剃须刀知识产权战(本文帮助企业研究海外知识产权战略)

GÖTEBORGUNIVERSITYLL.MProgrammeSchoolofEconomicsandCommercialLaw20creditsDepartmentofLawSpring2005TheElectricShaverBattle–AcasestudyandanalysisoftheglobaldisputebetweenPhilipsandIzumiconcerningthelegalprotectionoftheshapeofPhilips’electricshaversandanassessmentofPhilips’legalstrategyanditseffectsonthemarket         MasterThesisbyCharlotteLellsField:IntellectualPropertyLawUniversitySupervisor:AssociateProfessorUlfPetrussonProfessionalSupervisor:AdvocateHåkanSjöströmAbstractAsthetitle“TheElectricShaverBattle”reveals,thisthesisisaboutagloballegaldisputebetweentwoelectricshavermanufacturers.TheDutchcompanyPhilipswasthesolesupplierintheworldoftriple-headedrotaryshavers,andhadobtainedtrademarkanddesignprotectionfortheshapeofthetoppartoftheshaverinseveraljurisdictions.Izumi,aJapanesecompany,decidedtoenterthetriple-headedrotaryshavermarketwithitsowntriple-headedshavermodels.Philipsreactedstronglyagainstthisthreattoitsvirtualmonopolyposition,andthe“shaverbattle”wasafact.Thedisputecametospreadtoelevencountriesoverthreecontinents,andisstillongoing.MainlyPhilipshassuedIzumifortrademarkandcompetitionlawinfringement,whileIzumianditsrelatedcompanieshassoughtthecancellationofPhilips’trademarks.Themaingroundforinvalidationandcancellationofthetrademarkshasbeenthattheshapeofthetrademarksisnecessarytoobtainthetechnicalresult.Inalmostalljurisdictionsthecontestedtrademarkshavebeencancelledonthisground.Nonetheless,PhilipshascontinuedtosuecompaniessellingIzumi-manufacturedshaversevenaftertherepetitiouslossesincourtsofnumerouscountries.InthisthesisIhaveanalyzedanddescribedtwenty-fivejudgmentsanddecisionsofthedispute,whichisveryclosetoanexhaustivepresentationofallthejudgmentsrendered.Ineachjudgment,Ihavedescribedtheparties’claims,thegroundsandargumentationandthecourt’sreasoninganddecision,andalsocomparedthedifferentjudgmentswitheachother.Thethesisthuscomprisesathoroughempiricalgatheringandpresentationofnearlyallthejudgmentsofthedispute.IhavealsotriedtodetermineandanalyzePhilips’internationallegalIPRenforcementandcompetitionstrategyandhowsuccessfulorunsuccessfulthestrategyhasbeenforPhilips.IhavetriedtoassesswhatconsequencesthestrategyhashadforPhilips’competitorsandthecompetitiononelectricshavermarketsallovertheworld.IfinditinterestingthatPhilipsdespiterepetitiousexpensivelosseshascontinuedtoinitiatelitigationsandtakeotherlegalactions,whichiswhyIhavealsotriedtodeterminewhatPhilipshasgainedonthestrategy,andwhatitscompetitorshavelost.Furthermore,IhavetriedtoseewhateffectsPhilips’legalactionshashadonthetriple-headedshavermarket,andhowthemarkethaschangedafterPhilipslostitsmonopolypositioninthevariouscountries.2TableofContentsTableofContents...............................................................................................................................................3ListofAbbreviations..........................................................................................................................................91INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................101.1GeneralIntroduction....................................................................................................................................101.1BackgroundofProblem.......................................................................................................................101.1.1HistoryoftheDispute........................................................................................................................111.1.2CompanyInformation........................................................................................................................121.1.2.1RoyalPhilipsElectronics.........................................................................................................121.1.2.2IzumiProductsCompany.........................................................................................................121.1.3WhythisSubject?..............................................................................................................................121.2PurposeandPresentationofQuestions..............................................................................................131.2.1LegalAnalysis...................................................................................................................................131.2.2AssessmentofPhilips’Strategy.........................................................................................................141.3MethodandMaterial............................................................................................................................141.4Delimitations.........................................................................................................................................151.5OutlineandReadingSuggestions........................................................................................................161.5.1Outline..............................................