英國公司Seven Towns於1996年提出魔術方塊商標申請，1999年取得魔術方塊的立體商標權。到了2006年，德國公司Simba Toys對此商標提出撤銷案，歐洲聯盟法院（European Union General Court ）先於2014確認魔術方塊商標權有效，但到了2016年，歐洲司法院（European Court of Justice, ECJ）認為魔術方塊可以取得專利，其具有功能性的外觀不是商標的標的。
案件資訊：
商標舉發人：Simba Toys GmbH & Co. KG
商標權人：Seven Towns Ltd.
本歐洲司法院（ECJ）案例涉及「魔術方塊（Rubik's Cube）」的歐盟立體商標爭議，「魔術方塊」的外觀特徵是立體方塊各表面具有格狀的結構。
本案先前先於歐洲聯盟法院駁回EUIPO作出商標無效的訴願決定，舉發人上訴歐洲司法院。
[法條摘錄]
不可註冊商標的理由是：
商標沒有獨特性；
僅限於指定類別、品質、數量、用途、價值、地理來源或生產時間的貿易服務的標誌；
標誌僅包括物品（商品）本身性質的形狀；
需要取得某個技術結果的必然物品外觀；
給予物品實質價值的外觀。
簡單來說，商標外觀本身要有識別性，且不能是商品本質或其功能所需的必要外觀。
Article 7 of Regulation No 40/94, entitled ‘Absolute grounds for refusal’, provides:
‘1. The following shall not be registered:
…
(b) trade marks which are devoid of any distinctive character;
(c) trade marks which consist exclusively of signs or indications which may serve, in trade, to designate the kind, quality, quantity, intended purpose, value, geographical origin, or the time of production of the goods or of rendering of the service, or other characteristics of the goods or service;
…
(e) signs which consist exclusively of:
(i) the shape which results from the nature of the goods themselves; or
(ii) the shape of goods which is necessary to obtain a technical result; or
(iii) the shape which gives substantial value to the goods;
…’
5 Under Article 74(1) of Regulation No 40/94:
‘In proceedings before it the Office shall examine the facts of its own motion; however, in proceedings relating to relative grounds for refusal of registration, the Office shall be restricted in this examination to the facts, evidence and arguments provided by the parties and the relief sought.’
舉發人的主張（first ground）：
舉發人Simba Toys公司主張原審歐洲聯盟法院（General Court）錯誤使用法條"Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of Regulation No 40/94"，因為原審法院過於狹窄地解釋物品形狀所具有的功能特徵，才認為商標仍是可批准的，舉發人主張商標外觀形狀的特徵不能是執行商品技術功效。（歐洲司法院同意此主張）
"By its first ground of appeal, Simba Toys claims that the General Court misapplied Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of Regulation No 40/94 by relying, inter alia, in paragraphs 56 to 77 of the judgment under appeal, on an interpretation of that provision that is too narrow in regard to the functional character of the shape at issue. Consequently, according to the appellant, the General Court erred in taking the view that the essential characteristics of that shape do not perform a technical function of the goods at issue."
在歐洲司法院的觀點下，爭點並非在商標標誌與實際商品（魔術方塊）的形狀（非抽象形狀），而是討論商品的技術功效，也就是一個立體的智力遊戲，是否考量其功能性與實際標誌的特性。
"Thus, and since it is not disputed that the sign at issue consists of the shape of actual goods and not of an abstract shape, the General Court should have defined the technical function of the actual goods at issue, namely a three-dimensional puzzle, and it should have taken this into account when assessing the functionality of the essential characteristics of that sign."
雖然，魔術方塊的註冊商標說明書有提到這並未限制到是一個具有旋轉能力的形狀，但審查時並不會去限制不能去考量商標所代表的真實商品的功能性（魔術方塊外觀涉及其可旋轉的功能），於是，相關的註冊商標（立體方塊）可能會被允許涵蓋到所有相關形狀的智力遊戲上，也就是評斷此商標範疇時，為了公眾利益，會認為這個立體商標涵蓋所有相關形狀的智力遊戲。
"Furthermore, the fact, as set out in paragraph 55 of the judgment under appeal, that the contested mark was registered for ‘three-dimensional puzzles’ in general, that is to say, without being restricted to those that have a rotating capability, and that the proprietor of that mark did not append to its application for registration a description specifying that the shape at issue had such a rotating capability, cannot preclude account from being taken of the technical function of the actual goods represented by the sign at issue for the purpose of examining the functionality of the essential characteristics of that sign, as the proprietor of that mark would otherwise be allowed to broaden the scope of the protection arising from the registration thereof to cover every type of puzzle with a similar shape, namely any three-dimensional puzzle with cube-shaped elements, regardless of the principles by which it functions."
這樣解釋的話，魔術方塊的商標雖未被申請人限定在「可以旋轉的立體方塊」，但法院考量時應列入考慮，而認為這個魔術方塊商標會涵蓋到相關形狀（立體方塊）的所有智力遊戲上，因此，為了避免商標壟斷，作出對商標權人不利的決定（違反Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of Regulation No 40/94）。
法官的意見是，魔術方塊的外觀形狀包括了技術方案，然而，商標僅考量其外觀形狀，不考慮功能，就其外觀而言，魔術方塊無法註冊商標。
my two cents:
我是不懂商標，但認為這個判決有點不符常理，因為魔術方塊有其獨特的外觀，即便涉及其旋轉的功能，但是光是外觀，就已經有識別性。
或是，因為這是個"立體商標"，如果僅是一張平面圖，或許...可以吧！
歐洲聯盟法院2014年判決：
http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=160043&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=881054
歐洲司法院2016年判決：
http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=185244&pageIndex=0&doclang=en&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=471439
新聞來源：
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-37938454
其他參考：
ptt專利討論區
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ern%C5%91_Rubik
RUBIK'S CUBE
的官方網站：https://www.rubiks.com/about/the-history-of-the-rubiks-cube
Ron
沒有留言:
張貼留言