Conflicts and Coordination in Protection of Intellectual Property Law Against Unfair Competition Law The expansion of the scope of protection of unfair competition law sometimes conflicts with intellectual property laws such as copyright law and patent law. Outside the scope of protection of intellectual property such as copyright and patents, this is the public domain; in the public domain, neither copying nor imitation constitutes infringement. If the scope of protection against unfair competition laws is too broad, it means establishing a parallel exclusive right of ownership in addition to intellectual property rights. Objects originally not subject to protection or exceeding the protection period all fall within the scope of protection, which undoubtedly belittles. The entire intellectual property system - if any imitation is prohibited by the anti-unfair competition law, what is the significance of the intellectual property system? For instance, Spain’s regulations on “nothing wrong with imitation†have already made the scope of protection very wide. Some courts in the trial also “keeped accustomed to the standards that are enough to cause misrecognition.†As a result, judgments in some cases are difficult to order. People are convinced. Therefore, "enough to cause the public to misunderstand" should be a fastened gate, restraining the excessive expansion of the protection against unfair competition law.
In some cases, although the outer packaging can be protected at the same time by the Anti-Unfair Competition Law and the Intellectual Property Law, it is also necessary to establish the priority of the intellectual property law for the public interest and to exclude the protection of unfair competition law. For example, US courts use “functional†standards to distinguish between two types of protection. Functional product components (including external packaging) are only objects protected by patents and cannot be protected by product decorating; non-functional product features can be patented as well. Can be protected by the decoration of goods. The characteristics of functional products are indispensable for the use of commodities and affect the cost and quality of the products. If they are protected by unfair competition laws in addition to patent protection, they are always placed in the monopoly of a certain manufacturer. In the following, the competitor is in a significant disadvantageous position, and it is also harmful to the public. Therefore, it should not obtain protection for the decoration of goods; non-functional product features could have been subject to double protection, but in 1995 a case of the United States Court of the United States It is proposed that, under certain conditions, the protection of unfair competition laws should be excluded. In this case, the product features of the plaintiff are both in its patent claims and because it is non-functional and can be protected as a product decoration. Although the defendant’s imitative behavior does not constitute patent infringement, the product features are so similar that they can be misidentified by the consumer. The plaintiff demanded that Article 43 of the Lanham Act protects the goodwill of the trademark right holder and guarantees the consumers' competitive production. There is a provision for the ability to make identification, which prohibits the defendant from imitating. The Tenth Circuit overturned the original verdict and refused to support the plaintiff’s request. The reason is that the protection of the technical features within the scope of patent rights as a product decoration is bound to contravene the fundamental purpose of the patent law and prevent the patent technology from entering the public domain after the protection period has passed. When a technical feature can be double protected by the patent law and unfair competition law, the public policies behind the two types of laws can conflict. The fundamental purpose of the Patent Law is to encourage inventions and innovations, promote technological progress, and continuously expand the scope of human public knowledge. On the one hand, it gives the inventor a limited period of monopoly power to encourage invention; on the other hand, once the patent expires, the public has the right to implement the "patent." Protecting the technical features within the scope of patent rights as the decoration of the goods will allow the limited monopoly rights to enter an indefinite period of protection, thus destroying the balance between encouraging inventions and free use at the core of the patent law. The protection of product decoration must be based on the premise that it does not prevent the entry of the patented technology into the public domain after the protection period and does not affect the implementation of the technology.
In China’s packaging protection, competition between intellectual property law and anti-unfair competition law is not much. The book “The Theory and Practice of Modern Competition Law†compiled by the Bureau of Industry and Commerce Bureau of Industry and Commerce pointed out that “in terms of intellectual property protection Under the circumstances of special legislation, the significance of the anti-unfair competition law is to protect the results that the existing special intellectual property legislation cannot protect, and to stop acts of unfair competition beyond the scope of existing special legal protection, so as to maintain the market order." As the above US jurisprudence reflects, if the patent litigation loses, the defendant’s behavior is “unfair competition that exceeds the scope of the existing special legal protection†and the plaintiff’s “outcome of the existing intellectual property special legislation cannot be protected†should be countered. What is the protection of unfair competition law? Should we not consider the protection of anti-unfair competition law, which may hinder the negative effects of technological implementation and free competition? At present, there are few such cases, but from the perspective of development, the scope of protection against unfair competition laws will continue to expand, and problems in this area will suddenly emerge. We will now proceed to study and help the future legislation and practice to respond to this.
