眾律國際法律事務所

Limited liability for free Wi-Fi access

In case C-484/14 Tobias McFadden v Sony Music Entertainment Germany GmbH the Court of the European Union (CJEU) was called on by the Regional Court in Munich to clarify whether a professional operating a public and free of charge Wi-Fi network, in the course of business, may be held liable for copyright infringements committed by users of that free network. Last March 16, 2016 Advocate General Szpunar delivered his opinion in this case.

The facts. It follows a case concerning Tobias McFadden, who operates a business where he offers a free Wi-Fi network accessible to the public. In 2010, a musical work (the rights were owned by Sony Music) was unlawfully offered for downloading via that Internet connection. Munich’s Regional Court took the view that, although Tobias McFadden was not the actual party responsible for infringing the copyright, he was indirectly liable, since his Wi-Fi network had not been made secure. The Court had some doubts as to whether the E-Commerce Directive precludes such indirect liability and referred some questions to the CJEU.

The Directive. Article 12 of the Directive 2003/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market (‘Directive on electronic commerce’) exempts the intermediate provider from civil liability for the transmission of the information if (a) he does not initiate the transfer, (b) he does not select the receiver of the information and (c) he does not select or modify the information contained in the transmission.

Munich Regional Court believes that these three conditions are met, and therefore the liability should be limited, but is also uncertain as to whether Mr Mc Fadden is considered as a provider for the purpose of the Directive.

The key issue in this case is whether the Directive provides “mere conduit” protections to providers of open wi-fi hotspots, or whether they should be required password protection in order to enjoy the protection from liability for the copyright infringing actions of their customers.

　　一、再審查與最後通知

　　按專利法第48條之規定：「發明專利申請人對於不予專利之審定有不服者，得於審定書送達二個月內備具理由書，申請再審查，但，因申請程序不合法或申請人不適格而不受理或駁回者，得逕依法提起行政救濟。」。
　　則，申請人於申請再審查時，即可針對初審審定不准專利之核駁理由提出申復或修正，為避免申請人於再審查程序中一再提出修正，致延宕再審查程序，如未克服初審審定理由中之全部不准專利事由，得以發給最後通知；或者，已克服初審審定理由中之全部不准專利事由，然，因修正而產生新的不准專利事由，仍得以發給最後通知。

　　二、再審查發出最後通知的相關法規

　　再審委員於再審查階段時，如同初審階段一樣，也可發出最後通知，以便達到迅速審結專利之效果，其發給最後通知的相關法規如下所述：
　　按專利法第49條第2項規定：「申請案經審查發給最後通知，而為不予專利之審定者，其於再審查時所為之修正，仍受第四十三條第四項各款規定之限制。但經專利專責機關再審查認原審查程序發給最後通知為不當者，不在此限。」。
　　按專利法第49條第3項規定：「有下列情事之一，專利專責機關得逕為最後通知：

　　一、    前言

　　國內優先權制度之目的係為使申請人於提出發明或新型申請案後，得以該申請案為基礎，再提出修正或合併新的申請標的，而能享受和國際優先權相同之利益。此種修正或新的申請標的，當以修正的方式提出時，常被認定為超出申請時說明書、申請專利範圍或圖式所揭露之範圍，惟若運用國內優先權，則仍有機會合併成一申請案，從而可取得總括而不遺漏之權利。

　　二、要件

　　(1).申請人基於其在國內先申請之發明或新型專利案（亦稱先申請案）再提出專利之申請者（亦稱後申請案），得就先申請案申請時說明書、申請專利範圍或圖式所載之發明或新型，主張優先權。

