[ 邵胤植 ]——(2003-4-26) / 已阅39149次
[11] 商标外观上的第二含义，概指购买群能够依此含义，而将该外观与特定之商品联系起来（The purchasing public associates the dress with a particular source）。参见 Vision Sports, Inc. v. Melville Corp., 888 F.2d 609 (9th Cir. 1989).
[12] See Chevron Chemical Co. v. Voluntary Purchasing Groups, Inc.659 F.2d 695 (5th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 457 U.S. 1126 (1982). 本案中，法院认为，既有固有显著性，则无须证明第二含义。
[13] See Two Pesos, Inc. v. Taco Cabana Intl., Inc., 505 U.S. 763 (1992).
[14] 参见： C. Andrew Wattleworth, Comment, Inherently Distinctive Product Configurations under 43 of the Lanham Act: Where Do We Stand in the Aftermath of Two Pesos?, 26 CUMB. L. REV. 1071 (1995).
[15] 参见：Seabrook Foods, Inc. v. Bar-Well Foods Ltd., 568 F.2d 1342, 1344 (C.C.P.A. 1977). 本案中，冰冻蔬菜之卵形鱼设计，被认为不具显著性。
[16] See Duraco Products, Inc. v. Joy Plastic Enterprises, Ltd., 40 F.3d 1431 (3d Cir. 1994). 在本案中，原告Duraco诉称其为园艺设计之希腊风格的瓮器，具有固有显著性。
[17] See Knitwaves Inc., v. Lollytogs, Ltd., 71 F.3d 996 (2d Cir. 1995).
[18] See Stuart Hall Co., Inc. v. Ampad Corp., 51 F.3d 780 (8th Cir. 1995).
[19] See Kreuger Int'l., Inc. v. Nightingale Inc., 915 F. Supp. 595 (S.D.N.Y. 1996).
[20] See Landscape Forms, Inc. v. Columbia Cascade Co., 113 F.3d 373 (2d Cir. 1997).
[21] See Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Samara Brother, Inc., 529 U.S. 205 (2000).
[22] See Qualitex v. Jacobson Products, 514 U.S. 159 (1995). 该案虽非商业外观判例，但却涉及商业外观的讨论。
[23] "We think... Consumers are aware of the reality that, almost invariably, even the most unusual of product designs-such as a cocktail shaker shaped like a penguin-is intended not to identify the source, but to render the product itself more useful or more appealing." (Wal-Mart, at 213)
[24] 同上注。
[25] 一般而言，证明第二含义，须综合考察消费者调查、消费者证词、厂商独占使用该外观的持续时间、广告之种类及开支、客户及销售之数量、销售业绩，及假冒的故意，等等。
[26] See Ian Starr & Richard Cumbley, Keep Your Shape, Intellectual Property Briefing, Autumn 1999, at 2. 但是，在澳大利亚，商业外观的�；に悸匪坪跆乇鹬厥涌凸鄣鞑椋⊿urvey）数据。
[27] See Stuart M. Riback, Product Design Trade Dress: Where Do We Go From Here?, Vol.90 TMR, 2000, at 566.
[28] Id. at 565.
[29] See Joseph J. Ferretti, Product Design Trade Dress Hits The Wall . . . Mart: Wal-Mart V. Samara Brothers, 42 J.L. & TECH. 417, 2002.
[30] Id. Supra n27, at 564. 该文作者将Wal-Mart的判决，视为一种政策性决定，而非纯法律的判决。
[31] See Sicilia Di R. Biebow & Co. v. Cox, 732 F.2d 417, 429 (5th Cir. 1984).
[32] "[I]f it affects a cost or quality of the article." See Qualitex v. Jacobson, 115 S. Ct. 1300 (1995).
[33] See Keene Corp. v. Paraflex Indus., Inc., 653 F.2d 822, 827 (3d Cir. 1981).
[34] See Inwood Labs., Inc. v. Ives Labs., Inc., 456 U.S. 844, 846 (1982).
[35] See Interactive Network, Inc. v. NTN Communications, Inc., 875 F. Supp. 1398 (N.D. Cal. 1995).
总共6页 [1] [2] [3] 4 [5] [6]
上一页 下一页