Author: Xue Hong
In some cases, although the outer packaging can be protected at the same time by the Anti-Unfair Competition Law and the Intellectual Property Law, it is also necessary to establish the priority of the intellectual property law for the public interest and to exclude the protection of unfair competition law. For example, US courts use “functional†standards to distinguish between two types of protection. Functional product components (including external packaging) are only objects protected by patents and cannot be protected by product decorating; non-functional product features can be patented as well. Can be protected by the decoration of goods. The characteristics of functional products are indispensable for the use of commodities and affect the cost and quality of the products. If they are protected by unfair competition laws in addition to patent protection, they are always placed in the monopoly of a certain manufacturer. In the following, the competitor is in a significant disadvantageous position, and it is also harmful to the public. Therefore, it should not obtain protection for the decoration of goods; non-functional product features could have been subject to double protection, but in 1995 a case of the United States Court of the United States It is proposed that, under certain conditions, the protection of unfair competition laws should be excluded. In this case, the product features of the plaintiff are both in its patent claims and because it is non-functional and can be protected as a product decoration. Although the defendant’s imitative behavior does not constitute patent infringement, the product features are so similar that they can be misidentified by the consumer. The plaintiff demanded that Article 43 of the Lanham Act protects the goodwill of the trademark right holder and guarantees the consumers' competitive production. There is a provision for the ability to make identification, which prohibits the defendant from imitating. The Tenth Circuit overturned the original verdict and refused to support the plaintiff’s request. The reason is that the protection of the technical features within the scope of patent rights as a product decoration is bound to contravene the fundamental purpose of the patent law and prevent the patent technology from entering the public domain after the protection period has passed. When a technical feature can be double protected by the patent law and unfair competition law, the public policies behind the two types of laws can conflict. The fundamental purpose of the Patent Law is to encourage inventions and innovations, promote technological progress, and continuously expand the scope of human public knowledge. On the one hand, it gives the inventor a limited period of monopoly power to encourage invention; on the other hand, once the patent expires, the public has the right to implement the "patent." Protecting the technical features within the scope of patent rights as the decoration of the goods will allow the limited monopoly rights to enter an indefinite period of protection, thus destroying the balance between encouraging inventions and free use at the core of the patent law. The protection of product decoration must be based on the premise that it does not prevent the entry of the patented technology into the public domain after the protection period and does not affect the implementation of the technology.
In China’s packaging protection, competition between intellectual property law and anti-unfair competition law is not much. The book “The Theory and Practice of Modern Competition Law†compiled by the Bureau of Industry and Commerce Bureau of Industry and Commerce pointed out that “in terms of intellectual property protection Under the circumstances of special legislation, the significance of the anti-unfair competition law is to protect the results that the existing special intellectual property legislation cannot protect, and to stop acts of unfair competition beyond the scope of existing special legal protection, so as to maintain the market order." As the above US jurisprudence reflects, if the patent litigation loses, the defendant’s behavior is “unfair competition that exceeds the scope of the existing special legal protection†and the plaintiff’s “outcome of the existing intellectual property special legislation cannot be protected†should be countered. What is the protection of unfair competition law? Should we not consider the protection of anti-unfair competition law, which may hinder the negative effects of technological implementation and free competition? At present, there are few such cases, but from the perspective of development, the scope of protection against unfair competition laws will continue to expand, and problems in this area will suddenly emerge. We will now proceed to study and help the future legislation and practice to respond to this.
Author: Xue Hong