卷十期 900531

本 期 提 要HEADLINES

著作權法部分條文修正草案
IPO Releases Second Draft of Copyright Law Amendment
澳門居民或法人之著作在國內享有著作權保護
Macao Works Receive Copyright Protection in Taiwan
方法專利與物品專利侵權訴訟之舉證責任
IPO Issues Explanation on Burden of Producing Evidence in Patent Litigation Cases
申請商標註冊跨類指定商品之處理原則
IPO Announces Trademark Regulations Regarding Multiple Classes of Goods 
公平會首宗以carrefour搶註網域名稱違反公平法案例Registration of Domain Name Found to be Violation of Fair Trade Law
不當仿襲他事業「皮卡丘」商品外觀具競爭倫理非難性
FTC Finds Violation in Pokeman Case

著作權法部分條文修正草案

世界智慧財產權組織(WIPO)於民國八十五年十二月底通過「世界智慧財產權組織著作權條約」及「世界智慧財產權組織表演及錄音物條約」等二項國際條約,即在因應數位化網際網路科技對傳統著作權法制所產生之各項衝擊。
而我國於民國八十七年一月二十一日修正施行之現行著作權法,係配合加入WTO,符合WTO TRIPS規定為主要修正目的;惟對於數位化網際網路科技發展後所產生之各項議題,尚未及作適當之調整。
經濟部智慧財產局為促進資訊傳播與電子商務之蓬勃發展,提昇著作人於數位化網際網路科技環境中之保護,符合國際著作權法制之發展趨勢,另依據實務經驗,爰擬訂著作權法部分條文修正草案。該局於本〈九十〉年五月四日公開本草案(第二稿),上網公開予各界徵詢意見,並預計六月上旬召開公聽會。本草案計二十五條,其中修正二十條,增訂五條,修正要點如次:
A增訂公開傳播權並修正公開播送及公開演出之定義:
「世界智慧財產權組織著作權條約」第八條規定,著作人應享有公開傳播權,其內容並及於互動式傳播及對公眾提供著作之權利,「世界智慧財產權組織表演及錄音物條約」第十條及第十四條規定,表演人及錄音物製作人應享有對公眾提供其表演及錄音物之權利。又現行著作權法第三條第一項第九款關於「公開演出」之定義與伯恩公約第十一條之一「公開播送」之定義尚有差距,爰增訂公開傳播權並修正公開播送及公開演出之定義,
並增定過渡條文。
B增訂科技保護措施及電子化著作權權利管理資訊保護規定:
數位化網際網路科技之環境下,著作權人為保護其權利
,常以科技保護措施保護其著作,避免被非法利用。而任何提供各種方式以規避該等科技保護措施者,雖未直接為侵害著作權之行為,惟對於著作權之侵害有促進、輔助之效果,應予遏止。「世界智慧財產權組織著作權條約」第十一條及「世界智慧財產權組織表演及錄音物

條約」第十八條規定,對此情形應作適當之規定以保障著作權,並提供有效之法律救濟。又於數位化環境下,著作權人就其著作常附記有電子化著作權權利管理資訊,如加以刪除或竄改,對權利人將造成嚴重損害;「世界智慧財產權組織著作權條約」第十二條及「世界智慧財產權組織表演及錄音物條約」第十九條規定,乃要求應予適當及有效之保護及救濟,爰增訂相關規定,以符合條約規定。
C增訂著作財產權授權後之效果及專屬授權被授權人之法律地位:
著作財產權人為著作財產權之授權後,將其著作財產權讓與或再為授權,修正為原被授權人之權利不受影響;又增訂專屬授權之被授權人在被授權範圍內,得以著作財產權人之地位行使權利,並參與著作權仲介團體之組成或加入該等團體等。
D修訂合理使用規定:
因應電腦網路利用形態所增訂之「公開傳播」,將現行「公開播送」之態樣包括在內,並配合將現行涉及公開播送之合理使用相關條文作適當修正。另關於「第一次銷售理論」之適用範圍方面,並修正擴及於著作原件。
E增訂製版權之讓與或信託登記規定:
現行著作權法第七十九條對於製版權之取得固採登記主義,惟關於製版權之讓與或信託,則無登記之規定,為配合信託法第四條第一項之規定,爰增訂製版權之讓與或信託登記規定。
F刪除著作權審議及調解委員會辦理著作權仲介團體所訂定使用報酬率之審議規定:
回歸民法私法自治及市場機能之精神,刪除前揭規定,而由仲介團體與利用人雙方自由協商洽談決定。
G侵害著作權案件刑責之檢討:
將現行法第九十一條第一項所定之一般重製罪併入第九十二條,與其他侵害著作權之犯行處以相同之罪責,並擴大意圖營利而以重製之方法侵害他人著作財產權之處罰範圍;另關於侵害著作人格權之行為,則予以除罪化。

