English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Post-Print筆數 : 27 |  Items with full text/Total items : 113656/144643 (79%)
Visitors : 51755436      Online Users : 587
RC Version 6.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library IR team.
Scope Tips:
  • please add "double quotation mark" for query phrases to get precise results
  • please goto advance search for comprehansive author search
  • Adv. Search
    HomeLoginUploadHelpAboutAdminister Goto mobile version
    Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/101244


    Title: 實質近似的判斷標準之研究- 以Mattel v. MGA一案所使用之測試標準出發
    The Determination On Substantial Similarity- On case of Mattel v MGA
    Authors: 張嘉惠
    Chang, Chia Hui
    Contributors: 宋皇志
    Sung, Huang Chih
    張嘉惠
    Chang, Chia Hui
    Keywords: 實質近似
    著作權侵害
    Substantial Similarity
    Copyright Infringement
    Date: 2016
    Issue Date: 2016-09-02 01:30:40 (UTC+8)
    Abstract: 實質近似作為判斷著作權侵害要件之一,然而,我國法律對於實質近似的判斷標並無明確規定,美國亦然。我國司法實務多以「質的近似」及「量的近似」佐以「整體概念與感覺」判斷有無構成實質近似。而美國司法實務上所發展的實質近似判斷方式及標準多元且漸趨細膩。
    本文嘗試以美國第九巡迴上訴法院Mattel, Inc. v. MGA Entertainment, Inc.一案出發,從流行時裝娃娃著作權大戰之個案來探討實質近似的判斷標準,並進而延伸探討美國其他法院之實質近似的標準。本文的脈絡主要分為三大主題,首先,回溯探討美國法院於先前實質近似之探討,美國各聯邦巡迴上訴法院中,於著作權侵權案件中判斷實質近似時,可能運用不一樣的標準。甚至同一巡迴上訴法院中,判斷方式亦可能存在些微差異。然而,仍可以從重要判決中整理出實質近似大致的判斷方向:其一為 「一般觀察者測試標準」及「更敏銳一般觀察者測試標準」;其二為「外部測試法」及「內部測試法」。此二測試法於美國司法實務上不斷地被各級法院運用,有些法院會輔以其他子原則協助實質近似之判斷。
    接下來進入本文重點,探討Mattel v MGA一案所適用之用以判斷實質近似之兩階段三步驟。第一階段即外部測試階段,包含「將不受保護之元素過濾 」及「決定比對客體的保護程度及選擇適用實質近似之標準」兩步驟,前者需探討著作中的元素是否受保護,此時必須先將思想、公共領域等不受保護的元素濾除,剩下受保護的元素極為比對客體。本文嘗試蒐集案例探討不受保護元素及受保護之元素之案例,期以釐清思想與表達之間的模糊界線;後者則決定比對客體背後思想的表達範圍寬窄而選用不同的實質近似判斷標準。第二階段為內部測試階段,利用一般觀察者測試標準判斷「被告作品與原告著作是否有達到實質近似標準」。綜合比較Mattel v MGA一案與先前法院的判決中所適用實質近似判斷步驟與標準,Mattel v MGA一案似將先前判決所使用之標準加以彙整,且更細膩清楚的呈現判斷,亦開始影響後續法院如何於其他個案引用Mattel v MGA所揭示之實質近似判斷標準。最後,本文將Mattel v MGA案的實質近似判斷標準於我國有關實質近似的重要判決判斷,探討引入我國的可行性 。
    Reference: 一、中文部分
    專書
    蕭雄淋,著作權法論,五南圖書出版有限公司,2015年2月,八版。
    羅明通,著作權法論[II],2009年9月,七版。
    謝銘洋,智慧財產權法,2012年9月,三版。
    柳婷,廣告與行銷, 五南圖書出版有限公司,第 247 頁,2000 年 9 月,初版二刷。

