Loading...
|
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/115843
|
| Title: | 時尚設計之著作權保護-以服裝設計為中心 |
| Authors: | 游皓婷
Yu, Haw Tyng |
| Contributors: | 馮震宇
游皓婷
Yu, Haw Tyng |
| Keywords: | 時尚產業
時尚設計
服裝設計
著作權法
設計專利
網紅
DPPA
IDPPPA
IDPA
仿製
原創性
實質近似
TRIPS協定
伯恩公約
歐盟共同體設計指令
歐盟共同體設計規則
可分離性判斷
美術工藝品
應用美術著作
Fashion industry
Fashion design
Garment design
Copyright
Design patent
Internet celebrity
DPPA
IDPPPA
IDPA
Knock-off
Originality
Substantial similarity
TRIPS agreement
Berne Convention
Directive 98/71/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 13 October 1998 on the legal protection of designs
Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 of 12 December 2001 on Community Designs
Separability
Artistic handicraft
Applied art |
| Date: | 2017 |
| Issue Date: | 2018-02-05 16:41:16 (UTC+8) |
| Abstract: | 時尚設計師出面控訴快時尚品牌抄襲的新聞層出不窮，不乏設計師出面指稱現行法規對其保護不足，而時尚設計、服裝設計領域近期不斷以新穎之技術、手法融入設計當中，呈現出更多以往不可能呈現的造型，使得服裝設計越來越像藝術品，並不單單只是為了使人穿著，進而引發是否有必要將服裝設計與傳統藝術作品區別保護之爭辯。
根據美國國會2016年的報告顯示，全球時尚產業每年產值約1.75兆美金，過去曾有紡織王國美稱的台灣，也開始從過去的委託製造（OEM）致力轉型於委託設計製造（ODM），至今努力發展自有品牌（OBM），如何成功打入國際為本土品牌未來應努力之方向。歐盟地區有歐盟共同體設計規定，予以服裝設計周全之設計權保護；美國則長期受制於實用性物品原則之可分離性判斷，而長期無法提供服裝設計之著作權保護；我國雖未明文不予服裝設計著作權保護，但也長期處於不明確之狀態。對設計師而言，不明確之保護即為一不確定風險，將阻礙具創意的新設計之出現，此為台灣推行文化創意產業、將本土品牌推向國際、培育新一代設計師所需解決之問題。
本研究主要分為五章，除第一章為緒論外，第二章為時尚設計產業與國際保護現況之概述，第三章主要論述美國著作權法基本結構且以服裝設計為重心，並就前述基礎由實務案例加以歸納評析美國實務對於服裝設計著作權保護之態度，第四章主要論述我國著作權法基本結構且以服裝設計為重心，並就前述基礎藉由實務案例加以歸納評析我國實務對於服裝設計著作權保護之態度，第五章提出本研究之結論與建議。
經研究發現著作權法並非全然對於服裝設計不予以保護，僅係因立法政策與解釋論上之不穩定見解，導致保護的不確定性，希望透過此篇論文能夠提供我國主管機關解釋上之建議。
Nowadays, copycat, knock-off accusements appear frequently within fashion design industry. Some of the scholars, industrial representors comment that fashion design is not copyrightable and shall not be protected. However, it is indisputable that fashion is an innovative and orginal form of art. Furthermore, fahion design consists of artisic expression and other unique features. Thus fashion designers and other kind of artists shall not be treated unfairly.
