化,難度非常高,或不免落入文字的雕琢。

它顯明了以下三個問題:

  1. 區辨一物的功能性與裝飾性的困難 (註5
  2. 美國無 Utility Model (註6 (通譯:(實用)新型專利)造成僅有兩種專利的歸屬選擇:有些物件無法以裝飾性(特定的形)取得全然的保護,因其概念是易於被利用、並以其他不同造形實現的,設計專利的揭露同時也揭露了「概念」與「迴避特定的形的方法」。
  3. 專利界與設計界對於當代工業設計(Industrial Design)實務工作脈絡的理解不同,造成對專利標的物不同的解讀方法 (註7

在此特別一提,在 劍橋辭典(Cambridge English Dictionary and Thesaurus)、韋伯辭典(Merriam-Webster Dictionary)、牛津辭典(Oxford Dictionaries) 以及朗文辭典( Longman English Dictionary) 裡,都不存在 Ornamentality 一字,讓我思考到中文的「裝飾性」所表之意,可能無法完全解釋 Ornamentality 在 MPEP 裡的意義。雖理解其與 ornate 同字源(orn,指給予…裝備的概念,ornate,指(過分)裝飾,是帶有貶意的形容詞),在本文討論過程中出現之「裝飾性」僅為暫代譯詞,目的是希望為這個「專利用字」尋求更好的詮釋。另本討論所述「造形 (註8 」表達意義,需視該整段文句才能決定其表達的是「設計或其行為」(過程、方法)或是「物體形態、形式、式樣」(呈現、結果)。


Cream Soup Spoon, Cromargan® spoon, design by Peter Bäurle (註9

上圖的湯匙是可以申請設計專利的,表示它具有設計專利予以保護的裝飾性部分。或許你會疑惑有何裝飾性,在此可以先拋棄裝飾性三個字,而以「整體造形 (註10 」(the overall appearance)看待。意即:湯匙是否可以有各種形態?如果是,那麼該被呈現的形態就具有它基本的獨特理由──這理由可能「同時表達 (註11 理性感性的因素,例如,除了可以藉由造形(觸及經驗知識)得知它是湯匙(as a tool),還有圓滑、流線與簡潔的感受。


Victoria McIntosh: ‘Spoon Collection’, Found spoons and pins. (註12

(注意:裝飾性與功能性的判別是比對相似性之前的基礎工作,這工作可能發生在法庭上,也可能發生在專利申請人判斷該物件適合申請何種專利,或兩者皆需申請,以達專利適格性與有效性 (註13 。)

讓我們想想,什麼是「純粹裝飾」?如棉被上的印花或繡花,而且它不能像繡學號那樣提供確定訊息;或是整體被稱作裝飾品、飾品、首飾、藝術品、壁畫、雕塑的東西,本身就是為了裝飾而存在,或可以自由選擇不理解作品所要傳達的意涵,嚴格講起來,它是為了「視覺註14」(觀賞)而存在。它表達使用者將之解碼(decoding)的意涵,使用者理解其為裝飾,容許挑起你的視覺感官,從不可言喻到模糊邏輯,可以有象徵性(symbolic),但不能有如安全門指示燈上的標示或電器按鍵上的指示印刷的指示性(indication)。以上似乎將設計狹隘化了,事實上,這就是美國設計專利基礎的二分法:以「創作目的」判別該物可否成為設計專利標的物,或該設計專利是否有效。

(注意:許多人認為設計專利就是比對圖面外形,但實務上發生訴訟爭議時,創作目的也會成為設計專利是否有效的爭論,成為進入比對相似性之前的阻礙,它可以牽扯的範圍很廣泛,例如市場因素、企業識別等等 (註15 。)