    判決
    最高法院81年度台上字第3063號民事判決。
    最高法院94年度台上字第6398號刑事判決。
    最高法院 96 年度台上字第 529 號刑事判決。
    最高法院刑事判決97年度台上字第6499號。
    最高法院99年度台上字第2314號民事判決。
    最高法院99年度台上字第2109號民事判決。
    智慧財產法院97年度民著上易字第6號民事判決。
    智慧財產法院97年度刑智上易字第00027號刑事判決。
    智慧財產法院98年度民著上易字第12號民事判決。
    智慧財產法院98年度民訴字第40號民事判決。
    智慧財產法院98年度刑智上易字第123號刑事判決。
    智慧財產法院98 年度刑智上更(三)字第 2 號。
    智慧財產法院99年度民著訴字第36號民事判決。
    智慧財產法院 100 年度民著訴字第 55 號民事判決。
    智慧財產法院100 年度民公訴字第 5 號民事判決 。
    智慧財產法院 100 年度刑智上訴 第 39 號刑事判決。
    智慧財產法院101 年度民著上易 第 7 號民事判決。
    智慧財產法院101 年度 刑智上易 第 11 號刑事判決。
    智慧財產法院101 年度民著訴字第 37 號民事判決。
    智慧財產法院101 年度 民著上字第 21 號民事判決。
    智慧財產法院101 年度民公上字第 6 號民事判決。
    智慧財產法院101年民著訴字第20號民事判決。
    智慧財產法院 102 年度民著上字第 10 號民事判決。
    智慧財產法院103 年度刑智上易 第 34 號刑事判決。
    智慧財產法院 103 年度刑智上易字第 47 號刑事判決。
    台灣高等法院 83 年度上 易字第 2980 號刑事判決。
    台灣高等法院90年台上字第1252號。
    台灣高等法院第97年度上易字第315號刑事判決。
    臺灣高等法院臺南分院 91 年上易字第 1136 號刑事判決。
    臺灣台北地方法院 93 年智字第 25 號民事判決。
    臺灣士林地方法院 95 年智字第 8 號民事判決。
    臺灣台北地方法院99年度智易字第34號刑事判決。
    板橋地方法院 96 年度智字第 18 號民事判決。

    函釋
    經濟部智慧財產局民國98年2月20日智著字第09800011610號函。
    經濟部智慧財產局民國94年7月27日智著字第09400059700號函。
    經濟部智慧財產局民國103年1月24日智著字第10200105850號函。
    經濟部智慧財產局民國100 年 5 月 2 日智著第 10000038740 號函。
    經濟部智慧財產局民國100 年 5 月 3 日智著字第 10000038730 號函。
    經濟部智慧財產局民國102年7月16日電子郵件1020716b。
    經濟部智慧財產局民國102年8月22日電子郵件1020822b。
    經濟部智慧財產局民國101年 4 月 10 日電子郵件 1010410 。
    經濟部智慧財產局98年07月10日電子郵件980710a。

    期刊文章
    李治安,著作權侵害之認定標準:以「接觸」與「實質近似」為中心,智慧財產訴訟制度相關論文彙編第2輯,2013年12月。
    章忠信,著作權侵害之鑑定, 月旦法學雜誌第190期,2011年3月 。
    謝明洋,我國著作權法中「創作」概念 相關判決之研究,國際比較下我國著作權法總檢討,2014年12月。
    林利芝,永遠的名偵探夏洛克・福爾摩斯─自Leslie S. Klinger v. Conan Doyle Estate案探討故事角色著作權保護爭議,智慧財產權月刊,2016年1月號。
    張瑞星,論電視節目版式之著作權保護,科技法學評論第8卷第2期,2011年12月。
    黃銘傑,重製權侵害中「實質類似」要件判斷之方式與專家證人之運用-板橋地方法院 96 年度智字第 18 號判決評析,月旦法學雜誌第 189 期,2011年。
    謝銘洋,智慧財產權第六講智慧財產權之取得(一),月旦法學教室第 5 期,2003年3月。

    碩士論文
    林萱茹,著作權侵害判斷模式之研究,國立交通大學科技法律研究所碩士論文,2013年7月。
    劉芊影,著作權侵害認定之研究-以整體觀念與感覺測試法為中心,國立政治大學法律研究所碩士論文,2015年7月。
    朱家毅,著作重製權的侵害與實務,國立政治大學科技管理與智慧財產研究所碩士論文,2012年6月 。
    黃柏諺,電視產業發展與智慧財產權之互動—以節目版式為中心,國立政治大學科技管理與智慧財產研究所碩士論文,2015年7月 。
    廖沛穎,討論電視節目版式之法律保護,國立臺灣大學法律學院法律學系碩士論文,2010年10月。

