EUIPO有關爭議的規定：https://euipo.europa.eu/ohimportal/en/disputes，可參考前篇報導：「歐洲註冊設計的無效程序與案例（https://enpan.blogspot.com/2023/03/blog-post.html）」，以及「歐洲設計筆記（https://enpan.blogspot.com/2019/09/blog-post_10.html）」。
- 歐洲的設計保護有兩種方式：登記（registered Community design (RCD)）與非登記（unregistered Community design (UCD)，歐盟會員國境內公開後3年）類型。可以整體設計或是部份設計提出申請。
RCE與UCD兩者效力不同。RCD可用來對抗相似的設計，即便是在開發新設計時還不曉得有相似設計登記在前。UCD僅能用來排除「蓄意仿製（也就是侵權者已知在前登記的設計）」的侵權設計。
歐洲設計分為註冊制設計（registered community design，RCD），最多可以有25年期限，以及非註冊制設計（un-registered community design，UCD），非註冊制設計在＂設計＂完成公開後具備3年的權利，使得權利有些不確定性，優點是具備了一個＂公開＂的優勢。
找資料時看到一個網站內容（編按，在此僅根據網站重點表示自己的意見，但如果擔心來源不正確，還是需要確認正確性。），名稱為「Europe: ECJ clarifies availability of unregistered design protection for product parts（中文：歐盟司法法院（ECJ）澄清非註冊制設計對於產品部件的保護可用性）」，剛好是最近想要了解的資訊，在此筆記。
- Europe: ECJ clarifies availability of unregistered design protection for product parts（https://insightplus.bakermckenzie.com/bm/intellectual-property/europe-ecj-clarifies-availability-of-unregistered-design-protection-for-product-parts#:~:text=The%20ECJ%20Judgement%20emphasizes%20the,product%20they%20are%20part%20of.）
- Ferrari SpA v Mansory Design & Holding GmbH and WH. - 初步判決（未針對實質面討論）（https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A62020CJ0123）
本文的內容是基於歐盟司法法院（ECJ）針對案例「Ferrari SpA and Mansory Design & Holding GmbH」的爭點（是否產品整體的揭露可以生成歐洲非註冊制設計的權利，如果是，要如何判斷設計的獨特性（individual character）？）提出意見，循著這個案例在europa找到判決內容：https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A62020CJ0123。
ECJ案號：C‑123/20
判決日：28 October 2021
所述案例是義大利法拉利（Ferrari）公司與德國高級車改裝公司Mansory之間的設計爭議，法拉利引用2014年超跑「FXX K」的非註冊設計（部分設計），如下圖，設計的特色是車身"V"形的引擎蓋，以此圖面向Mansory主張「非註冊制設計」的權利。
Mansory的產品是提供超跑車主個人化部件，本次爭議是Mansory個人化修改Ferrari 488 GTB的外觀，使之像Ferrari FXX K的外觀，從Mansory網站看到：
在2016年，Mansory在瑞士日內瓦的國際車展中展示上圖的車輛，還改名為「Mansory Siracusa 4XX」，Ferrari即主張自己的「非註冊制設計」向Mansory的改裝車提出侵權訴訟。
這是就產生了本次爭議：是否產品整體的揭露可以生成歐洲非註冊制設計的權利，如果是，要如何判斷設計的獨特性（individual character）？
法拉利主要的主張如下（不必翻譯了，直接看原文，懂車的就懂），大約就是提到Mansory改裝車外觀（包括空力套件等三個部件的設計）近似法拉利的2014年非註冊制設計（UCD）：
第一UCD：
"As its principal argument, Ferrari submitted that the marketing of the front kits constitutes an infringement of the first unregistered Community design of which it is the holder, relating to the appearance of the part of its FXX K model consisting of the V-shaped element on the bonnet, the fin-like element protruding from the centre of that element and fitted lengthways (‘the strake’), the front lip spoiler integrated into the bumper and the vertical bridge in the centre connecting the spoiler to the bonnet. That section is seen as a unit that defines the specific ‘facial features’ of that vehicle and also creates an association with an aircraft or Formula 1 car. According to Ferrari, that unregistered Community design arose at the time of the publication of the press release of 2 December 2014."
