《知识产权强国建设纲要（2021-2035年）》的发布预示着我国对外观设计单独立法论的研究迎来新契机，但在该政策文件发布之前，该议题的官方认可度并未像学界所期待那般高。工信提案〔2018〕91号函件所回复内容无疑是对其“泼了冷水”，但该议题的再次复苏并不意味着原对“正当性基础”的潜在担忧就此消失，相反它可能演变成对“建构方向”的质疑。就外观设计单独立法的体例设置而言，在国际上存在专利、版权、新型设计（市场）导向等进路模式的差异性，为此，有必要通过历史、比较、学科交叉等多类分析方法明晰其“立法导向”，进而在“认知论”“构建论”层面推进我国外观设计专门法的改进路径及制度调适，以旨在为知识产权强国建设建言献策，并期在设计法实施后仍有可参考的学术价值。

第一章主要与既有外观设计单独立法论文献展开对话，这是明晰后续专门法议题研究方向的逻辑前提。鉴于对外观设计立法属性在相关国际公约中尚未达成共识，这使得对设计立法例的择选具有多重可能性。而我国外观设计制度与《专利法》的结合并不能仅以立法仓促性予以诠释，就制定1984年《专利法》的立法背景而言，国际设计体例在整体上仍处于版权及专利导向的二分阶段，且专利立法导向的活跃度有超过版权导向之势，再加之，国内设计立法需求的有限性与专利制度的暂时契合性促成了现有立法体例。但在适用过程中，外观设计不完全适宜于专利制度的共性规则，且个性规则被抑制，进而学界倡导外观设计应单独立法。但外观设计的“特殊性”是否足以突破专利制度的“包容性”外延尚不清晰，如在将外观设计的立法属性定性为专利制度的前提下，单独立法所具有的制度细化、及时修订优势可通过相关司法解释予以化解，进而使得推进该议题并没有紧迫性，这可通过工信提案〔2018〕91号函件予以佐证。也即，当前该议题研究的症结在于对“立法属性”尚未达成一致意见，为促成学界、立法部门厘定共识性的讨论基准及明晰构建方向，辨明“立法导向”进路模式尤具必要性。

第二章通过剖析外观设计单独立法传统建构进路模式的演进、体系内容、适用效果，系明晰我国应采取体例修复抑或转型的分水岭。早期设计立法体例比照或依附于版权、专利思维，并不存在第三条路径。这其中，版权导向可划分为“艺术统一理论”“阶梯理论”体例，其共同理念系基于设计与一般作品创作机理的相似性、认同感的交融性及保护需求的契合性，只不过二者对设计与一般作品在“独创性和艺术价值”方面是否存在“程度差异”有不同认知；而专利导向在产生之初具有偶然性及特定历史性，譬如，因应美国专利大楼被意外大火烧毁，专利局亟需扩充财政收入而促成外观设计与《专利法》结合，在形成相对固化的利益共同体之后，后期在多元因素博弈下，专利导向立法体例的影响力进一步扩大，并表现为依附于《专利法》或单独立法例。伴随着设计界对其认知逐渐趋于科学化，传统专利导向体例的僵化性特征也逐渐呈现，为摆脱困境，诸如韩国、日本在专利导向框架下适当吸收版权导向思维，分别探索部分审查、秘密意匠制度；而美国则开启了在特定类设计行业单独立法的改革之路，《船舶设计保护法》为其他设计行业纳入版权法或版权导向的保护撕开了一道口子，但囿于“依附论”理念，以版权法的外壳去承载兼采版权和专利导向的混合体系，这使得其立法探索显得不伦不类。以此为鉴，我国不宜采取美国式改革路径，外观设计制度要从《专利法》中分离，不仅应扬弃专利制度的桎梏，版权导向也不应成为外观设计单独立法的依附思维体系。

第三章对欧盟地区新型设计立法导向建构进路的产生背景、立法体例及适用效果予以分析，这是考量该体例是否与我国具有相宜性的关键。秉持着调和成员国多元设计体例及制度重塑初衷，基于以“面向市场”为中心的立法理念便由此诞生。在该立法导向下，设计定义摒弃了传统的“审美效果法”，而采取“整体概念法”和“消极定义法”相结合的方式，但纯功能性设计认定规则尚存在“形式多样性”和“因果分析法”的分歧；设计权产生方式采取未注册与注册制相结合的双轨制，以满足产业界多元需求；而授权门槛则分别以“相对新颖性”及“独特个性”要件作为初步筛选、深度过滤机制，以体现递进式的二元论理念；以较短的注册保护期，再加之以续展的方式，这使得设计权人可根据市场的受欢迎程度自行决定其立法保护需求；另外，“权利例外与限制”规则通过“冻结条款”的形式搁置“修复条款”疑难议题。经其适用，该立法体例不仅得到了大部分成员国的认可，也被其他法域学者誉为“哥白尼式”的模式转型。

第四章剖析欧盟新型建构进路与我国本土需求的契合度，以明晰我国设计专门法的构建方向。鉴于我国当前所处时代、产业界需求及立法环境与21世纪初的欧盟地区已有所差异，为辨明市场导向是否系契合设计发展潮流的最佳诠释，通过对立法模式转型与立法成本、利益均衡度及国际公约的协调性予以考察后发现：随着知识产权纲要规划文件的出台，相关部门相继加大了资源投入以支持设计单独立法；而由于新型设计导向的兼容性属性，制度转型并非全然重构，而且国家知识产权局仍可继续作为外观设计的主管机构，这可避免为“另起炉灶”所带来的制度或机构调适成本而担忧。不仅如此，新型设计导向因应产业界的市场需求可适度扩大或限缩其保护力度，这使得对单独立法导致“过度限制竞争”的担心显得杞人忧天，且在数字时代下立法宣传与自媒体、融媒体等多元平台相结合，能使公众及早地接受设计体例已转型的理念；另外，由于既有国际公约并未对设计立法导向予以实质性的强制规定，我国朝向新型设计导向体例转型亦不会与之相冲突，而基于新型导向的协调性属性，有利于我国在“一带一路”沿线国家推进区域性、乃至全球性设计公约，并提出“中国方案”。与此同时，我国也不能全然以欧盟设计体例为范本予以移植，而是要扎根于我国国情，体现外观设计单独立法的时代性、本土性。