IPO Releases Second Draft of Copyright Law Amendment

On 4 May 2001, the Intellectual Property Office released a second draft of proposed amendments to the Copyright Law.
The amendment is aimed primarily at updating the law due to the rapid development of electronic commerce and the internet. The amendment is also needed in order to bring the law into conformance with the require ments of the WIPO Copyright Treaty and the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty, which were approved by the World Intellectual Property Organization in December 1996.
The most recent amendment of Taiwan's Copyright Law was enforced on 21 January 1998. The revisions made at that time were a result of Taiwan's efforts to accede to the World Trade Organization by making the Copyright Law conform to the requirements of WTO TRIPs. 
The IPO has posted the current draft amendment on the internet and is soliciting public comment. Public hearings on the proposed changes will be held in June 2001. 
A total of 25 articles of the Copyright Law would be altered by the proposed amendment. Twenty articles would be revised while five articles would be added. The highlights of the amendment are as follows:
a.Adding Right of Public Transmission and Revising the Definitions of Public Broadcast and Public Performance
Article 8 of the WIPO Copyright Treaty provides that authors enjoy the right to communicate their works to the public as well as rights regarding interactive communication of their works to the public. Articles 10 and 14 of the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty provide that performers and producers of phonograms shall enjoy the exclusive right of making available to the public their phonograms in such a way that members of the public may access them from a place and at a time individually chosen by them. 
There are still some differences between Taiwan's current definition of "public performance", as found in Article 3-1-9 of the Copyright Law, and the definition of "public communication" under Article 11bis of the Berne Convention. As a result, the draft amendment adds the right of "public transmission" and revises the definitions of public broadcast and public performance, as well as adding transitional rovisions.
b. Adding Provisions Regarding Technological Protection Measures and Electronic Rights Management Information.
In the age of the in ternet and digital works, copyright owners commonly attach rights management information to their works in order to protect their rights. The removal or alteration ofthis information, while not directly an act of infringement, has the effect of facilitating infringement. 
Article 11 of the WIPO Copyright Treaty and Article 18 of the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty require that adequate legal protection and effective legal remedies against the circum vention of effective technological measures be provided.
Moreover, the deletion or alteration of rights management information attached by copyright owners to their works can seriously impair the rights of copyright owners. Article 12 of the WIPO Copyright Treaty and Article 19 of the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty require that adequate and effective legal remedies be provided in order to prevent the removal or alteration of electronic rights management information.
In order to comply with these two treaties, the amendment includes protection and remedies regarding technological measures and electronic rights management nformation.
c.Adding Rights for Licensees
In order to protect the interests of licensees, a provision is added stating that their licensed rights shall be not be effected due to the transfer or further icensing of the rights by the economic rights owner. Another provision provides that within the scope of a license, an exclusive licensee may exercise the rights of the economic rights owner as well as join copyright intermediary associations 
d.Amending Reasonable UseThe current right of public transmission includes the right of public broadcast. Because the right of public transmission will be stated separately under the amendment, provisions regarding the reasonable use of publicly broadcast works must also be amended. In addition, the scope of the First Sale Doctrine is expanded to original copies of works.
e. Adding Provisions Regarding Plate Right Registrations Under the current law, a registration system is adopted for plate rights under Article 79 of the Copyright Law. There is, however, no provisions regarding for registration when plate rights are transferred or placed in trust. In order to confirm to Article 41 of the Trust Law, the amendment adds provisions regarding such transfers or placements in trust. 
f.Deleting Provisions Regarding Copyright Review and Mediation Committees Provisions regarding the duties of Copyright Review and Mediation Committees to examine the rates of compensation for copyright intermediary associations are deleted. The determination of such rates instead will instead be left to negotiations between copyright intermediary organizations and copyright users. The intent of this change is to let free market forces determine the compensation rates.
g.Revising Criminal ProvisionsThe crime of reproducing works without authorization that is currently provided governed by Article 911 will be placed in Article 92 in order that all types of copyright infringement will be subject to the same criminal penalties. In addition, punishments are expanded for infringers who reproduce works on a commercial basis. In addition, the infringement of moral rights will not be subject to criminal sanctions.
2澳門居民或法人之著作在國內享有著作權保護