第二UCD：
"In the alternative, Ferrari claimed to be the holder of a second unregistered Community design relating to the appearance of the front lip spoiler, which arose in its favour on publication of the press release of 2 September 2014 or, at the latest, on the release of a film entitled Ferrari FXX K – The Making Of, on 3 April 2015, and which Mansory Design also infringed by marketing its ‘front kits’."
第三UCD（整體FXX K）：
"In the further alternative, Ferrari based its action on a third unregistered Community design concerning the presentation of the Ferrari FXX K as a whole, as revealed in another photograph of the vehicle, shown in an oblique view, which also appeared in the press release of 2 December 2014."
另外還提出不公平競爭、歐盟禁令等主張。
針對本次要討論的主題，是否整體的設計中的部件（部分的設計）可以建立非註冊制設計的權利，法院根據「Article 11(2) of Regulation No 6/2002」規定，讓公眾知悉的產品圖像（特別是指有複雜設計的產品），如車輛照片，落於Article 3(c)與Article 4(c)的定義，當具有複雜設計的產品中能明確識別其中的部件，是可以滿足非註冊制設計中的獨特性（individual character）要求。
"In the light of the foregoing considerations, the answer to the questions referred is that Article 11(2) of Regulation No 6/2002 must be interpreted as meaning that the making available to the public of images of a product, such as the publication of photographs of a car, entails the making available to the public of a design of a part of that product, within the meaning of Article 3(a) of that regulation, or of a component part of that product, as a complex product, within the meaning of Article 3(c) and Article 4(2) of that regulation, provided that the appearance of that part or component part is clearly identifiable at the time the design is made available. In order for it to be possible to examine whether that appearance satisfies the condition of individual character referred to in Article 6(1) of that regulation, it is necessary that the part or component part in question constitute a visible section of the product or complex product, clearly defined by particular lines, contours, colours, shapes or texture."
(updated on April 7, 2023)
本篇針對UCD的初步判決：
Article 11(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 of 12 December 2001 on Community designs must be interpreted as meaning that the making available to the public of images of a product, such as the publication of photographs of a car, entails the making available to the public of a design of a part of that product, within the meaning of Article 3(a) of that regulation, or of a component part of that product, as a complex product, within the meaning of Article 3(c) and Article 4(2) of that regulation, provided that the appearance of that part or component part is clearly identifiable at the time the design is made available.
所謂歐盟設計為公開的產品影像，如車輛照片，也涵蓋複雜產品的一部份的可清楚識別的設計。
In order for it to be possible to examine whether that appearance satisfies the condition of individual character referred to in Article 6(1) of that regulation, it is necessary that the part or component part in question constitute a visible section of the product or complex product, clearly defined by particular lines, contours, colours, shapes or texture.
為了要審查設計的「獨特性（individual character）」，要判斷所述一部份的設計在視覺上是否清楚定義瞭獨特的線條、輪廓、顏色、形狀或材質。
my two cents:
目前沒有確認Ferrari與Mansory的訴訟結果，有空會去理解，但是就本篇討論可知，一個複雜產品的其中部分設計，只要可以清楚地被辨識出來（如FXX K超酷的"V"形引擎蓋），且形成設計的獨特性，是可以主張歐洲UCD。
(updated on April 7, 2023)
不負責判斷，如此可以簡單推斷，如果改裝廠就是要照這個外觀進行改裝，侵權的可能性不小（後查有中文報導說法拉利勝訴...，但這並非是侵權勝訴，贏的是證明法拉利的UCD主張）。
其他資料參考：https://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/global-guide/designs/2019/article/litigating-design-disputes
Ron
沒有留言:
張貼留言