    網路資料
    章忠信,違反學術倫理與侵害著作權的差異,2007/1/20,
    http://www.copyrightnote.org/ArticleContent.aspx?ID=2&aid=283 。
    章忠信,「著作權」與「資料專屬權」爭議析疑,2008/8/14,
    http://www.copyrightnote.org/ArticleContent.aspx?ID=6&aid=2656 。
    章忠信,黃色小鴨紛擾何時了,著作權筆記,2014/1/6,
    http://www.copyrightnote.org/ArticleContent.aspx?ID=2&aid=444 。
    章忠信,服裝設計可否受著作權法保護?,著作權筆記,http://www.copyrightnote.org/ArticleContent.aspx?ID=3&aid=1167 。
    章忠信,「棋譜」之著作權保護,2008/11/10,
    http://www.copyrightnote.org/ArticleContent.aspx?ID=2&aid=339 。
    章忠信,食譜是否受著作權法保護,著作權筆記,http://www.copyrightnote.org/ArticleContent.aspx?ID=3&aid=1099 。
    楊智傑,手機軟體遊戲之保護:以俄羅斯方塊案為例,北美智權報,2014/4/2,
    http://www.naipo.com/Portals/1/web_tw/Knowledge_Center/Infringement_Case/publish-86.htm。
    維基共享資源(Wikimedia Commons) https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E7%BB%B4%E5%9F%BA%E5%85%B1%E4%BA%AB%E8%B5%84%E6%BA%90 。
    黃泰然,「祝妳生日快樂」違法嗎? 公共領域的保護與著作權法,2015/12/18,
    http://creativecommons.tw/blog/20151218。
    經濟部智慧財產局, (五)研究成果篇,https://www.tipo.gov.tw/ct.asp?xItem=219600&ctNode=7561&mp=1 。
    吳尚昆,雞肉三明治受著作權保護嗎?,群和律師事務所,2015/08/30,https://wulaw.wordpress.com/2015/08/30/%E9%9B%9E%E8%82%89%E4%B8%89%E6%98%8E%E6%B2%BB%E5%8F%97%E8%91%97%E4%BD%9C%E6%AC%8A%E4%BF%9D%E8%AD%B7%E5%97%8E%EF%BC%9F/ 。
    陳麗秋,美國1998年著作權延長法案的司法風波國家衛生研究院電子報,第365期,http://enews.nhri.org.tw/enews_list_new2_more.php?volume_indx=365&showx=showarticle&article_indx=7869 。
    盧美慈,超人不會飛?-- 從超人授權事件看角色著作權爭議,2011/10/31,
    http://creativecommons.tw/blog/20111031。
    盧美慈,虛擬角色著作權爭議--以Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer v. American Honda Motor Co.案為例,2012/03/02,http://creativecommons.tw/in-depth/586 。

    二、外文文獻
    專書
    Robert C. Osterberg, Eric C. Osterberg, Substantial Similarity in Copyright Law, Practice Law Institutes(2003-2016).
    Marshall A. LEAFFER, Understanding Copyright, (2005).
    4 Melville B. Nimmer & David Nimmer, Nimmer on Copyright §13.03[A] (2010).