經濟部智慧財產局依據香港澳門關係條例第三十六條第二款規定,於日前公告澳門居民或法人之著作,自八十九年九月十四日起在台灣地區得依著作權法享有著作權。
香港澳門關係條例第三十六條第二款規定,依條約、協定
、協議或澳門之法令或慣例,台灣地區人民或法人之著作得在澳門享有著作權者,澳門居民或法人之著作在臺灣地區得依著作權法享有著作權。
澳門特區政府業於八十九年九月十四日按有關法律給予臺灣地區居民或法人之著作在澳門享有著作權保護,澳門居民或法人之著作依前項規定,自八十九年九月十四日起在臺灣地區得依著作權法享有著作權。

Macao Works Receive Copyright Protection in Taiwan

The Intellectual Property Office recently announced that works by Macao natural and legal persons received copyright protection in Taiwan as of 14 September 2000.
The decision was based upon Article 362 of the Hong Kong and Macao Relations Act, which provides that Macao natural and legal persons would be protected in Taiwan if according to treaty, agreement, or under Macao law, regulation or practice, works of natural or legal persons of Taiwan enjoy copyright protection in Macao.
The Macao Special Administrative Region government on 14 September 2000 afforded copyright protection in Macao for works of Taiwan natural and legal persons. As a result, under Article 362, works by Macao natural or legal persons enjoy protection in Taiwan from the same date. 
方法專利與物品專利侵權訴訟之舉證責任

經濟部智慧財產局於民國九十年三月二十一日釋明「方法專利」與「物品專利」侵權訴訟舉證責任之區別,並表示實際專利侵權之爭訟,事涉司法機關職權,仍應由司法機關依法認定之。
該局表示有關方法專利,於侵權訴訟時,若依該專利方法直接製得物品之形狀、構造或裝置非屬習知,而專利權人主張被告相關物品係依該其專利方法直接製得之物品時,
原則上,應由被告舉證證明其係以其他方法所製得之物品
,並無不當使用專利方法之事實。
反之,若依該專利方法直接製得物品之形狀、構造或裝置係屬習知,則專利權人需負舉證責任,證明被告有使用該系爭專利方法之事實。
至於物品專利,於侵權訴訟時,原則上,應由原告(即專利權人或其專屬被授權人)舉證證明被告侵權行為之相關物品係與其物品專利之權利範圍實質相同。

IPO Issues Explanation on Burden of Producing Evidence in Patent Litigation Cases
The Intellectual Property Office on 21 March 2001 issued an explanation regarding the duty of parties in process patent and product patent infringement cases to produce evidence in litigation. 
The IPO stated that, in principle, the defendant in process patent litigation has the burden to produce evidence that the products were manufactured using a different process if the products manufactured from the patented process are of an appearance, construction, or contain a device not usually known and if the patent owner argues that the defendant's products were manufactured according to the patented process.
However, if the appearance, construction, or contained devices of the product manufactured from the patent process are commonly known, the patent owner has the burden of providing evidence that the defendant used the patented process.
The IPO explained that in product patent litigation, in principle, the burden is on the plaintiff (i.e. the patent owner or a licensee of the patent owner) to show that the goods produced by the defendant are within the scope of the patent.
The IPO stated that its positions on the production of evidence were not binding because courts are the final authority in actual patent infringement lawsuits.