　　(2).國內優先權制度僅適用於發明專利與新型專利，不適用於設計專利，且發明專利與新型專利之間，可互為主張優先權之基礎案。

　　(3).申請案主張國內優先權後，先申請案將自其申請日後滿十五個月，視為撤回，以避免重複公開及重複審查。

　　(4).後申請案於先申請案之申請日起十二個月內提出。

　　(5).先申請案未曾主張國際優先權或國內優先權。

    一、    前言

    國際優先權制度始於巴黎公約(Paris Convention)第4條，明定會員國國民或準國民在某會員國申請專利後，再到其他會員國提出相同發明之專利申請時，得依專利種類之差異分別給予一年或六個月的優先權期間。此制度主要的目的在於保障發明人不致於在某一會員國申請專利後，公開、實施或被他人搶先在其他會員國申請該發明，以致相同發明不符合專利要件，無法取得其他會員國之專利保護。

    二、    要件

    (1).申請人在與我國相互承認優先權之國家（亦稱互惠國）或世界貿易組織（簡稱WTO）會員第一次申請專利，以該申請專利之發明為基礎，於十二個月期間內在我國就相同發明申請專利者，申請人得主張該外國專利申請案之申請日為優先權日，作為判斷該申請案是否符合新穎性、擬制喪失新穎性、進步性及先申請原則等專利要件之基準日。

    (2).申請人亦可為我國國民或外國國民，若為外國申請人其所屬國家須為與我國相互承認優先權之國家（亦稱互惠國）或世界貿易組織（簡稱WTO）會員，或其於WTO會員或互惠國境內設有住所或營業所者。

    (3).主張國際優先權期間，指自優先權基礎案申請日之次日起至向我國提出申請並取得申請日之期間。其於發明或新型專利申請案為 12 個月(專利法第28條第1項、專利法第120條準用第28條)，而設計專利申請案為 6 個月(專利法第142條第2項)。有 2 個以上優先權基礎案時，該期間以最早之優先權基礎案申請日之次日起算。

    (4).在我國申請專利並主張優先權之申請案(亦稱後申請案)，若該案申請人與其主張優先權之國外基礎案之申請人或受讓人不一致，而後申請案所附之申請權證明書已由發明人或創作人合法簽署時，基於優先權係附隨申請權而來，故仍應受理其優先權主張，惟嗣後如有爭議，由專利申請案申請人自負法律責任。

    三、    優先權效力

Part II. Article 8(1) EUTMR: Concept of likelihood of confusion

The notion of ‘likelihood of confusion’ fulfils a very significant role in the Community trademark System. According to Article 8(1)(b) EUTMR, in contrast to situations of double identity as seen in Part I, in cases of mere similarity between the signs and the goods or services, or identity of only one of these factors, an earlier trademark shall oppose the registration of a trademark under 8(1)(b), but only if there is a likelihood of confusion.

According to settled case-law, this concept refers mainly to two situations:

1. when the public directly confuses both trademarks (mistakes one for the other);
2. when the public makes a connection between both conflicting trademarks and assumes that the goods or services are from the same or economically linked undertakings. This is known as likelihood of association and it is included in the concept of likelihood of confusion.

As a general ideal, a trademark will be considered confusingly similar to a prior trademark if, when used for similar goods or services, so closely resembles the prior mark that there is a likelihood of consumers being misled as to the nature or origin of the goods or services. The distinguishing role of the trademark will not be functioning if the consumer is confused between the trademarks.  

The ECJ considered comprehensively this notion in Sabel v Puma.

First of all, the existence of a likelihood of confusion must be appreciated globally with regard to the way in in which the relevant public perceives the trademarks and goods or services, and always taking into account all factors relevant to the circumstances of the case, specially the interdependence of the degree of similarity of the trademarks and the similarity of the goods and services. A global appreciation is necessary, since an average consumer normally perceives a mark as a whole and does not proceed to analyse its various details.

Part I. Article 8(1) EUTMR: Double identity and concept of identity.  

Article 8 of the European Union Trademark Regulation states the different grounds on which an opposition may be based. In other words, it enables the proprietor of an earlier trademark to oppose the registration of a later trademark application in a different range of situations. We will only concentrate on article 8(1), which states two different situations:

1. Upon opposition by the proprietor of an earlier trademark, the trademark applied for shall not be registered:

(a) if it is identical with the earlier trademark and the goods or services for which registration is applied for are identical with goods or services for which the earlier trademark is protected;

(b) if because of its identity with, or similarity to, the earlier trademark and the identity or similarity of the goods or services covered by the trademarks there exists a likelihood of confusion on the part of the public in the territory in which the earlier trademark is protected; the likelihood of confusion includes the likelihood of association with the earlier trademark.