    判決
    Nichols v. Universal Pictures Corp., 45 F.2d 119, 121 (2d Cir. 1930), cert. denied, 282 U.S. 902 (1931).
    Arnstein v. Porter, 154 F.2d 464 (2d Cir. 1946).
    Hamil Am., Inc. v. GFI, Inc., 193 F.3d 92, 99 (2d Cir. 1999), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1160 (2000).
    Laureyssens v. Idea Group, Inc., 964 F.2d 131, 140 (2d Cir. 1992).
    Castle Rock Entm’t, Inc. v. Carol Publ’g Group, Inc., 150 F.3d 132, 137(2d Cir. 1998).
    Repp v. Webber, 132 F.3d 882, 889 n.1 (2d Cir. 1997).
    Denker v. Uhry, 820 F. Supp. 722 (S.D.N.Y. 1992), aff’d, 996 F.2d 301 (2d Cir. 1993).
    Boisson v. Banian, Ltd., 273 F.3d 262, (2d Cir. 2001).
    Shine v. Childs, 382 F. Supp. 2d 602, (S.D.N.Y. 2005).
    Jorgensen v. Epic/Sony Records, 351 F.3d 46, 56 (2d Cir. 2003).
    Blanch v. Koons, 467 F.3d 244, 252 (2d Cir. 2006).
    King Features Syndicate v. Fleischer, 299 F. 533 (2d Cir. 1924).
    Fleischer Studios v. Freundlich, 73 F.2d 276 (2d Cir. 1934).
    Detective Comics, Inc. v. Bruns Publications Inc.,111 F.2d 432 (2d Cir. 1940).
    Glover v. Austin, 289 F. App’x 430, 432 (2d Cir. 2008).
    Gal v. Viacom Int’l, Inc., 518 F. Supp. 2d 526, 537 (S.D.N.Y. 2007).
    A Slice of Pie Prods., LLC v. Wayans Bros. Entm’t, 487 F. Supp. 2d 41, 47 n.2 (S.D.N.Y. 2007).
    Nicholls v. Tufenkian Imp./Exp. Ventures, Inc., 367 F. Supp. 2d 514, 522 (S.D.N.Y. 2005).
    Carol Barnhart, Inc. v. Econ. Cover Corp., 773 F.2d 411, 422 (2d Cir. 1985).
    Steinberg v. Columbia Pictures Industries 663 F. Supp. 706 (S.D.N.Y 1987).
    Mannion v. Coors Brewing Company,377 F.Supp. 2d 444(S.D.N.Y 2006).
    Knitwaves, Inc. v. Lollytogs Ltd., Inc., 71 F.3d 996, 1002 (2d Cir. 1995).
    Novelty Textile Mills, Inc. v. Joan Fabrics Corp., 558 F.2d 1090, 1093 (2d Cir. 1977);
    Peter Pan Fabrics, Inc. v. Martin Weiner Corp., 274 F.2d 487, 489 (2d Cir. 1960).
    Horgan v. MacMillan, Inc., 789 F.2d 157 (2d Cir. 1986).
    City Merchandise Inc. v. Broadway Gifts, Inc., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5629 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 27, 2009).
    M.H. Segan L.P. v.Hasbro, Inc., 924 F. Supp. 512, 520–21 (S.D.N.Y. 1996).
    Burroughs v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer,Inc.,519 F.Supp.(S.D.N.Y.1981) aff`d, 636 F.2d 1200 (2d Cir. 1982).
    Coquico, Inc. v. Rodriguez-Miranda, 562 F.3d 62, (1st Cir. 2009).
    T-Peg, Inc. v. Vt. Timber Works, Inc., 459 F.3d 97, (1st Cir. 2006).
    Johnson v. Gordon, 409 F.3d 12, ay 18-24 (1st Cir. 2005).
    Lotus Dev. Corp. v. Borland Int’l, 49 F.3d 807, 813 (1st Cir. 1995), aff’d, 516 U.S. 233 (1996).
    Concrete Mach. Co. v. Classic Lawn Ornaments, Inc., 843 F.2d 600, 608 (1st Cir. 1988).
    Nat’l Nonwovens, Inc. v. Consumer Prods. Enters., Inc., 397 F. Supp. 2d 245, 255 (D. Mass. 2005).
    Skinder-Strauss Assocs. v. Mass. Continuing Legal Educ., Inc., 914 F. Supp. 665, 670–71 (D. Mass. 1995).
    Flomerics Ltd. v. Fluid Dynamics Int’l, Inc., 880 F. Supp. 60, 62 (D. Mass. 1995).
    Arvelo v. Am. Int’l Ins. Co., 875 F. Supp. 95, 99 (D.P.R.), aff’d, 66 F.3d 306 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1117 (1995).
    Little Souls, Inc. v. Les Petits, 789 F. Supp. 56, 57 (D. Mass. 1992).
    CMM Cable Rep., Inc. v. Ocean Coast Props., Inc., 97 F.3d 1504, 1513 (1st Cir. 1996).
    Segrets, Inc. v. Gillman Knitwear Co., 207 F.3d 56, 66 n.11 (1st Cir. 2000).
    Horizon Comics Production v. Marvel Entertainment LLC, et al., No. 15-11684, D. Mass.; 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15659.
    Norberto Colón Lorenzana, v. South American Restaurant Corp., No. 14-1698 (1st Cir. 2015).
    Kay Berry, Inc. v Taylor Gifts, Inc., 421 F.3d 199, 207-208 (3d Cir. 2005).
    Dam Things from Denmark, 290 F.3d 548, 562 (3d Cir. 2002).
    Ford Motor Co. v. Summit Motor Prods., Inc., 930 F.2d 277, 290 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 939 (3d Cir.1991).
    Yankee Candle Co. v. Bridgewater Candle Co., 99 F. Supp. 2d 140,144 (D. Mass. 2000), aff’d, 259 F.3d 25 (3d Cir. 2001).
    Franklin Mint Corp. v. Nat’l Wildlife Art Exch., (3d Cir. 1975 Inc., 575 F.2d 62, 64 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 880 (1978).
