|
*尊敬的用户，您好！本篇仅为该案例的英文摘要。北大法宝提供单独的翻译服务，如需整篇翻译，请发邮件至database@chinalawinfo.com，或致电86
(10) 8268-9699进行咨询。
*Dear user, this document contains only a
summary of the respective judicial case. To request a full-text translation as an
additional service, please contact us at: + 86 (10) 8268-9699 database@chinalawinfo.com
|
|
Zhuhai Gree Electric Appliances Co., Ltd. v. Guangdong Midea Electric Appliances Co., Ltd., and Patent Reexamination Board of the State Intellectual Property Office (case of applying for retrial of administrative dispute over the invalidity of the industrial design patent)
(case of applying for retrial of administrative dispute over the invalidity of the industrial design patent)
珠海格力电器股份有限公司与广东美的电器股份有限公司、国家知识产权局专利复审委员会外观设计专利权无效行政纠纷申请再审案
|
[Key Terms]
design patent ; existing design ; innovativeness
[核心术语]
外观设计专利；现有设计；创新性
|
[Disputed Issues]
For an application for a new design patent that merely reflects the omission of part of the design elements of an existing design patent, should the application nonetheless pass patent examination?
[争议焦点]
新申请的外观设计专利仅仅体现为在现有外观设计专利基础上省略局部的设计要素的，则该申请应否通过专利审查？
|
[Case Summary]
According to Article 23 of the Patent Law a design for which a patent is granted shall not be part of an existing design; and furthermore a design for which a patent is granted shall have clear differences as compared with an existing design or as compared with the combination of the special features of an existing design. Hence for an application for a new design patent...
[案例要旨]
《专利法》第二十三条规定授予专利权的外观设计应当不属于现有设计；授予专利权的外观设计与现有设计或者现有设计特征的组合相比应当具有明显区别。因此...
|
Full-text omitted. | | [正文]@#
珠海格力电器股份有限公司与广东美的电器股份有限公司、国家知识产权局专利复审委员会外观设计专利权无效行政纠纷申请再审案 @#
在申请再审人珠海格力电器股份有限公司（以下简称格力公司）与被申请人广东美的电器股份有限公司（以下简称美的公司）、二审上诉人国家知识产权局专利复审委员会（以下简称专利复审委员会）外观设计专利权无效行政纠纷案【（2011）行提字第1号】（以下简称“风轮”外观设计行政案）中，最高人民法院认为，所谓整体观察、综合判断，是指一般消费者从整体上而不是仅依据局部的设计变化，来判断外观设计专利与对比设计的视觉效果是否具有明显区别；在判断时，一般消费者对于外观设计专利与对比设计可视部分的相同点和区别点均会予以关注，并综合考虑各相同点、区别点对整体视觉效果的影响大小和程度。@#
本案的基本案情是：针对美的公司名称为“风轮(455-180)”的外观设计专利（即本案专利），格力公司向专利复审委员会提出无效宣告请求，并提交了公告号为CN3265720、名称为“风扇扇叶”外观设计专利作为对比文件。专利复审委员会作出第13585号无效宣告请求审查决定（以下简称第13585号决定），宣告本案专利权无效。美的公司不服，提起行政诉讼。北京市第一中级人民法院一审认为，本案专利与对比文件公开的在先设计不相近似，遂判决撤销第13585号决定。格力公司、专利复审委员会不服，均提出上诉。北京市高级人民法院二审认为，本案专利与在先设计关于扇叶部分的区别因扇叶部分的旋转方向系由功能决定，故对整体视觉效果不具有显著影响，其他区别分布于本案专利的中部等主要视觉部分，根据整体观察、综合判断原则，对一般消费者而言，其区别足以在整体视觉效果上产生不同。据此判决驳回上诉，维持一审判决。格力公司不服，向最高人民法院申请再审。最高人民法院于2010年12月7日裁定提审本案，并于2011年11月11日判决撤销一、二审判决，维持第13585号决定。@#
．．．．．． |
|
Dear visitor, as a premium member of this database, you will get complete access to all content.Please go premium and get more.
1. To become a premium member, please call 400-810-8266 Ext. 171.
2. Binding to the account with access to this database.
3. Apply for a trial account.
4. To get instant access to a document, you can Pay Amount 【￥200.00】 for your single purchase. | |
您好：您现在要进入的是北大法宝英文库会员专区。
如您是我们英文用户可直接 登录，进入会员专区查询您所需要的信息；如您还不是我们 的英文用户；您可通过网上支付进行单篇购买，支付成功后即可立即查看本篇内容。
Tel: +86 (10) 82689699, +86 (10) 82668266 ext. 153
Mobile: +86 13311570713
Fax: +86 (10) 82668268
E-mail:info@chinalawinfo.com
|
| | | | | | | | |
Scan QR Code and Read on Mobile
|
|
|
|
|
|
Message: Please kindly comment on the present translation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Translations are by lawinfochina.com, and we retain exclusive copyright over content
found on our website except for content we publish as authorized by respective copyright
owners or content that is publicly available from government sources.
Due to differences in language, legal systems, and culture, English translations
of Chinese law are for reference purposes only. Please use the official Chinese-language
versions as the final authority. Lawinfochina.com and its staff will not be directly
or indirectly liable for use of materials found on this website.
We welcome your comments and suggestions, which assist us in continuing to improve
the quality of our materials as we dynamically expand content.
|
|