This study focuses on copyright protection both in Taiwan and United States. And discuss to what extent shall we protect garment design and how we can seafeguard talented fashion desingers’s creative works. The study is divided into five parts. The first part is the introduction part. The second part is talking about the featues of fashion design industry and international rules which are related to fashion design. The third part focuses on copright law, domestic theoretical legal analysis and cases on garment design infringement lawsuits in the United States. The fourth part focuses on copright law, domestic theoretical legal analysis and cases on garment design infringement lawsuits in Taiwan. In the end, this study provides several suggestions for the Taiwanese adminstrtion agencies and juditial authorities. |
| Reference: | 一、 中文文獻
（一） 書籍
許忠信（2005）。WTO與貿易有關智慧財產權協定之研究，初版。台北市：元照。
曾勝珍、洪維拓（2012）。智慧財產權法專論：著作權之抄襲與侵害。台北市：五南圖書。
劉孔中主編（2014）。國際比較下我國著作權法之總檢討（上冊）。台北市：新學林。
蕭雄淋（2015）。著作權法論，八版。台北市：五南圖書。
謝銘洋（2014）。智慧財產權法，五版。台北市：元照。
羅明通（2014）。著作權法論 II，八版。台北市：台英商務法律。
Carol Brown (2011), Fashion & Textiles:The Essential Careers Guide. 張靜怡譯，時尚力：50+時尚身分Ｘ60+流行精英現身說法Ｘ100+實戰致勝祕技。台北市：積木文化。
Malcolm Barnard (2004), Fashion as Communication. 鄭靜宜（譯），流行溝通。新北市：桂冠。
Sue Jenkyn Jones (2013), Fashion Design. 邢曼雲（譯），時尚設計全書。台北市：積木文化。
（二） 期刊論文
沈宗倫（2015）。著作權法之基本用語與法律體系概述。月旦法學教室，第150期。
林利芝（2009）。著作權決戰伸展台（上）。台灣法學雜誌，第129期。
姚信安（2013）。雙魚羅生門：論美術著作之抄襲-從智慧財產法院一ＯＯ年度刑智上訴字第三九號刑事判決談起。月旦法學雜誌，第217期。
徐志宏、賴建榮、鄒伯衡（2014）。臺灣流行時尚產業供應鏈及物流發展現況。物流技術與戰略，第70期。
徐銘峯（2010）。歐盟共同體設計保護制度制定脈絡之探討介紹。智慧財產權，第151期。
陳姵先（2013）。淺談今日美國時尚設計保護。全國律師，第17卷第6期。
馮震宇、胡心蘭（2001）。論美國著作權法合理使用原則之發展與適用。中原財經法學，第6期。
謝銘洋（1999）。美術工藝品與新式樣之區別-評台灣高等法院八十七年上易字第二五六號判決。月旦法學雜誌，第51期。
（三） 研究計畫
李治安（2014）。⟪著作權侵害認定之研究⟫。台北市：科技部。
（四） 博碩士學位論文
古詩苹（2011）。時裝設計產業智慧財產保護之研究。國立政治大學智慧財產研究所碩士論文，台北市。
巫俊毅（2013）。時尚設計之智慧財產權保護-以美國時尚設計保護草案為中心。國立臺灣大學科技整合法律學研究所碩士論文，台北市。
林容萱（2013）。從仿冒的悖論論時尚服裝設計之智慧財產權保護。國立交通大學科技法律研究所碩士論文，新竹市。
張嘉惠（2016），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。國立政治大學科技管理與智慧財產研究所碩士論文，台北市。
黃子權（2016）。時尚品牌與藝術家合作之分析-以國際知名品牌和台灣設計師品牌為例。實踐大學服裝設計研究所碩士論文，台北市。
劉芊影（2015），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，台北市。
蕭永蔚（2014）。時尚設計的智慧財產權保護。國立臺灣科技大學專利研究所碩士學位論文，台北市。
鍾曉葳（2016）。快時尚聯合品牌行銷策略研究，以H&M、UNIQLO、GAP為例。國立臺灣藝術大學廣播電視學系碩士班碩士論文，新北市。
（五） 司法判決與行政函釋
內政部民國81年11月20日台（81）內著字第8124412號函。
內政部於86年4 月21日臺內著字第8605535 號函。
內政部著作權委員會1993年3月9日內政部台（82）內著字第8276724號函。
智慧財產法院100年度民著上易字第10號判決。
智慧財產法院101年度民著訴字第14號判決。
智慧財產法院101年度刑智上字第49號判決。