    CMM Cable Rep., Inc. v. Keymarket Commc’ns, Inc., 870 F. Supp. 631, 637 (M.D. Pa. 1994).
    Universal Athletic Sales Co. v. Salkeld, 511 F.2d 904, 907 (3d Cir. 1975).
    Schiffer Publ’g Ltd. v. Chronicle Books, LLC, 73 U.S.P.Q.2d 1090, 1098 (E.D. Pa. 2004).
    Value Group, Inc. v. Mendham Lake Estates, L.P., 800 F. Supp. 1228, 1233 (D.N.J. 1992).
    Nat’l Risk Mgmt., Inc. v. Bramwell, 819 F. Supp. 417, 427 (E.D. Pa. 1993).
    Masquerade Novelty v. Unique Indus., 912 F.2d 663, 670-71 (3d Cir. 1990).
    Positive Black Talk, Inc. v. Cash Money Records, Inc., 394 F.3d 357, 367-68 (5th Cir. 2004).
    Gen. Universal Sys., Inc. v. Lee, 379 F.3d 131, 141-42 (5th Cir. 2004).
    Bridgmon v. Array Sys. Corp., 325 F.3d, 576-77 (5th Cir. 2003).
    Computer Mgmt. Assistance Co. v. Robert F. DeCastro, Inc., 220 F.3d 396 (5th Cir. 2000).
    Eng’g Dynamics, Inc. v. Structural Software, Inc., 26 F.3d 1335, 1341(5th Cir. 1994).
    Ferguson v. Nat’l Broad. Co., 584 F.2d, 113-14 (5th Cir. 1978).
    Galiano v. Harrah’s Operating Co., 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17258 (E.D.La. Nov. 21, 2000).
    R. Ready Prods., Inc. v. Cantrell, 85 F. Supp. 2d 672 (S.D. Tex. 2000).
    King v. Ames, 179 F.3d 370, 376 (5th Cir. 1999).
    Peel & Co. v. Rug Mkt., 238 F.3d 391, 395 (5th Cir. 2001).
    Creations Unlimited, Inc. v. McCain, 112 F.3d 814, 816 (5th Cir. 1997).
    Wildlife Express Corp. v. Carol Wright Sales, Inc., 18 F.3d 502 (7th Cir. 1994).
    Atari, Inc. v. N. Am. Philips Consumer Elecs. Corp., 672 F.2d 607, 614-15 (7th Cir.), 459 U.S. 880 (1982).
    Incredible Techs., Inc. v. Virtual Techs., Inc., 284 F. Supp. 2d 1069, 1080 (N.D. Ill. 2003).
    S.A.M. Elecs., Inc. v. Osaraprasop, 39 F. Supp. 2d 1074, 1082-82 (N.D. Ill. 1999).
    FASA Corp. v. Playmates Toys, Inc., 912 F. Supp. 1124, 1127-29(N.D. Ill. 1996).
    Ty, Inc. v. GMA Accessories, Inc., 959 F. Supp. 936, 942 (N.D. Ill. 1997).
    Sanford v. CBS, Inc., 594 F. Supp. 711,717 (N.D. Ill. 1984).
    Scott v. WKJG, Inc., 376 F.2d 467, 469 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 832(1967).
    Pampered Chef, Ltd. v. Magic Kitchen, Inc., 12 F. Supp. 2d 785, 791–92 (N.D. Ill. 1998).
    Theotokatos v. Sara Lee Pers. Prods., 971 F. Supp. 332, 341 (N.D. Ill. 1997).
    N. Am. Bear Co. v. Carson Pirie Scott & Co., 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17350 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 26, 1991).
    Alpi International, Ltd v. Anga Supply, 118 F.Supp.3d 1172, (N.D.Cal 2015).
    La Resolana Architects, PA v. Reno, Inc., 555 F.3d 1171, (10th Cir. 2009).
    Country Kids ’N City Slicks, Inc. v. Sheen, 77 F.3d 1280, 1284 (10th Cir. 1996).
    Close to My Heart, Inc. v. Enthusiast Media LLC, 508 F. Supp. 2d 963 (D. Utah 2007).
    Kindergartners Count, Inc. v. DeMoulin, 249 F. Supp. 2d 1214 (D. Kan. 2003).
    Madrid v. Chronicle Books, 209 F. Supp. 2d 1227 (D. Wyo. 2002).
    Fisher v. United Feature Syndicate, Inc., 37 F. Supp. 2d 1213 (D. Colo. 1999), aff’d mem., 203 F.3d 834 (10th Cir.) (unpublished opinion available at 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 1749), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 992 (2000) .
    Sportsmans Warehouse, Inc. v. Fair, 576 F. Supp. 2d 1175 (D. Colo. 2008) .
    McRae v. Smith, 968 F. Supp. 559 (D. Colo. 1997) .
    Mitel, Inc. v. Iqtel, Inc., 124 F.3d 1366, 1370 (10th Cir. 1997).
    Vasquez v. Ybarra, 150 F. Supp. 2d 1157 (D. Kan. 2001).
    La Resolana Architects, PA v. Reno, Inc., 555 F.3d 1171 (10th Cir. 2009).
    Jacobsen v. Deseret Book Co., 287 F.3d 936, 943 n.5 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1066 (2002).
    Medias & Co. v. Ty, Inc., 106 F. Supp. 2d 1132 (D. Colo. 2000); Sportsmans Warehouse, Inc. v. Fair, 576 F. Supp. 2d 1175 (D. Colo. 2008).
    Meshwerks, Inc. v. Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A., Inc., 528 F.3d 1258, 1267-68 (10th Cir. 2008).
    Atkins v. Fischer, 331 F.3d 988 (D.C. Cir. 2003).
    Sturdza v. United Arab Emirates, 281 F.3d 1287, 1297 (D.C. Cir. 2002).
    Nelson v. Grisham, 942 F. Supp. 649, 652 (D.D.C. 1996), aff’d, 132 F.3d 1481 (D.C. Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1148 (1998).