以我們所認知的裝飾性,但為什麼具有指示性的圖樣,或是手機螢幕上的靜態或動態的電腦圖形符號 (註16 (ICON)仍可以申請 Design Patents?很明顯地,它們不是以裝飾為目的,只因為無法申請 Utility Patents(UI的方法、流程可以申請),又沒有適當的法律保護,所以就以裝飾性解釋所有的 外觀(appearance)?設計專利試圖以裝飾性解釋所有被 Utility Patents 排除的設計結果。因此,以「視覺性」代替裝飾性可能是較為恰當的理解,視覺性同時包含功能的存在,可以解析為「被看見的功能」,這功能可以擴及「純粹裝飾到純粹工具」;設計即為「該功能如何被看見的方法」,而我們所看到的,就是視覺化與實體化的結果。當我們可以如此看待物,問題就可以簡化為分析該「裝飾程度」──究竟這程度低到多少的時候,會產生歸屬上的爭議。MPEP 1500-17 有段我認為是較佳的解釋:「決定裝飾性並不是基於特徵尺寸、數量、面積的量化分析,較好的方式是基於該裝飾性對於這設計可以被視為一整體的貢獻註17 。」


Left: Salvador Dali, Téléphone-homard (Lobster Telephone), 1936, Metal, plastic, and plaster, 30.5 x 18 x 12.5 cm, Museum für Kommunikation, Frankfurt. Right: The Mae West Lips Sofa (1937) is a surrealist sofa by Salvador Dalí. The wood-and-satin sofa was shaped after the lips of actress Mae West, whom Dalí apparently found fascinating. It measures 86.5 x 183 x 81.5 cm (34 x 72 x 32 in). (註18

所有的人造物,都是設計的結果,都是由不同程度的裝飾包覆著功能而呈現的整體造形,由上圖兩件達利(Salvador Dalí, 1904~89)的作品可以感受,有些物的裝飾性與功能性很容易區分,有些則不然,而所有的人造物,即使是純粹的工具,都同時表達了這兩件事;也因此,有時不是那麼容易區辨一物的功能與裝飾。純粹視覺是跨越到功能性的隔閡,例如,無論看著鐵鎚多久,都是無法執行其功能的。由此描述可知,當一物「不只是拿來看的」,它就具有功能性

「設計」是「實現」「功能」的「方法」,有多少方法,就有多少結果。「實現」指包含「實體化」與「視覺化」的過程,裝飾性可說是視覺化的同義詞。設計專利著重視覺上的描述;這種描述在盲人的世界是不成立的。盲人的用品如導盲磚、盲人點字機當然可以申請設計專利,但在法律上只能用明眼人的方式解讀。例如 Larson v. Classic Corp., 683 F.Supp. 1202, 7 USPQ2d 1747 (N.D. Ill. 1988) 案,簡易庭曾因被告訴求水床在正常使用的時候是被覆蓋而看不見的,而判決原告的專利無效;又如 In re Webb, 916 F.2d 1553, 1558, 16USPQ2d 1433, 1436 (Fed. Cir. 1990) 案,對於手術植入物因最終是隱藏在身體裡而喪失視覺性,也曾產生是否符合設計專利要件的爭議。這些看似荒謬的理由,都具有使法律進步的正面意義。


American sterling silver Art Nouveau twist openwork Bon Bon spoon by Towle, c.1910. (註19

上圖的湯匙雖佈滿了裝飾,但仍能執行其工具性功能,因為你可以毫不遲疑地知道它就是個湯匙,因為我們對日常熟悉之物有「典型」(prototype)的概念。我們可以將其裝飾性與無裝飾的基本造型區分開──裝飾是包覆於基本工具之外,功能的目的與裝飾的目的可以區分得非常清楚。但也可以體會,裝飾性與功能性在一物上,是具有程度上的競爭,即裝飾性超過一個臨界程度,會使該物喪失(工具)功能性。近代設計的觀點,表面裝飾並非工業設計主要之目的,許多的外形如電器外觀,本身就同時提供外觀造型、人機介面與包覆內部機件的功能──功能一詞具有複合意義。從產品設計的角度出發,有助於理解設計實務上,功能與裝飾是同時存在的。

 

