...
首页> 外文期刊>IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Magazine >Patent law trumps trademark law [Vornado electric fan]
【24h】

Patent law trumps trademark law [Vornado electric fan]

机译:专利法胜过商标法[Vornado电风扇]

获取原文
           

摘要

What happens when the purposes of the patent laws conflict with the purposes of the trademark laws? Which law should prevail? That was the question before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit in the recent case of Vornado vs. Duracraft. The answer the court gave was that the patent laws should prevail and as a result, the court severely limited the trademark doctrine of "trade dress" protection. The law of trade dress deals with the design and shape of products and their packaging. Originally developed under the general law of unfair competition, both state and federal courts now protect from misappropriation product configurations that identify a manufacturer as the source of a product. Examples of configurations which have been found to be entitled to such protection include the Rolls-Royce radiator grille, and the Honeywell circular thermostat. When trade dress rights exist, a competitor can be stopped from making a look-alike product. Because trade dress rights, like other trademark rights, can potentially last forever, courts have put strict limits on the types of product configurations that are eligible for trade dress protection. Configurations that are functional cannot receive trade dress protection. The test for functionality is often whether other configurations exist that can perform the same function. The Vornado case added another limitation to the trade dress doctrine, namely, if a product configuration is a significant inventive component of the claims of a patent on the product, that configuration cannot receive trade dress protection even if it is not functional. The case involved a highly successful electric fan invented by the Vornado company. The fan had a sleek modern appearance with a distinctive spiral grille, which readily identified it as a Vornado fan. Vornado obtained a utility patent on its fan, all the claims of which included the spiral grille feature. Vornado, however, was not able to obtain a claim to the spiral grille by itself since such grilles, although no longer in use, were disclosed in old patents.
机译:如果专利法的目的与商标法的目的发生冲突,会发生什么?哪条法律优先?这是在最近的Vornado诉Duracraft一案中,美国第十巡回上诉法院面临的问题。法院给出的答案是,应以专利法为准,因此,法院严格限制了“商业外观”保护的商标学说。商业外观法则涉及产品及其包装的设计和形状。州法院和联邦法院最初是根据不正当竞争的一般法律制定的,现在可以防止将制造商确定为产品来源的盗用产品配置。已发现具有这种保护功能的配置示例包括劳斯莱斯散热器格栅和霍尼韦尔圆形恒温器。如果存在商业外观权,则可以阻止竞争对手制造外观相似的产品。因为与其他商标权一样,商业外观权利可能会永久保留,所以法院对符合商业外观保护条件的产品配置类型进行了严格限制。功能性配置无法获得商业外观保护。功能测试通常是是否存在其他可以执行相同功能的配置。 Vornado案对商业外观原则增加了另一个限制,即,如果产品配置是该产品专利权利要求的重要发明组成部分,则即使该配置没有功能,也无法获得商业外观保护。该案涉及Vornado公司发明的非常成功的电风扇。该风扇外观时尚,带有独特的螺旋形格栅,很容易将其识别为Vornado风扇。 Vornado的风扇获得了实用新型专利,其所有权利要求均包括螺旋格栅特征。然而,Vornado本身无法获得对螺旋形格栅的要求,因为这种格栅虽然不再使用,但已在旧专利中公开。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号