    Prunté v. Universal Music Group, 484 F. Supp. 2d 32, 41 (D.D.C. 2007) (on motion to dismiss) and 563 F. Supp. 2d 41, 43 (D.D.C. 2008) (on proposed motion for summary judgment). But see Murray Hill Publ’ns, Inc. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., 361 F.3d 312, 318 (6th Cir. 2004) .
    Whitehead v. CBS/Viacom, Inc., 315 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2004).
    Sid & Marty Krofft Television Prods., Inc. v. McDonald’s Corp., 562 F.2d 1157 (9th Cir. 1977).
    Shaw v. Lindheim, 919 F.2d 1353 (9th Cir. 1990).
    Swirsky v. Carey, 376 F.3d 841 (9th Cir. 2004).
    Rice v. Fox Broad. Co., 330 F.3d 1170, 1174,1176–77(9th Cir. 2003).
    Cavalier v. Random House, Inc., 297 F.3d 815, 826(9th Cir. 2002).
    Litchfield v. Spielberg, 736 F.2d 1352 (9th Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 470 U.S. 1052 (1985).
    McCulloch v. Albert E. Price, Inc., 823 F.2d 316, 319 (9th Cir. 1987).
    Pasillas v. McDonald’s Corp., 927 F.2d 440, 441 (9th Cir. 1991).
    Jada Toys, Inc. v. Mattel, Inc., 518 F.3d 628, 636 (9th Cir. 2008).
    Dr. Seuss Enters., L.P. v. Penguin Books USA, Inc., 109 F.3d 1394, 1398 (9th Cir.), cert. dismissed, 521 U.S. 1146 (1997).
    Smith v. Jackson, 84 F.3d 1213, 1218 (9th Cir. 1996).
    Brown Bag Software v. Symantec Corp., 960 F.2d 1465, 1475–76 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 869 (1992); Aliotti v. R. Dakin & Co., 831 F.2d 898, 901 (9th Cir. 1987).
    Apple Computer, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 35 F.3d 1435, 1446 (9th Cir. 1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1184 (1995).
    Chase-Riboud v. Dreamworks, Inc., 987 F. Supp. 1222, 1226 (C.D. Cal. 1997).
    Three Boys Music Corp. v. Bolton, 212 F.3d 477, 485 (9th Cir. 2000).
    Bensbargains.Net, LLC v. Xpbargains.Com 2007 WL 2385092(S.D. Cal. Aug. 16, 2007).
    Roth Greeting Cards v. United Card Co 429 F.2d 1106 (9th Cir. 1970).
    Bryant v. Mattel, Inc., 2008 WL 5598275 (C.D. Cal., 2008).
    Mattel, Inc. v. MGA Entertainment, Inc., 616 F.3d 904 (9th Cir. 2010).
    Mattel, Inc. v. MGA Entertainment,, Inc., 782 F. Supp. 2d 911 (C.D. Cal. 2011).
    Mattel, Inc. v. MGA Entertainment,, Inc., 705 F.3d 1108 (9th Cir. 2013).
    Herbert Rosenthal Jewelry Corp. v. Kal- pakian, 446 F.2d 738, 742 (9th Cir. 1971).
    Satava v. Lowry, 323 F.3d 805, 812 (9th Cir. 2003).
    Poe v. Missing Persons, 745 F.2d 1238, 1242 (9th Cir. 1984).
    Seth Swirsky v. Mariah Carey, 376 F.3d 841 (9th Cir. 2004).
    Marya v. Warner/ Chappell Music (C.D. Cal 2015).
    Bikram`s Yoga College of India, L.P. v. Evolation Yoga, LLC 803 F.3d 1032 (9th Cir. 2015)ㄡ
    Open Source Yoga Unity v. Bikram Choudhury (N.D. Cal., 4/1/05, No. C 03–3182 PJH).
    Olson v. National Broadcasting Co., 855 F.2d1446 (9th Cir. 1988).
    Warner Bros. Pictures, Inc. v. Columbia Broad. Sys., Inc., 216 F.2d 945 (9th Cir.1954).
    Walt Disney Productions v. Air Pirates, 581F.2d 751(9th Cir,1978).
    Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer v. American Honda Motor Co. 900 F. Supp. 1287 (C.D. Cal. 1995).
    Siegel et al v DC Comics et al 658 F. Supp. 2d 1036, *1052; 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 78193; affirmed by 9th Circuit.
    Halicki Films v. Sanderson Sales and Marketing et al 547 F.3d 1213,1224(9th Cir.2008).
    DC Comics v Towle, 802F.3d 1012(9th Cir. 2015).
    Scentsy, Inc. v. B.R. Chase, LLC., 942 F. Supp. 2d 1045 (D. Idaho 2013), aff`d in part, rev`d in part and remanded sub nom. Scentsy, Inc. v. Harmony Brands, LLC, 585 F. App`x 621 (9th Cir. 2014).
    Rentmeester v. Nike, Inc., No. 3:15-CV-00113-MO, 2015 WL 3766546,6 (D. Or. June 15, 2015).
    Scentsy, Inc. v. B.R. Chase, LLC., 942 F. Supp. 2d 1045 (D. Idaho 2013), aff`d in part, rev`d in part and remanded sub nom. Scentsy, Inc. v. Harmony Brands, LLC, 585 F. App`x 621 (9th Cir. 2014).
    Asset Vision, LLC v. Fielding, No. 4:13-CV-00288-BLW, 2013 WL 6633743 (D. Idaho Dec. 17, 2013).
    Asset Vision, LLC v. Fielding, No. 4:13-CV-00288-BLW, 2014 WL 7186840 (D. Idaho Dec. 16, 2014), appeal dismissed (July 2, 2015).
    Lyons P’ship, L.P. v. Morris Costumes, Inc., 243 F.3d 789, 801(4th Cir. 2001).
    Towler v. Sayles, 76 F.3d 579, 583 (4th Cir. 1996);
