商标功能再审

IF 3 1区 社会学 Q1 LAW
R. Bone
{"title":"商标功能再审","authors":"R. Bone","doi":"10.1093/JLA/LAV002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The functionality doctrine in trademark law bars protection for some, but not all, source-identifying product features — so-called trade dress — that contribute to a product’s functional performance. Despite the doctrine’s lengthy history, its critical role in promoting intellectual property policies, and the considerable attention devoted to it in recent decades, courts and commentators still disagree about what functionality means, the reasons why functional marks should not be protected, and how far the functionality bar should extend. This confusion is due largely to a lack of clarity and rigor at the normative level. This article seeks to remedy the deficiency. It traces the history of the functionality doctrine, critically analyzes its policy foundations, and outlines an analytical approach for designing optimal functionality rules.","PeriodicalId":45189,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Legal Analysis","volume":"14 1","pages":"183-246"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2015-05-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Trademark Functionality Reexamined\",\"authors\":\"R. Bone\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/JLA/LAV002\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The functionality doctrine in trademark law bars protection for some, but not all, source-identifying product features — so-called trade dress — that contribute to a product’s functional performance. Despite the doctrine’s lengthy history, its critical role in promoting intellectual property policies, and the considerable attention devoted to it in recent decades, courts and commentators still disagree about what functionality means, the reasons why functional marks should not be protected, and how far the functionality bar should extend. This confusion is due largely to a lack of clarity and rigor at the normative level. This article seeks to remedy the deficiency. It traces the history of the functionality doctrine, critically analyzes its policy foundations, and outlines an analytical approach for designing optimal functionality rules.\",\"PeriodicalId\":45189,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Legal Analysis\",\"volume\":\"14 1\",\"pages\":\"183-246\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2015-05-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Legal Analysis\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/JLA/LAV002\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Legal Analysis","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/JLA/LAV002","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

商标法中的功能原则禁止对部分(但不是全部)来源识别产品特征(即所谓的商业外观)进行保护,这些特征有助于产品的功能性能。尽管这一原则有着悠久的历史,在促进知识产权政策方面发挥了关键作用,近几十年来也受到了相当多的关注,但法院和评论家们仍然对功能性的含义、功能性商标不应受到保护的原因以及功能性界限应该延伸到什么程度存在分歧。这种混淆主要是由于在规范层面缺乏明确性和严谨性。本文试图弥补这一缺陷。它追溯了功能主义的历史,批判性地分析了其政策基础,并概述了设计最佳功能规则的分析方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Trademark Functionality Reexamined
The functionality doctrine in trademark law bars protection for some, but not all, source-identifying product features — so-called trade dress — that contribute to a product’s functional performance. Despite the doctrine’s lengthy history, its critical role in promoting intellectual property policies, and the considerable attention devoted to it in recent decades, courts and commentators still disagree about what functionality means, the reasons why functional marks should not be protected, and how far the functionality bar should extend. This confusion is due largely to a lack of clarity and rigor at the normative level. This article seeks to remedy the deficiency. It traces the history of the functionality doctrine, critically analyzes its policy foundations, and outlines an analytical approach for designing optimal functionality rules.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
3
审稿时长
16 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信