智慧財產法院102年度民著上字第18號判決。
智慧財產法院103年度民專訴字第4號民事判決。
智慧財產法院103年度民著上字第5號判決。
智慧財產法院103年度民著訴字第5號判決。
智慧財產法院103年度民著訴字第79號判決。
智慧財產法院103年度刑智上訴字第54號刑事判決。
智慧財產法院104年度民著訴字第39號判決。
智慧財產法院98年度民專訴字第101號民事判決。
智慧財產法院98年度民著上字第16號判決。
智慧財產法院98年度民著上字第25號判決。
智慧財產法院99年度刑智上易字第6號判決。
智慧財產權局，專利審查基準彙編，2004年版，第三篇新式樣專利實體審查。
最高法院94年度台上字第5241號刑事判決。
最高法院95年度台上字第3753號刑事判決。
經濟部智慧財產局民國 103 年 03 月 11 日電子郵件1030226。
經濟部智慧財產局民國 103 年 06 月 03 日電子郵件字第1030603號。
經濟部智慧財產局民國103年03月31日電子郵件字第1030311b號。
經濟部智慧財產局民國103年1月29日 智著字第10300006470號。
經濟部智慧財產局民國105年5月24日電子郵件字第 1050524 號。
經濟部智慧財產局民國97年2月12日智著字第09700009580號。
經濟部智慧財產局民國97年6月11日智著字第09700051020號。
經濟部智慧財產局民國98年7月14日電子郵件980714a。
臺灣高等法院104年度上字第103號刑事判決。
臺灣高等法院83年度上訴字第3587號刑事判決。
臺灣高等法院93年度上訴字第1294號刑事判決。
臺灣高等法院94年度上更（一）字第665號刑事判決。
臺灣高等法院智上字第7號民事判決。
臺灣臺北地方法院101年度智訴字第28號刑事判決。
臺灣臺北地方法院83年度重訴字第536號民事判決。
臺灣臺北地方法院92年度訴字第1099號刑事判決。
臺灣臺北地方法院93年度自訴字第238號刑事判決。
臺灣臺南地方法院100年度智訴字第9號刑事判決。
（六） 網際網路
余惠如（2014年11月），著作「實質近似」之侵權分析 — 以美術著作為中心，http://www.saint-island.com.tw/news/ShowNewsB.asp?seq=582，最漏瀏覽日：2017年7月5日。
章忠信（2007年8月15日），時裝或造型設計與著作權保護，著作權筆記，http://www.copyrightnote.org/ArticleContent.aspx?ID=2&aid=293，最後瀏覽日：2017年6月26日。
章忠信（2010年3月31日），時髦與流行有必要用著作權保護嗎？，著作權筆記，http://www.copyrightnote.org/ArticleContent.aspx?ID=54&aid=2222 ，最後瀏覽日：2017年7月15日。
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，最後瀏覽日：2017年6月26日。
陳韋元（2017年6月10日），快時尚王國的遲暮之年？論快時尚的困難和瓶頸，維京人酒吧，http://vikingbar.org/2017/06/%E5%BF%AB%E6%99%82%E5%B0%9A%E7%8E%8B%E5%9C%8B%E7%9A%84%E9%81%B2%E6%9A%AE%E4%B9%8B%E5%B9%B4%EF%BC%9F%E8%AB%96%E5%BF%AB%E6%99%82%E5%B0%9A%E7%9A%84%E5%9B%B0%E9%9B%A3%E5%92%8C%E7%93%B6%E9%A0%B8/，最後瀏覽日：2017年7月24日。
BeautiMode （2016年2月11日），Vetements創意總監Demna Gvasalia談時尚系統失靈下的品牌對策，BeautiMode網站，http://www.beautimode.com/article/content/81398/，最後瀏覽日：2017年7月24日。
BeautiMode（2015年12月7日），Instagram的魅力讓設計師們也招架不住 Olivier Rousteing：「這真的完全改變了時尚產業！」，BeautiMode網站，http://www.beautimode.com/article/content/81102/，最後瀏覽日：2017年7月24日）。
Hsiang Chang（2016年12月30日），2016年度時尚頭條 精品營收慘 素人網紅當道， evoke， http://www.evoketw.com/2016%E5%B9%B4%E5%BA%A6%E6%99%82%E5%B0%9A%E9%A0%AD%E6%A2%9D-%E7%B2%BE%E5%93%81%E7%87%9F%E6%94%B6%E6%85%98-%E7%B4%A0%E4%BA%BA%E7%B6%B2%E7%B4%85%E7%95%B6%E9%81%93.html ，最後瀏覽日：2017年7月24日。
LYNN（2017年3月4日），掌握人心的公式—時尚產業鏈如何製造出你的需求？，https://hellolynn.hpd.io/2017/03/04/%E6%8E%8C%E6%8F%A1%E4%BA%BA%E5%BF%83%E7%9A%84%E5%85%AC%E5%BC%8F%E2%94%80%E2%94%80%E6%99%82%E5%B0%9A/，最後瀏覽日：2017/7/24。
二、 外文文獻
（一） Books
Graeme B. Dinwoodie & Mark D. Janis (2010). Trade Dress and Design Law, USA: Aspen.