    Dawson v. Hinshaw Music, Inc., 905 F.2d 731, 732–33 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 981 (1990).
    Eaton v. Nat’l Broad. Co., 972 F. Supp. 1019 (E.D. Va. 1997), aff’d, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10288 (4th Cir. May 21, 1998).
    Baldine v. Furniture Comfort Corp., 956 F. Supp. 580, 586 (M.D.N.C. 1996).
    Robinson v. New Line Cinema Corp., 42 F. Supp. 2d 578 (D. Md. 1999).
    Eaton v. Nat’l Broad. Co., 972 F. Supp. 1019 (E.D. Va. 1997), aff’d, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10288 (4th Cir. May 21, 1998).
    Silver Ring Splint Co. v. Digisplint, Inc., 543 F. Supp. 2d 509, 517(W.D. Va. 2008).
    King Records, Inc. v. Bennett, 438 F. Supp. 2d 812, 849 (M.D. Tenn. 2006) .
    Kohus v. Mariol, 328 F.3d 848, 857 (6th Cir. 2003).
    Comins v. Discovery Commc’ns, Inc., 200 F. Supp.2d 512, 517 (D. Md. 2002).
    Data E. USA, Inc. v. Epyx, Inc., 862 F.2d 204, 210 (9th Cir. 1988).
    Johnson Controls, Inc. v. Phoenix Control Sys., 886 F.2d 1173, 1176 n.4 (9th Cir. 1989).
    Consul; Tec, Inc. v. Interface Sys., Inc., 22 U.S.P.Q.2d 1538, 1540 (E.D. Mich. 1991).
    Wickham v. Knoxville Int’l Energy Exposition, Inc., 739 F.2d 1094, 1096-97 (6th Cir. 1984).
    Contra Dahlen v. Mich. Licensed Beverage Ass’n, 132 F. Supp. 2d 574, 584 (E.D. Mich. 2001).
    Lewinson v. Henry Holt & Co., 659 F. Supp. 2d 547, 565 (S.D.N.Y. 2009).
    Gay Toys, Inc. v. Buddy L Corp., 703 F.2d 970, 973 (6th Cir. 1983).
    Moore v. Columbia Pictures Indus., Inc., 972 F.2d 939, 945 (8th Cir. 1992).
    Hartman v. Hallmark Cards, Inc., 833 F.2d 117, 120 (8th Cir. 1987).
    Rottlund Co. v. Pinnacle Corp., 452 F.3d 726, 731-32 (8th Cir. 2006).
    Taylor Corp. v. Four Seasons Greetings, LLC, 403 F.3d 958, 966 (8th Cir. 2005).
    Sun Media Sys., Inc. v. KDSM, LLC, 576 F. Supp. 2d 1018, 1022 (S.D. Iowa 2008).
    Schoolhouse, Inc. v. Anderson, 275 F.3d 726, 729 (8th Cir. 2002).
    Herbert Rosenthal Jewelry Corp v. Edward and Lucy, etc., 446 F.2d 742(8th Cir. 1971).
    Bird Brain, Inc. v. Menard, Inc., 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11668,24 (W.D. Mich. Aug. 4, 2000).
    Ellis v. Diffie, 177 F.3d 503, 506 (6th Cir. 1999).
    Benton v. Decotex, Inc., 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 26779 (6th Cir. Oct. 18, 2000).
    Marigold Foods, Inc. v. Purity Dairies, Inc., 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 14044 (6th Cir. June 10, 1992).
    Stromback v. New Line Cinema, 384 F.3d 283, 294 (6th Cir. 2004).
    Murray Hill Publ’ns, Inc. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., 361 F.3d 312, 318 (6th Cir. 2004).
    Bridgeport Music, Inc. v. UMG Recordings, Inc., 585 F.3d 267, 274 (6th Cir. 2009).
    Tiseo Architects, Inc. v. B&B Pools Serv. & Supply Co., 495 F.3d 344, 348 (6th Cir. 2007).
    Brainard v. Vassar, 625 F. Supp. 2d 608, 頁616-17 (M.D. Tenn. 2009).
    Johnson v. Foxx, 502 F. Supp. 2d 620, 623 (E.D. Mich. 2007).
    Bandana Co. v. TJX Cos., 2005 Copyright L. Dec. ¶ 29,012 (W.D. Ky. 2005).
    JB Oxford & Co. v. First Tenn. Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 427 F. Supp. 2d 784, 799 (M.D. Tenn. 2006).
    Tomaydo-Tomahhdo, LLC, et al., v. George Vozary, et al., NO. 1:14 CV 469, (Dist. Ohio, 2015).
    Herzog v. Castle Rock Entm’t, 193 F.3d 1241, 1257 (11th Cir. 1999).
    Leigh v. Warner Bros., Inc., 212 F.3d 1210, 1214 (11th Cir. 2000).
    Suntrust Bank v. Houghton Mifflin Co., 268 F.3d 1257, 1266 (11th Cir. 2001).
    Bateman v. Mnemonics, Inc., 79 F.3d 1532, 1541–42 (11th Cir. 1996).
    Benson v. Coca-Cola Co., 795 F.2d 973, 975 (11th Cir. 1986).
    Beal v. Paramount Pictures Corp., 20 F.3d 454, 460 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1062 (1994).
    John Alden Homes, 142 F. Supp. 2d 頁1344. 1541–42.
    United States v. O’Reilly, 794 F.2d 613, 615 (11th Cir. 1986).
    Mitek Holdings, Inc. v. Arce Eng’g Co., 89 F.3d 1548, 1558–59 (11th Cir. 1996).
    BUC Int’l Corp. v. Int’l Yacht Council Ltd., 489 F.3d 1129, at 1148–49 (11th Cir. 2007).
    Peter Letterese & Assocs. v. World Inst. of Scientology,533 F.3d 1287 (11th Cir. 2008).
    Feist Publications, inc,. v. Rural telephone Service Company, Inc 11 S.Ct. 1282 (1991).
    MAZER v. STEIN, 347 U.S. 201, S. Ct. (1954).

