[Seminar] 5/14 Thesis Presentation

Some Observations & Comments:

  • Pretty good overall. Congratulations!
  • Don’t forget to add proper title to the name of your faculty advisor.
  • Properly handle English punctuation marks and leading/subsequent spaces. E.g., there should be a space between an English word and subsequent left bracket, as in: Porter (1992) or Porter (波特).
  • Time management still an issue.
  • No laundry list when time is short.
  • Don’t be shy. Highlight your main findings/contributions/arguments.
  • At least you should know the field (prior research) well, even if your thesis has nothing worth highlighting.
  • Don’t forget you’re the expert in the room.
  • A Challenge: can you present just as well in English?
  • Final reminder: you don’t have to do this if you are not ready to graduate yet.

[IPLaw] 3/18-4/1 Eligibility and Acquisition

Reading: Textbook ch.7-8


  • Are photos taken by 1-year-old children, blind people copyrightable? How about non-human animals?
  • How about a spillage on the sidewalk? What if it’s done by a street artist?
  • Is it a good idea to protect computer programs by copyright?
  • Should a doctor be allowed to patent a new medical procedure?


[IPLaw] 3/4&11 Properties, Rights & Legal Systems

Reading: Textbook ch.3-6

Pre-class Questions:

  • If copyright law and patent law are meant to protect creativity & innovation, why have developing countries, generally speaking, been halfhearted in copyright/patent protection?
  • What main differences do you find between IP rights and traditional property rights (in addition to what the textbook says in particular)? Why?
  • Why would nations rush to make IP treaties in late 19th century and late 20th century respectly?


[IPLaw] 2/25 Evolution and Overview

Pre-class Questions:

  • How could ancient civilizations (like China, Egypt, India etc.) flourish without something similar to modern IP protection regimes?
  • (A related–though technically out of scope for this course–question: is private property a necessity?)
  • What industry, profession, country … will likely suffer the most should the world decide to abolish patent, copyright, or trademark law all of a sudden? Why?


[IPLaw] 1/2 非傳統商標

Mandatory reading:

  • Christian Louboutin S.A. v. Yves Saint Laurent America Holdings, Inc. 696 F.3d 206 (2th. Cir. 2012).

Additional reading:

  • Matal v. Tam, 137 S.Ct. 1744 (2017).
  • Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Products Co., 514 U.S. 159, 115 S.Ct. 1300 (1995).
  • Two Pesos, Inc. v. Taco Cabana, Inc. 112 S.Ct. 2753 (1992).
  • Nextel Commc’ns, Inc. v. Motorola, Inc., 91 USPQ2d 1393 (TTAB 2009)_附件1.
  • Simba Toys GmbH & Co. KG v. EUIPO, Case C‑30/15 (2016)_附件2.
  • Shield Mark BV v Joost Kist h.o.d.n. Memex, Case C-283/01 (2003)_附件3.
  • Eden v OHIM, Case T-305/04 (2005)_附件4.
  • In re Upper Deck Co., 59 USPQ2d 1688 (TTAB 2001).
  • 經訴字第10006098910號訴願決定書.
  • 智慧財產法院105年度行商訴字第41號行政判決_附件5.


[IPLaw] 12/26 Trademark Dilution

Mandatory reading:

  • STARBUCKS CORPORATION v. WOLFE’S BOROUGH COFFEE, INC. 736 F.3d 198 United States Court of Appeals,Second Circuit.
  • 智慧財產法院104年度民商上字第13號民事判決。

Additional reading (corrected):

  • Multi Time Machine v. Amazon 736 F.3d 198 United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
  • Tiffany & Co. v. Costco Wholesale Corp 994 F.Supp.2d 474 United States District Court, S.D. New York.
  • Coca-Cola Co. v. Gemini Rising, Inc. 346 F. Supp. 1183 (1972).
  • 智慧財產法院102年度民商上字第8號民事判決。
  • 最高法院105年度台上字第81號判決。
  • 最高行政法院判決 98年度判字第1487號。
  • 智慧財產法院行政判決 98年度行商更(一)字第11號。
  • 台北地方法院智簡字第30號刑事判決。
  • Matthew D. Bunker, Diluting Free Expression: Statutory First Amendment Proxies in Trademark Dilution Law, 22 Comm. L. & Pol’y 375 (2017).
  • Charles E. Colman, Trademark Law and the Prickly Ambivalence of Post-Parodies, 163 U. PA. L. Rev. Online 11 (2014).

[IPLaw] 12/19 資料庫之著作權保護

Mandatory reading:

  • Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co., 499 U.S. 340, 111 S. Ct. 1282 (1991).
  • 智慧局網路傳輸授權模式之研究與所發生之著作權爭議-期末報告書 (執行單位:益斯科技法律事務所)。

Additional reading:

  • West Pub. Co. v. Mead Data Cent., Inc., 799 F.2d 1219 (1986).
  • Matthew Bender & Co., Inc. v. West Pub. Co., 158 F.3d 693 (1998).
  • 智慧財產法院97年刑智上訴字第41號刑事判決。
  • 謝銘洋,論資料庫之法律保護,台大法學論叢,第二十七卷第二期,263頁~345頁。
  • William W. Fisher III, Recalibrating Originality, 54 Hous. L. Rev. 437 (2016). (The article is part of a symposium focusing on the topic.)