聚焦倫敦時裝周：設(shè)計(jì)在英國/歐盟的保護(hù)問題

#本文由作者授權(quán)發(fā)布，不代表IPRdaily立場，未經(jīng)作者許可，禁止轉(zhuǎn)載#

來源：IPRdaily中文網(wǎng)（iprdaily.cn）

供稿：麥?zhǔn)似嬷R產(chǎn)權(quán)

原標(biāo)題：聚焦倫敦時裝周

2021年9月倫敦時裝周開啟的時裝月，也是英國脫歐和新冠疫情后的第一個世界時裝月。但英國脫歐后導(dǎo)致的知識產(chǎn)權(quán)法的變化，將使設(shè)計(jì)師在之后應(yīng)對市場受本月時裝秀“啟發(fā)”而產(chǎn)生的時裝抄襲行為時比之以往有更多的不確定性。理論上，在倫敦時裝周上首先發(fā)表的設(shè)計(jì)可能在歐盟得不到保護(hù)，而在米蘭先發(fā)表的設(shè)計(jì)則在英國得不到保護(hù)。

聚焦倫敦時裝周：設(shè)計(jì)在英國/歐盟的保護(hù)問題

Spotlight on London Fashion Week

2021年9月已然是時尚日歷上的一個重要里程碑。這既是9月16日倫敦時裝周開啟的時裝月，也是英國脫歐和新冠疫情后的第一個世界時裝月。大環(huán)境的變化也許會激發(fā)新的時尚創(chuàng)意和風(fēng)格，但英國脫歐后導(dǎo)致的知識產(chǎn)權(quán)法的變化，將使設(shè)計(jì)師在之后應(yīng)對市場受本月時裝秀“啟發(fā)”而產(chǎn)生的時裝抄襲行為時比之以往有更多的不確定性。

September 2021 is already an important milestone in the fashion calendar. Not only is it the start of fashion month (beginning with London Fashion Week) on 16 September but it is also the first instance of fashion month being run in a post-Brexit environment as well as in a post-Covid world. While this may spark new creative ideas and styles, changes to IP law post-Brexit mean there is more uncertainty than usual as to how designers can address copycat activity in the market inspired by this month’s high profile shows.

中國設(shè)計(jì)師王予涵在倫敦時裝周發(fā)布的作品之一，圖片來源https://londonfashionweek.co.uk/designers/yuhan-wang

一些大眾服裝品牌被指控抄襲設(shè)計(jì)師品牌并不是什么新鮮事，例如Zara、Mango 和 Fashion Nova 等快時尚品牌都曾收到抄襲指控，說這些品牌抄襲了設(shè)計(jì)師品牌在T臺上首次披露的設(shè)計(jì)樣式。在數(shù)字時代，我們的確比以往任何時候都更了解此類設(shè)計(jì)抄襲行為，獨(dú)立設(shè)計(jì)師、時尚監(jiān)管機(jī)構(gòu)甚至專門的博主和社交媒體帳戶（例如 Diet Prada）在關(guān)注及追蹤設(shè)計(jì)抄襲方面也更加直言不諱、引人注目。

Allegations of copying from designers against high street brands are nothing new. There are many examples of fast-fashion brands such as Zara, Mango and Fashion Nova receiving allegations of copying designs first showcased on the catwalk by designer brands. It’s also true that in the digital world we are more aware of this activity than ever before and independent designers, fashion watchdogs and even dedicated bloggers and social media accounts such as Diet Prada are becoming more vocal and visible in highlighting this.

在法律上預(yù)防抄襲并不總是那么容易。尤其是，雖然設(shè)計(jì)師可以通過“注冊”來保護(hù)其設(shè)計(jì)，但通常很難界定未注冊的外觀設(shè)計(jì)以及版權(quán)的保護(hù)范圍。受英國脫歐的影響，情況變得更加復(fù)雜。雖然英國在脫歐時創(chuàng)立了本地版的“未注冊外觀設(shè)計(jì)”（權(quán)利名稱為“補(bǔ)充設(shè)計(jì)權(quán)”）以取代之前的歐盟權(quán)利，但英國和歐盟均要求授予保護(hù)的前提是該設(shè)計(jì)必須是在當(dāng)?shù)兀ㄓ驓W盟）首次公開。因此，理論上，在倫敦時裝周上首先發(fā)表的設(shè)計(jì)可能在歐盟得不到保護(hù)，而在米蘭先發(fā)表的設(shè)計(jì)則在英國得不到保護(hù)。

Legally spanventing copying is not always easy. In particular, while designers can obtain “registered” design protection for their designs it is often hard to determine the scope of protection provided by unregistered design right and copyright. However, the impact of Brexit has made things more complicated. This is because while the UK created an equivalent “unregistered design right” at the point of Brexit (called “Supplementary Design Right”) to replace an equivalent EU right, the requirement for UK and EU forms of protection is that the design has to be first published in the UK or EU respectively.  So, in theory, it’s possible that a design first published at London Fashion Week might not enjoy protection in the EU and that a design first published in Milan might not enjoy corresponding protection in the UK.