    網路資料
    WIPO, Barbie and Bratz: the feud continues, WIPO Magazine, August 2011.
    Retrieve from
    http://www.wipo.int/wipo_magazine/en/2011/04/article_0006.html#1.
    MATTEL, INC. v. MGA ENTERTAINMENT, INC. Retrieve from
    http://www.leagle.com/decision/In%20FDCO%2020111117868/MATTEL,%20INC.%20v.%20MGA%20ENTERTAINMENT,%20INC.
    Kate Taylor, Should the law protect original research? May 2013. Retrieve from
    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/arts/kate-taylor-should-the-law-protect-original-research/article30017704/.
    Danny Cevallos, When a monkey takes a selfie ..., August 2014, http://edition.cnn.com/2014/08/08/opinion/cevallos-monkey-selfie-copyright/.
    Nicholas Iovino, Courthouse News Service, January 2016, Retrieve from
    http://www.courthousenews.com/2016/01/07/monkey-photographers-claim-is-on-the-ropes.htm
    Library of Congress Copyright Office, Registration of Claims to Copyright , 37 CFR Part 201 [Docket No. 2012–6] , June 2012, Retrieve from
    http://copyright.gov/fedreg/2012/77fr37605.pdf.
    Ted Johnson, Universal, MGM Settle James Bond Copyright Case, January 2015, Retrieve from
    http://variety.com/2015/film/news/universal-mgm-settle-james-bond-copyright-case-1201394908/.
    Daniel Fisher, Supreme Court Dives Into Copyright Fight Over Cheerleader Uniforms, May 2016, Retrieve from
    http://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2016/05/02/supreme-court-dives-into-copyright-fight-over-cheerleader-uniforms/#5115361b2bf0.
    Description: 碩士
    國立政治大學
    科技管理與智慧財產研究所
    102364219
    Source URI: http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G1023642191
    Data Type: thesis
    Appears in Collections:[科技管理與智慧財產研究所] 學位論文

    Files in This Item:

    File SizeFormat
    219101.pdf2548KbAdobe PDF2815View/Open


    All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.


    社群 sharing

    著作權政策宣告 Copyright Announcement
    1.本網站之數位內容為國立政治大學所收錄之機構典藏,無償提供學術研究與公眾教育等公益性使用,惟仍請適度,合理使用本網站之內容,以尊重著作權人之權益。商業上之利用,則請先取得著作權人之授權。
    The digital content of this website is part of National Chengchi University Institutional Repository. It provides free access to academic research and public education for non-commercial use. Please utilize it in a proper and reasonable manner and respect the rights of copyright owners. For commercial use, please obtain authorization from the copyright owner in advance.

    2.本網站之製作,已盡力防止侵害著作權人之權益,如仍發現本網站之數位內容有侵害著作權人權益情事者,請權利人通知本網站維護人員(nccur@nccu.edu.tw),維護人員將立即採取移除該數位著作等補救措施。
    NCCU Institutional Repository is made to protect the interests of copyright owners. If you believe that any material on the website infringes copyright, please contact our staff(nccur@nccu.edu.tw). We will remove the work from the repository and investigate your claim.
    DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library IR team Copyright ©   - Feedback