Melville B. Nimmer & Davis Nimmer (2008). Nimmer On Copyright, USA: LexisNexis.
Paul Goldstein (2008). Goldstein On Copyright, USA:Aspen.
（二） Articles
Anne Theodore Briggs (2002). Hung out to Dry: Clothing Design Protection Pitfalls in United States Law, 24 HASTINGS COMM. & ENT. L.J. 169.
Arianne Vanessa Josephine T. Jimenez (2016) A Sui Generis System of Protection for Exceptionally Original Fashion Designs, 36 LOYOLA OF LOS ANGELES ENTERTAINMENT LAW REVIEW 101.
Arielle K. Cohen (2012). Designer Collaborations as a Solution to the Fast-Fashion Copyright Dilemma, 11 CHI.-KENT J. INTELL. PROP. 172.
Aya Eguchi (2011) Curtailing Copycat Couture: The Merits of the Innovative Design Protection and Piracy Prevention Act and a Licensing Scheme for the Fashion Industry, 97 CORNELL L. REV. 131.
Charles E. Colman (2015). The History and Principles of American copyright Protection for Fashion Design: On “Originality”, 6 HARV. J. SPORTS & ENT. L. 299.
Charles E. Colman (2015). The History and Principles of American Copyright Protection for Fashion Design: On “Originality”, 6 HARV. J. SPORTS & ENT. L. 299.
Charles E. Colman (2016). The History and Doctrine of American Copyright Protection for Fashion Design: Managing Mazer, 7 HARV. J. SPORTS & ENT. L. 151.
Copyright Act of 1976 — Useful Articles — Star Athletica, L.L.C. v. Varsity Brands, Inc., 131 Harv. L. Rev. 363.
Emma Yao Xiao (2010). The New Trend- Protecting American Fashion Designs Through National Copyright Measures, 28 CARDOZO ARTS & ENT. 417.
Hemphill, C. Scott & Gersen, Jeannie Suk (2009). The Law, Culture, and Economics of Fashion, 61 STAN. L. REV. 1147.
Jacgueline Lampasona (2015), Discrimination against fashion design in copyright, 14 J. INT’L BUS. & L. 273.
Jacqueline Lefebvre (2016). The Need for “Supreme” Clarity: Clothing, Copyright, and Conceptual Separability, 27 FORDHAM INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, MEDIA AND ENTERTAINMENT LAW JOURNAL 143.
Jane C. Ginsburg (2017). The sum is more public domain than its parts? : US Copyright protection for works of applied art under Star Athletica’s imagination test, 166 U. PA. L. REV. ONLINE 83.
John C. Thomas III & Antonelle Piccirilli (2017). Supreme Court: Knock It Off with The Knockoffs, 19 NO. 13 LAWYERS J. 5.
Julie P. Tsai (2005). Fashioning Protection: A note on the protection of fashion designs in the united states, 9 LEWIS & CLARK L. REV. 447.
Kal Raustiala & Christopher Sprigman (2006). The Piracy Paradox: Innovation and Intellectual Property in Fashion Design, 92 VA. L. REV. 1687.
Kevin V. Tu (2010), Counterfeit Fashion: The Interplay Between Copyright and Trademark Law in Original Designer Knockoffs, 18 TEX. INTELL. PROP. L.J. 419.
Kimberly A. Harchuck (2010) Fashion Design Protection: The Eternal Plight of the “ Soft Sculpture”, 4 AKRON INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY JOURNAL 73.
Larry C. Russ & Nathan D. Meyer (2017), Fashion Forward the Star Athletica v. Varsity Brands Decision Overturned Copyright Office Practices Going Back Half A Century, L.A. LAW. 20.
Lauren Howard (2008). An Uningenious Paradox : Intellectual Property Protections for Fashion Designs, 32 COLUM. J.L. & ARTS 333.
Peter Lee & Madhavi Sunder (2017). The Law of Look and Feel, 90 S. CAL. L. REV. 529.
Philip M. Duclos (2017). Three cheers for trekonomics: The future of copyright doctrine according to Star Athletica and Star Trek, 27 CORNELL J. L. & PUB. POL’Y 207.
Rebecca Tushnet (2012). Worth a Thousand Words- The Images of Copyright, 125 HARV. L. REV. 683.
Sara R. Ellis (2010). Copyrighting Couture: An Examination of Fashion Design Protection and Why the DPPA and IDPPPA are a Step Towards the Solution to Counterfeit Chic, 78 TENN. L. REV. 163.
