Skip to content
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.
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?
Reading: Textbook ch.3-6
- 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?
- 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?
- Christian Louboutin S.A. v. Yves Saint Laurent America Holdings, Inc. 696 F.3d 206 (2th. Cir. 2012).
- 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).
- STARBUCKS CORPORATION v. WOLFE’S BOROUGH COFFEE, INC. 736 F.3d 198 United States Court of Appeals,Second Circuit.
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).
- 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。
- 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).
- 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)。
- 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).
- William W. Fisher III, Recalibrating Originality, 54 Hous. L. Rev. 437 (2016). (The article is part of a symposium focusing on the topic.)