功能性原則之功能──論美國智慧財產權法下功能性原則之發展與交錯

Functions of Functionality: Study on the Development and Intertwining of Functionality Doctrines under U.S. Intellectual Property Laws

在智慧財產權法制下，專利法、商標法，與著作權法，依其制定之目的，各有所欲維護之利益與保護之對象。一般而言，發明專利保護實用的技術創新；設計專利保護物品之裝飾性外觀；商標法保護可識別商品來源之標誌；著作權則保護具一定創意程度之表達。換言之，僅發明專利保護實用性「功能」，設計專利、商標、著作權法則對「功能性」設有一定形式之排除與限制，以避免原應受發明專利保護之標的轉而取得設計專利、商標，或著作權等權利，規避發明專利之嚴格審查標準，卻仍可獲得類似專利權的獨占權利，是以劃分各智慧財產權法律規範之保護範圍與標的有其實益。然而，功能性原則於各智慧財產權法領域下之定位本即複雜而難有明確之定義，美國聯邦巡迴上訴法院於二○一五年做出Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co.案，判定同一Apple使用者介面之圖形設計因為不具「功能性」而可受設計專利之保護，但同時亦因為具「功能性」而排除商業表徵之保護即為一例。此外，二○一七年美國最高法院Star Athletica v. Varsity Brands案於一、二審級間對於啦啦隊服之「固有實用性功能」之定義產生歧異，然最高法院之主審Thomas大法官卻未於該案處理「固有實用性功能」應如何界定之問題。是以，本文首將整理功能性原則在設計專利、商標，與著作權各領域間之定義與發展，再進而探討功能性原則所應發揮的作用：是否因為各該立法目的及所欲保護法益之不同，而應有所差異？還是為了確保實用性技術應專屬於發明專利範疇之目的，而應為一致之闡釋？又應如何為之？均係本文所欲探究之重心。最後，我國智慧財產權法制受美國影響甚深，但當前智慧財產局之「專利審查基準」已與美國CAFC及我國智慧財產法院見解不同，且我國商標法並無「商業表徵」之用語，對「美感功能性」之審查方式並不明確，司法實務上尚無相關判例採用此一概念。而我國著作權法亦無「實用性物品」之概念，而係以「應用美術」、「美術工藝品」作為可否受著作權法保護之標的，故關於美國法研究之結論是否可一概運用於我國法相應規範下，亦有待推論。是以文亦將就我國相應之規範與案例，並將就美國法分析所得之結論予以比較、適用，期能提出適切之建議以供司法實務與學術先進參考。

Under the intellectual property rights legal system, the patent law, trademark law, and copyright law, according to the purpose of enactment, each have its own interests and protection object matters that the laws want to maintain. If they are legal norms of intellectual property rights with different purposes, their respective scope of protection should have boundaries, and the subject matter of protection should be different. In general, utility patent rights protect utilitarian technical innovations; design patent rights protect the ornamental appearance of articles of manufacture; trademark law protects marks that identify the source of goods; copyright law protects expressions with a certain degree of creativity. In other words, only the utility patent rights protect “function”, and the design patent, trademark, and copyright laws have certain forms of exclusion and restriction on “functionality”, in order to avoid utilitarian technical innovations, which shall be protected under utility patent rights, evading the strict examination requirements of utility patent but still obtain patent-like exclusive rights form the design patent, trademark, or copyrights regimes. Therefore, it is important and beneficial to divide the scope of protection among different regimes of intellectual property rights. However, there are inherent complexities in applying the nonfunctional requirement which manifests itself differently in each regime. Regardless of the form the non-functionality requirement takes, applying it poses severe difficulties, because it is difficult to draw a clear line between functional and non-functional features. Therefore, this project will explore the role of functional doctrines in various fields of intellectual property rights. Should it be different because of the different legislative purposes and the differences in legal interests? Or instead, for the purpose to exclude utilitarian technical innovations out of the regimes beyond utility patent rights, functional doctrines should have a consistent interpretation? As so, how should the interpretation be? The purpose of this project, therefore, is to examine the substances of the functional doctrines and to propose a mechanism for applying these doctrines that may make them more workable.