Shyamkrishna Balganesh (2017). Clarifying the "Clear Meaning" of Separability, 166 U. PA. L. REV. ONLINE 79.
Sonja Wolf Sahlsten (2016). I`m a Little Treepot: Conceptual Separability and Affording Copyright Protection to Useful Articles, 67 FLORIDA LAW REVIEW 941.
Susan Scafidi (2006). Intellectual Property and Fashion Design, 1 Intellectual Property and Information Wealth 115.
Tiffany din Fagel Tse (2015). CoCo Way Before Chanel: Protecting Independent Fashion Designers’ Intellectual Property Against Fast-Fashion Retailers, 24 CATH. U. J. L. & TECH 401.
Victoria Elman (2008). From the Runway to the Courtroom- How Substantial Similarity is Unfit for Fashion, 30 CARDOZO L. REV. 683.
Vishwanath Kootala Mohan (2017). Star Athletica v. Varsity Brands: SCOTUS Cheers for Broader Copright Protection, 59 ORANGE COUNTY LAW. 36.
Whitney Potter (2011). Intellectual Property’s Fashion Faux Pas: A Critical Look at the Lack of Protection Afforded Apparel Design Under the Current Legal Regime, 16 INTELL. PROP. L. BULL. 69.
Yochai Benkler (2000). Constitutional Bounds of Database Protection: The Role of Judicial Review in the Creation and Definition of Private Rights in Information, 15 BERKELEY TECH. L.J. 535.
（三） Reports
The Economic Impact of the Fashion Industry, Joint Econ. Comm., U.S. Cong, https://www.jec.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/democrats/2016/9/t-he-e-conomic-i-mpact-of-the-f-ashion-i-ndustry
（四） Court Documents
Alfred Bell & Co. v. Catalda Fine Arts, 191 F.2d 99, 100-102, 104 (2d Cir. 1951)
Arnstein v. Porter 154 F.2d 464 (2d Cir. 1946).
Brandir Int’l, Inc. v. Cascade Pac. Lumber Co., 834 F.2d 1142 (2d Cir. 1987).
Brief for the United States as Amicus Curiae Supporting Respondants at 23-24, Star Athletica LLC v. Varsity Brands, Inc., et al, Docket No. 15-866 (2016)
Brief for the United States as Amicus Curiae Supporting Respondents at 23, Star Athletica LLC v. Varsity Brands, Inc., et al, Docket No. 15-866 (2016)
Brief of Fashion Law Institute et al as Amici Curiae in Support of Respondents at 26, Star Athletica LLC v. Varsity Brands, Inc., et al, Docket No. 15-866 (2016).
Brief of Professors Jeannie Suk Gersen and C. Scott Hemphill as Amici Curiae in Support of Respondents at 10, Star Athletica LLC v. Varsity Brands, Inc., et al, Docket No. 15-866 (2016).
Carol Barnhart Inc. v. Economy Cover Corp., 773 F.2d 411,422 (2d Cir. 1985).
Cavu Clothes v. Squires, Inc., 184 F.2d 30 (6th Cir. 1950).
Chosun Int`l, Inc. v. Chrisha Creations Ltd., No. 02-CV-7918 (KMW), 2004 WL 962906 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 24, 2004)
Chosun Int`l, Inc. v. Chrisha Creations, Ltd., 413 F.3d 324 (2d Cir. 2005).
Feist Pubs., Inc. v. Rural Tel. Svc. Co., Inc., 499 U.S. 340, 358-359 (1991).
Galiano v. Harrah`s Operating Co., 416 F.3d 411 (5th Cir. 2005)
Galiano v. Harrah`s Operating Co., No. CIV.A. 00-0071, 2004 WL 1057552 (E.D. La. May 10, 2004)
H. M. Kolbe Co. v. Armgus Textile Company, 315 F.2d 70, 72 (2d Cir. 1963)
Jovani Fashion, Ltd. v. Cinderella Divine, Inc., 808 F. Supp. 2d 542 ( S.D.N.Y. 2011)
Jovani Fashion, Ltd. v. Fiesta Fashions, 500 F. App`x 42 (2d Cir. 2012).
Jovani Fashion, Ltd. v. Fiesta Fashions, 500 F. App`x 42, 43-44 (2d Cir. 2012).