備註

  1. www.forbes.com/sites/yjeanmundelsalle/2014/08/18/the-louvre-museum-reopens-its-18th-century-decorative-arts-galleries-with-the-support-of-breguet-watches/2/
  2. Manual of Patent Examining Procedure
    www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/mpep-1500.pdf
  3. 1502 Definition of a Design, 1502.01 Distinction Between Design and Utility Patents, 1504.01(c) Lack of Ornamentality
  4. “Intellectual Property rules are a constantly moving target.” wiki.gettyimages.com/about
  5. “While utility and design patents afford legally separate protection, the utility and ornamentality of an article may not be easily separable. Articles of manufacture may possess both functional and ornamental characteristics.” (1502.01 Distinction Between Design and Utility Patents [R-11.2013])
  6. Utility Model 非為了解決此二分法問題而存在,時間與成本也是選擇因素。
  7. 世界智慧財產權組織(WIPO)對 Industrial Design 的解釋為:“An industrial design constitutes the ornamental or aesthetic aspect of an article. A design may consist of three-dimensional features, such as the shape or surface of an article, or of two-dimensional features, such as patterns, lines or color. Industrial designs are what make a product attractive and appealing; hence, they add to the commercial value of a product and increase its marketability.” www.wipo.int/designs/en/
    美國工業設計師協會(IDSA)對Industrial Design 的解釋:“Industrial design (ID) is the professional service of creating and developing concepts and specifications that optimize the function, value and appearance of products and systems for the mutual benefit of both user and manufacturer.” www.idsa.org/what-is-industrial-design
  8. 「造形」日本語用法可等同設計(Design),又可表「物體所表現的輪廓與外形」。
  9. www.archiproducts.com/en/products/73588/bistro-cromargan-spoon-cream-soup-spoon-wmf.html
  10. “In determining whether a design is primarily functional or primarily ornamental the claimed design is viewed in its entirety, for the ultimate question is not the functional or decorative aspect of each separate feature, but the overall appearance of the article…” (1504.01(c) Lack of Ornamentality [R-08.2012] I. FUNCTIONALITY VS. ORNAMENTALITY)
  11. “Design is inseparable from the article to which it is applied, and cannot exist alone merely as a scheme of ornamentation.” (15.44 Design Inseparable From Article to Which Applied)
  12. conetenanddescending.wordpress.com/2013/01/29/in-celebration-of-the-inconsequential
  13. “In a design patent application, the subject matter which is claimed is the design embodied in or applied to an article of manufacture (or portion thereof) and not the article itself. “[35 U.S.C.] 171 refers, not to the design of an article, but to the design for an article, and is inclusive of ornamental designs of all kinds including surface ornamentation as well as configuration of goods.” Since a design is manifested in appearance, the subject matter of a design patent application may relate to the configuration or shape of an article, to the surface ornamentation applied to an article, or to the combination of configuration and surface ornamentation.” (1502 Definition of a Design [R-08.2012])
  14. “The design for an article consists of the visual characteristics or aspect displayed by the article. It is the appearance presented by the article which creates an impression through the eye upon the mind of the observer.” (1502 Definition of a Design [R-08.2012], 15.42 Visual Characteristics)
  15. “While ornamentality must be based on the entire design, “[i]n determining whether a design is primarily functional, the purposes of the particular elements of the design necessarily must be considered.” Power Controls Corp. v. Hybrinetics, Inc., 806 F.2d 234, 240, 231 USPQ 774, 778 (Fed.Cir. 1986). The court in Smith v. M & B Sales &Manufacturing, 13 USPQ2d 2002, 2004 (N. D. Cal.1990), states that if “significant decisions about how to put it [the item] together and present it in the marketplace were informed by primarily ornamental considerations”, this information may establish the ornamentality of a design.” (1504.01(c) Lack of Ornamentality [R-08.2012] I. FUNCTIONALITY VS. ORNAMENTALITY)
  16. “Computer-generated icons, such as full screen displays and individual icons, are 2-dimensionalimages which alone are surface ornamentation.” (1504.01(a) Computer-Generated Icons[R-11.2013], 1500-14)
    “The images are understood as viewed sequentially, no ornamental aspects are attributed to the process or period in which one image changes into another.” (IV. CHANGEABLE COMPUTERGENERATED ICONS, 1500-16)
  17. “A determination of ornamentality is not a quantitative analysis based on the size of the ornamental feature or features but rather a determination based on their ornamental contribution to the design as a whole.”
  18. arttattler.com/archivedanishandinternationalsurrealism.html
    www.evoketw.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/00352.jpg
  19. www.rubylane.com/item/694606-F281/Art-Nouveau-Bon-Bon-Spoon-Towle

 


Facebook 在北美智權報粉絲團上追踪我們