This way, (a) provides for oppositions based on exact identity, while (b), in contrast, is based on cases of mere similarity between the signs and goods/services, or also identity, but only if there is a likelihood of confusion.

　　依台灣專利法第120條準用第67條之規定：「發明專利權人申請更正專利說明書、申請專利範圍或圖式，僅得就下列事項為之：

　　一、請求項之刪除。
　　二、申請專利範圍之減縮。
　　三、誤記或誤譯之訂正。
　　四、不明瞭記載之釋明。

　　更正，除誤譯之訂正外，不得超出申請時說明書、申請專利範圍或圖式所揭露之範圍。
　　依第25條第3項規定，說明書、申請專利範圍及圖式以外文本提出者，其誤譯之訂正，不得超出申請時外文本所揭露之範圍。
　　更正，不得實質擴大或變更公告時之申請專利範圍。」
　　就更正的時機而言，台灣專利法並無特別的限制，於專利存續期間都可以進行更正。但更正不得實質擴大或變更公告時之申請專利範圍，則是非常嚴格的限制。

1. 作用：

　　台灣專利法第116條規定：「新型專利權人行使新型專利權時，如未提示新型專利技術報告，不得進行警告。」
　　第117條規定：「新型專利權人之專利權遭撤銷時，就其於撤銷前，因行使專利權所致他人之損害，應負賠償責任。但其係基於新型專利技術報告之內容，且已盡相當之注意者，不在此限。」
　　因此，提示新型專利技術報告具有可合法警告，及避免於因行使專利權而於專利權遭撤銷時的賠償責任的功能。

　　中國專利法第61條第2款規定：「專利侵權糾紛涉及實用新型專利或者外觀設計專利的，人民法院或者管理專利工作的部門可以要求專利權人或者利害關係人出具由國務院專利行政部門對相關實用新型或者外觀設計進行檢索、分析和評價後作出的專利權評價報告，作為審理、處理專利侵權糾紛的證據。」
　　中國專利審查指南第10章「專利權評價報告」第1節「引言」第3段：「專利權評價報告是人員法院或者管理專利工作的部門審理、處理專利侵權糾紛的證據，主要用於人民法院或者管理專利工作的部門確定是否需要中止相關程序。專利權評價報告不是行政決定，因此專利權人或者利害關係人不能就此提起行政複議和行政訴訟。」
　　因此，專利權評價報告在中國主要作為侵權糾紛時的證據。

I. 規費修訂

1) <專利> 調降新申請案之申請規費：
●新申請案(包含PCT申請案進入日本國家階段)之申請規費由日幣15,000元調降至日幣14,000元。
●以外文提出申請之申請規費由日幣24,000元調降至日幣22,000元。
＞ 新的規費適用於2016年4月1日以後(含)提出之申請案。

2)<專利> 調降專利年費：
[日本專利法第107(1)條]

繼上一篇介紹完香港專利的申請，為了提供讀者更多申請的選擇，筆者特別將澳門的實用專利一併提出並介紹。

澳門的專利可分為「發明專利」、「實用專利」以及「設計及新型」，發明案內容可為針對產品的功能、技術、製造及使用方便性等方面之改進，實用專利是指對物品的形狀、構造或者其結合所提出的實用性技術方案，故與台灣的新型專利較為類似 [註1]。而設計及新型，又稱外觀設計，則是對產品的外觀進行保護。

簡言之，澳門整體的專利種類的設計上與我國以及中國較為類似。

而澳門實用專利的審查方式，則是先進行形式審查後就先行公告，接著提出實體審查（出具審查報告後）再授權的方式進行。此種作法與我國及中國都不同，需要出具報告這點倒是與香港的短期專利相似。