Kieselstein-Cord v. Accessories By Pearl, Inc., 632 F.2d 989 (2d Cir. 1980).
Knitwaves, Inc. v. Lollytogs Ltd. (Inc.), 71 F.3d 996 (2d Cir. 1995).
L. Batlin & Son, Inc. v. Snyder, 536 F.2d 486, 491 (2d Cir. 1976).
Mazer v. Stein, 347 U.S. 201 (1954).
MRC Innovations, Inc. v. Hunter MFG., LLP, 747 F.3d 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
MRC Innovations, Inc. v. Hunter MFG., LLP, 921 F. Supp. 800 (N.D.Ohio 2013)
Nichols v. Universal Pictures Corp., 45 F. 2d 119(2d Cir. 1936).
North Coast Industries v. Jason Maxwell, Inc., 972 F.2d 1031 (9th Cir. 1992).
Pan Fabrics, Inc. v. Brenda Fabrics, Inc., 169 F. Supp. 142, 143 (S.D.N.Y. 1959).
Peter Pan Fabrics, Inc. v. Acadia Co., 173 F. Supp. 292 (S.D.N.Y. 1959).
Peter Pan Fabrics, Inc. v. Martin Weiner Corp., 274 F.2d 487, 489 (2d Cir. 1960).
Pivot Point Int’l, Inc. v. Charlene Prods., Inc., 372 F. 3d 913 (7th Cir. 2004).
Poe v. Missing Persons, 745 F.2d 1238 (9th Cir. 1984).
Puma SE v. Forever 21, Inc., 2:17-cv-02523 (C.D. Cal).
Sid & Marty Krofft Television Productions, Inc. v. McDonald`s Corp 562 F.2d 1157 (9th Cir. 1977).
Star Athletica, L.L.C. v. Varsity Brands, Inc., 137 S. Ct. 1002 (2017).
Triangl Group Limited v. Jiangmen City Xinhui District Lingzhi Garment Co Ltd., 2017 WL 2829752 (S.D.N.Y 2017).
Varsity Brands Inc. v Star Athletica LLC., No. 10-2508, 2014 WL 819422 (W.D. Tenn. Mar. 1, 2014)
Varsity Brands, Inc. v. Star Athletica, L.L.C, 799 F.3d 468 (6th Cir. 2015).
Whimsicality, Inc. v. Rubie`s Costume Co., 891 F.2d 452 (2d Cir. 1989).
Whimsicality, Inc. v. Rubie`s Costumes Co., Inc., 721 F. Supp. 1566 (E.D.N.Y. 1989).
（五） Internet Sources
Ashlyn Lembree (2105, May 4), UNHInnovation Creative Works Symposium: Welcome Remarks slide deck. Retrieved July 24, 2017 from https://www.slideshare.net/UNH_ORPC/creative-works-opening-address.
Binkley, C. (2008, March 14), WEEKEND JOURNAL; Fashion: Racking up the sale; how clothes make it from the runway to the shop on the corner, The Wall Street Journal Asia. Retrieved July 24, 2017, from https://search.proquest.com/docview/315368053?accountid=10067.
Brian L. Frye (2014, April 6), Open Source Copyright Casebook, Class 26: Substantial Similarity. Retrieved July 24, 2017 from http://copyrightlawcasebook.blogspot.tw/2014/04/class-26-substantial-similarity.html.
Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices. Retrieved from https://www.copyright.gov/comp3/.
David Kluft (2011, Oct. 31), How Useful Is Your Halloween Costume? Knock-off Costumes and the Useful Article Doctrine. Retrieved July 24, 2017 from http://www.trademarkandcopyrightlawblog.com/2011/10/how-useful-is-your-halloween-costume-knock-off-costumes-and-the-useful-article-doctrine/.
Eleni Koutsopoulou (2017), Haute Couture as a work protected by copyright. Retrieved July 24, 2017, from http://hdl.handle.net/11544/15287.
Gabriela Herstik (2017,June 14), You can now search more than 3,000 years worth of fashion, thanks to Google. Retrieved July 24, 2017, from http://hellogiggles.com/search-years-fashion-google/.
Gucci`s Alessandro Michele: Creative Genius or Glorified Copycat?, (2017, June 22), The Fashion Law. Retrieved July 24, 2017, from http://www.thefashionlaw.com/home/guccis-alessandro-michele-saddened-by-claims-of-copying?rq=Stuart%20Smythe.
