Re: [情報][新聞] 「張君雅」人紅沒分紅 告廠商侵權
※ 引述《thubo (♡)》之銘言：
: 維力公司在96年的時候同時對文字還有圖形都有向智財局申請商標，而且差不多都在
: 97年的時候公告。
: 文字: 張君雅小妹妹
: http://0rz.tw/da4OM
: http://0rz.tw/a14OU
: http://0rz.tw/864Od
: http://0rz.tw/ee4Oi
: http://0rz.tw/2d4PI
: http://0rz.tw/094Qc
: 圖形
: http://0rz.tw/9e4QZ
: http://0rz.tw/1d4RA
: http://0rz.tw/984N4
: http://0rz.tw/da4OL
: http://0rz.tw/fa4Qy
: 就文字商標方面因為，因張君雅並非當事人之姓名，係維力公司委託廣告公司為行銷
: 該公司產品所虛創之姓名，故就該虛設之姓名申請文字商標乃維力公司行使法律所賦予其
: 自身之權利，和他人無涉。
: 惟有問題者係在於，維力公司所申請之圖形商標某程度係基於當事人之肖像所創設，
: 此乃係本案之爭點，商標法第二十三條第十五款規定依他人之肖像為商標申請註冊者不得
: 註冊，若有該情事者當事人得依商標法四十條第一項異議之，或進而廢止該商標，不過就
: 當事人而言，該方法對其目的似乎不大，因為當事人就是要錢...就這的方面可能需要另
: 尋請求權基礎。
: 其他待補........
88年度台上字第6789號判決：「學說上所謂須具『原創性』，亦即人類精神所為之創作，
其精神作用之程度，須足以表現出創作者之『個性』及『獨特性』，始有給與排他性著作
權利保護之必要。作品如非著作人獨立創作之結果，而屬習見之圖(造)形或抄襲重製得來
，即非以個別獨具之創意表現於外，應無原創性可言，即非『創作』，自非著作權法第三
條第一項第一款所規定之著作」。
Comedy III Production. Inc., V. Gary Saderup, Inc., 21P.3d 797, 2001案中，某
畫家將三個過世的某喜劇中演員容貌用炭筆描畫出來轉印到襯衫上銷售而未經繼承人同意
。第一修正案保護人們表達藝術等的權利但亦須顧及三喜劇演員的肖像權；後法院認為因
該畫未具有重大的改變原肖像傳統素描要素（Transformative），（或者其創作的價值主
要並非來自於該名人演員），所以該畫不受憲法第一修正案保護。
CASE SUMMARYPROCEDURAL POSTURE: Plaintiff company sued defendants (artist and
corporation) for damages and injunctive relief for violation of Cal. Civ.
Code ?990 and related business torts. The Superior Court of California, Los
Angeles County, ruled for plaintiff and issued a permanent injunction. The
Court of Appeal of California, Second Appellate District, Division Two,
affirmed the judgment but struck the injunction.
OVERVIEW: Defendant artist created a lithograph of "The Three Stooges" and
used it to make silk-screened T-shirts. Plaintiff, a company who owned the
rights to the former comedy act, objected to the sale of the T-shirts. The
supreme court resolved a conflict between former Cal. Civ. Code ?990 and the
U.S. Const. amend. I. The court of appeal had held that the lithographs and
T-shirts received no U.S. Const. amend. I protection since they were
reproductions rather than original works of art. This was error. The
reproductions were equally entitled to U.S. Const. amend. I protection.
Although this was found to be error, the supreme court still affirmed the
court of appeal's ruling. The supreme court formulated a balancing test
between the U.S. Const. amend. I and the right of publicity based on whether
the work added significant creative elements so as to be transformed into
something more than a mere celebrity likeness or imitation. Applying that
test here, the supreme court held that there were no such creative elements
here and that the right of publicity prevailed.
OUTCOME: The judgment of the court of appeal affirming an award of damages to
the plaintiff was affirmed.
--
※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc)
◆ From: 192.192.154.49
※ 編輯: thubo 來自: 124.8.9.107 (09/26 23:03)
討論串 (同標題文章)
本文引述了以下文章的的內容：
完整討論串 (本文為第 4 之 4 篇)：