申請商標註冊跨類指定商品之處理原則
經濟部智慧財產局於民國九十年四月十六日公告「申請商標註冊跨類指定商品之處理原則」。按該處理原則,申請人依商標法第三十五條第一、二項及施行細則第二十七條第三項等規定,以申請書明確載明商標圖樣及商品名稱,並指定商品類別,向該局提出申請時,即為其申請註冊之時,至於所指定商品若有跨類情事,因仍屬原申請案之意思表示範圍,僅違背應分別申請之程序規定,因此若申請人補正他類別之規費及申請書,其申請日應不受影響。
而同一人以同一商標圖樣同時申請不同類別之商標註冊,
若其中之一申請案甲所跨類指定之商品,係屬另一申請案乙所指定商品之類別者,得以更正之方式,於甲案刪除該不屬於同類之商品名稱,並於乙案補正應歸屬於同類之該等商品名稱,應不影響其申請日,並無庸另案繳納規費。惟若因此使申請案乙所指定之商品超過原繳納規費之級距者,應依法補繳所新增指定商品名稱級距之規費,不需繳納變更費用。

IPO Announces Trademark Regulations Regarding Multiple Classes of Goods 

On 16 April 2001, the Intellectual Property Office announced trademark regulations governing the designation of goods in multiple classes. Pursuant to the se regulations, if an applicant files a single appli cation listing products that are in multiple classes, the applicant may maintain the application date if the applicant pays the proper fees and files separate applications for the other classes, provided if the applicant's only error was not to follow the correct procedure in initially filing separate applications.
If an applicant applies for multiple registrations of the same trademark design in different classes of goods, but some of the designated goods in one applic ation belong in another application, the applicant may amend the applications without affecting the application dates and without being required to pay additional application fees. However, if by adding products to an application resulting in that amended application exceeding the fee for the original number of goods applied for, a fee shall be due for the extra goods but not assessed for the amendment of the appl ication.
公平會首宗以carrefour搶註網域名稱違反公平法案例

行政院公平交易委員會於八十九年二月二十三日第四三三次委員會議中,討論奕昕電腦有限公司被檢舉使用家福股份有限公司商標名稱「carrefour」為網域名稱,涉嫌違反公平交易法案,決議奕昕電腦有限公司以他人所有之相關事業或消費者所普遍認知之表徵,註冊為網際網路網域名稱,阻礙原表徵所有人進入網際網路市場爭取交易之機會,違反競爭效能,為足以影響交易秩序之顯失公平行為,違反公平交易法第二十四條規定。 

Registration of Domain Name Found to be Violation of Fair Trade Law

On 23 February 2000, the Fair Trade Commission announced that the use of the English trademark "Carrefour" owned by Carrefour Co., Ltd. by Yihsi Computer Co. Ltd. as a website address violated Article 24 of the Fair Trade Law. The FTC ruled that Yihsin had registered as a domain name a mark owned by a third party thereby preventing that party's ability to exploit business opportunities by using that mark on the internet. As a result, the FTC found that the action constituted an unfair act capable of affecting trading order.
不當仿襲他事業「皮卡丘」商品外觀具競爭倫理非難性

行政院公平交易委員會於本(九十)年二月二十二日第四八五次委員會議決議,惠清貿易有限公司於進口、販售不當抄襲「皮卡丘」商品之外觀、形狀,為足以影響交易秩序之顯失公平行為,違反公平交易法第二十四條規定。公平會復表示,本案的重點在於無積極甄別彼我商品之外觀或形狀,且具不當仿襲他人商品外觀之競爭倫理非難性。

FTC Finds Violation in Pokeman Case

On 22 February 2001, the Fair Trade Commission ruled that Huiching Trading Company Ltd. violated the Fair Trade Law by importing and selling products with the same appearance and shape of the Pokeman cartoon figure. The FTC ruled that selling the products was sufficient to constitute obviously unfair acts capable of affecting trading order and thus constitute violations of Article 24 of the Fair Trade Law. The FTC stated that the key point of the case was not whether the appearance or shape of the two products was suffi ciently similar, rather it was that the act of copying the appearance of another's product was unfair competition.