Lane, C. & Probert, J. (2004). Between the Global and the Local: A Comparison of the British and German Clothing Industry. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228885320_Between_the_Global_and_the_Local_A_Comparison_of_the_German_and_UK_Clothing_Industry.
Loni Morrow & Jonathan Hyman (2017, March 24), Chevrons, Stripes, Cheerleaders, and Copyright: The Supreme Court Issues Opinion in Star Athletica v. Varsity Brands. Retrieved July 24, 2017 from https://www.knobbe.com/news/2017/03/chevrons-stripes-cheerleaders-and-copyright-supreme-court-issues-opinion-star-athletica.
Lululemon v. Calvin Klein: Take Notice (2012, Oct. 22), The Fashion Law. Retrieved July 24, 2017, from http://www.thefashionlaw.com/home/lululemon-v-calvin-klein-take-notice.
Michael Dunford (2009). Industrial Districts, Magic Circles, and the Restructuring of the Italian Textiles and Clothing Chain, Economic Geography. Retrieved from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1944-8287.2006.tb00287.x/abstract.
Moretta Tartaglione, A., & Antonucci, E. (2013). Value Creation Process in the Fast Fashion Industry: Towards a Networking Approach. Retrieved from https://ssrn.com/abstract=2342259.
Moretta Tartaglione, Andrea & Antonucci, Emanuela (2013). Value Creation Process in the Fast Fashion Industry: Towards a Networking Approach. Retrieved from https://ssrn.com/abstract=2342259.
Second Request for Reconsideration for Refusal to Register Wanderer, https://www.copyright.gov/rulings-filings/review-board/docs/wanderer.pdf .
Susan Scafidi (2010, Aug. 6), IDPPPA: Introducing the Innovative Design Protection and Piracy Prevention Act, a.k.a. Fashion Copyright, Counterfeit Chic. Retrieved July 24, 2017, from http://counterfeitchic.com/2010/08/introducing-the-innovative-design-protection-and-piracy-prevention-act.html
The City’s Big NY Fashion Boost, COUNCIL OF FASHION DESIGNERS OF AM. Retrieved July 24, 2017, from https://cfda.com/news/the-citys-big-ny-fashion-boost.
United States Congress, House Committee on the Judiciary (2007), A bill to provide protection for fashion design, House of Representatives, One Hundred tenth Congress, first session, on H.R. 2033. Retrieved from https://www.congress.gov/bill/110th-congress/house-bill/2033?q=H.R.+2033+%28110%29.
United States Congress, House Committee on the Judiciary (2009), A bill to extend protection for fashion design, and for other purposes, House of Representatives, One Hundred eleventh Congress, first session, on H.R. 2196. Retrieved from https://www.congress.gov/bill/111th-congress/house-bill/2196/text?q=H.R.+2196.
United States Congress, House Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property (2006), A bill to provide protection for fashion design: hearing before the Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property of the Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, One Hundred Ninth Congress, second session, on H.R. 5055. Retrieved from https://www.congress.gov/bill/109th-congress/house-bill/5055/text.
United States Congress, House of Representatives (1976). H.R Rep. No. 1476, 94th Cong. 2d Sees. Retrieved from http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Copyright_Law_Revision_(House_Report_No._94-1476)
United States Congress, Senate Committee on the Judiciary (2007), A bill to provide protection for fashion design, Senate of Representatives, One Hundred tenth Congress, first session, on S.1957. Retrieved from https://www.congress.gov/bill/110th-congress/senate-bill/1957/text?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22S.1957%22%5D%7D&r=6.
United States Congress, Senate Committee on the Judiciary (2010), A bill to provide protection for fashion design, and for other purposes, Senate of Representatives, One Hundred eleventh Congress, second session, on S.3728. Retrieved from https://www.congress.gov/bill/111th-congress/senate-bill/3728/text.
United States Congress, Senate Committee on the Judiciary (2012), A bill to provide protection for fashion design, and for other purposes, Senate of Representatives, One Hundred twelveth Congress, second session, on S.3523. Retrieved from https://www.congress.gov/bill/112th-congress/senate-bill/3523/text |
| Description: | 碩士
國立政治大學
科技管理與智慧財產研究所
104364207 |
| Source URI: | http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0104364207 |
| 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 |
Size | Format | |
|---|
| 420701.pdf | 2893Kb | Adobe PDF2 | 62 | View/Open |
|
All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.
|