這看起來令人吃驚。目前尚不清楚在英國、歐盟同時公開發(fā)表設(shè)計(jì)作品能否滿足兩地的各自要求從而在兩地都產(chǎn)生可受保護(hù)的權(quán)利，例如通過在線流媒體公開設(shè)計(jì)作品使兩地公眾都能看到作品（本次倫敦時裝周將上演眾多“數(shù)字”式的時裝秀，因此這將是一個現(xiàn)實(shí)命題）。目前也尚無影響力大的法律判決就首次發(fā)表的具體要求及同時在線發(fā)表能否滿足首次發(fā)表的要求等問題提供明確解答。設(shè)計(jì)師面臨的關(guān)鍵難題仍然是，在英國首次發(fā)表設(shè)計(jì)作品可能會導(dǎo)致喪失該設(shè)計(jì)在歐盟的新穎性，反之亦然。鑒于設(shè)計(jì)師可能無法憑借設(shè)計(jì)的后續(xù)公開從而獲得在另一地的權(quán)利，因此有必要慎重考慮選擇在哪兒首次披露他們的新設(shè)計(jì)，例如要不要在作品產(chǎn)出最多的市場上。

This seems surprising and it is unclear if simultaneous publication in both locations would meet the corresponding requirements, for example through streaming online so viewers in both territories could view the designs would enable rights to be created (in practice this will be happening since there are a number of “digital” shows taking place in the London Fashion Week programme). However, there has been no leading legal ruling confirming the requirements for first publication and whether simultaneous online publication would be enough. Furthermore, a key issue for designers to consider is that first publication in the UK could eliminate the novelty of their design in the EU and vice versa. Designers may therefore be unable to rely on disclosure at subsequent events and will need to have carefully considered where they choose to disclose their new designs for the first time, for example perhaps in their most prolific market.

設(shè)計(jì)在某些情況下也可以獲得其他類型的保護(hù)。但這一點(diǎn)（指設(shè)計(jì)的新穎性在英國/歐盟框架下怎么確定）對于設(shè)計(jì)師仍然十分重要，以使設(shè)計(jì)師能利用所有法律手段來保護(hù)原創(chuàng)設(shè)計(jì)的創(chuàng)意及獨(dú)特性。大家可關(guān)注與時裝月有關(guān)的后續(xù)法律案件中英國和歐盟法院對這一重要問題的詮釋，更重要的是看歐盟和英國法院對于各自區(qū)域性權(quán)利的詮釋是否一致。在此之前，設(shè)計(jì)師應(yīng)尋求將其設(shè)計(jì)作品進(jìn)行注冊以獲得保護(hù)，以最大程度地減少不確定，這點(diǎn)比以往任何時候都更具有價(jià)值，不應(yīng)僅僅依賴于未注冊外觀設(shè)計(jì)的保護(hù)。另外，在一切尚不明晰的階段，設(shè)計(jì)師可以整理相關(guān)證據(jù)以保障將來可能的權(quán)利主張，例如首次發(fā)表日、發(fā)表方式、參展及觀看發(fā)布會的人員（可能既有英國觀眾也有歐盟觀眾）等等資料。這些證據(jù)對之后打擊抄襲的維權(quán)行動也許至關(guān)重要。

As such and while other forms of protection do exist in some cases, certainty on this point is much needed for designers so they have all the legal tools possible to safeguard the creativity and uniqueness of their ground-breaking designs. It will be interesting to see if clarification will be provided by the courts on this important issue through any legal actions taken arising from this month’s shows in the UK and EU. More importantly, it will be fascinating to see if there is much needed consistency shown between EU and UK interspantation of the respective rights in each territory. Until clarification is given there is more value than ever before in designers seeking registered rather than just unregistered design protection to minimise the uncertainty. As an additional measure, designers could also look to ensure, during this time of uncertainty, that they collate a portfolio of evidence to substantiate their rights such as dates and methods of first publication as well as records of those attending or viewing their launch events, which could potentially span both UK and EU audiences. Evidence of this nature could be essential for future enforcement against copycat activity.

來源：IPRdaily中文網(wǎng)（iprdaily.cn）

供稿：麥?zhǔn)似嬷R產(chǎn)權(quán)

編輯：IPRdaily王穎          校對：IPRdaily縱橫君

注：原文鏈接：聚焦倫敦時裝周：設(shè)計(jì)在英國/歐盟的保護(hù)問題（點(diǎn)擊標(biāo)題查看原文）

證書公布！涉外商標(biāo)代理高級研修班 【西安站】 報(bào)名已開啟

「關(guān)于IPRdaily」

IPRdaily是全球領(lǐng)先的知識產(chǎn)權(quán)綜合信息服務(wù)提供商，致力于連接全球知識產(chǎn)權(quán)與科技創(chuàng)新人才。匯聚了來自于中國、美國、歐洲、俄羅斯、以色列、澳大利亞、新加坡、日本、韓國等15個國家和地區(qū)的高科技公司及成長型科技企業(yè)的管理者及科技研發(fā)或知識產(chǎn)權(quán)負(fù)責(zé)人，還有來自政府、律師及代理事務(wù)所、研發(fā)或服務(wù)機(jī)構(gòu)的全球近100萬用戶（國內(nèi)70余萬+海外近30萬），2019年全年全網(wǎng)頁面瀏覽量已經(jīng)突破過億次傳播。

（英文官網(wǎng)：iprdaily.com  中文官網(wǎng)：iprdaily.cn） 

本文來自IPRdaily中文網(wǎng)（iprdaily.cn）并經(jīng)IPRdaily.cn中文網(wǎng)編輯。轉(zhuǎn)載此文章須經(jīng)權(quán)利人同意，并附上出處與作者信息。文章不代表IPRdaily.cn立場，如若轉(zhuǎn)載，請注明出處：“http://www.globalwellnesspartner.com/