第五章则在确立适宜的设计立法转型方向下，旨在对具体的核心制度予以调适。以“设计广度—设计高度—设计宽度—审查维度”为逻辑结构，有利于增进探讨设计体例的体系化基础。在“市场导向”理念指引下，我国宜扬弃“美感/功能二分法”，采取中性设计定义，摒弃“富有美感”措辞，以奠定新型设计导向广度的“宽口径”，并以“二层次反向排除法”认定“纯功能性设计”；而“授权标准”的重构作为“设计高度”的典型事项，我国宜采取“相对新颖性”标准以防止不明确或不被知晓的在先披露行为，而成为事后无法获得设计权的障碍。“独特个性”要件对应于“新颖性+”规则，其需扬弃“混淆论”“创新论”而采“需求论”，并在拟制主体中分别以“一般设计者”“一般消费者”对应这两项要件以防止“机械复制”“智能复制”行为，进而体现“二元递进式”逻辑体例；在“设计宽度”上则分别引入“未注册外观设计”及“修复条款”，“一进一退”力求使保护力度在动态的市场发展及需求中维系平衡状态。除此之外，为进一步保障实体法律规范的转型，我国可在审查规范及确权事项中推进设计领域遗传资源的“披露制度”，并改进图像提交方式、探索本土分类体系以适宜“非实体物”新兴设计的落地。

The issuance of the Outline for Building an Intellectual Property Rights Powerhouse (2021-2035) heralds a new opportunity for the research of sui generis design law in China. Before the issuance of the policy paper, the official recognition of the issue was not as high as the academic community had expected. The content of the letter Gong Xin Ti An [2018] No.91 is undoubtedly a damper on it. However, the resurgence of this issue does not mean that the original potential concerns about the legitimacy have disappeared. On the contrary, it may evolve into a question about the direction of construction. As far as the style setting of sui generis design law is concerned, there are differences in paradigm models such as patent, copyright and design approaches in the world. Therefore, it is necessary that clarifying its legislative orientation through analytical methods such as history, comparison, and cross-disciplinary analysis, thus promoting the discussion on the sui generis design law from the perspectives of cognitive theory and construction theory, it will promote the improvement path model and system adjustment of sui generis design law in China, the research is expected to offer suggestions for the building of China into an intellectual property powerhouse and to serve as an academic reference after the implementation of the design law.

Chapter Ⅰ dialogues with the existing literature on sui generis design law is the logical premise for clarifying the direction of subsequent design research. Since there has not yet been a consensus on the legislative attributes of design in relevant international conventions, the selection of examples for design legislation has multiple possibilities. The combination of the design system and Patent Law in China cannot be simply interpreted by the hasty of legislation. In terms of the legislative context in which the Patent Law of 1984 was drafted, the international design landscape as a whole was still in a dichotomous phase of copyright and patent approaches. Moreover, the patent-oriented legislation seemed more active than the copyright approach. The limited need for legislation on design and the temporary fit to the patent system have helped shape the existing legislative style. During application, however, design and invention show incomplete suitability of their shared rules, suppressed individual rules, for which the academic circles advocate sui generis design law. But it is not clear whether the special nature of the design is enough to break through the inclusive extension of the patent system. On the premise of the legislative attribute of the design classed as a patent system, the advantages of separate legislation such as system refinement and timely amendment may be resolved through relevant judicial interpretations, making it not urgent to push this issue forward. This could be corroborated by the letter Gong Xin Ti An [2018] No.91. That is to say, the crux of the current research on this topic is that there is no consensus on its legislative attributes. To facilitate the academic circles and legislative departments to develop the discussion benchmark of consensus and clarify the direction of construction, it is particularly necessary to make the right-attribute orientation clear.

Chapter Ⅱ analyses of the evolution, application and reform path of the traditional legislative paradigm, which is to clarify in cognitive theory the watershed between paradigm restoration and transformation in China. The early legislative system of the design was compared or attached to copyright and patent thinking, with no third path. The copyright approach can be divided into unity of art and step theory, both of which are based on the similarity between designs and general works in the creation mechanism, their blended identity, and the conformity of protection needs. But the two are different in perceiving the difference in degree of originality and artistic value of designs and general works. The patent approach, on the other hand, although with fortuity and specific historical attribute at the beginning, for example, in response to the accidental fire at the US Patent Office building, the Patent Office promoted the integration of design and the Patent Law for the urgent need of generating revenue, after the formation of a consolidated community of interests, its influence further expands under the later multi-factor game, while appearing to be dependent on the Patent Law or separate legislation. As the design community developed more scientific cognition thereof, the rigid characteristics of the traditional patent-oriented system have emerged gradually. To get rid of the predicament, South Korea, Japan and other countries have properly absorbed the copyright-oriented thinking within the patent-oriented framework and explored the partial examination and the secret design system respectively. In the United States, however, has embarked on a path of reform with separate legislation in specific categories of design industries. The Vessel Hull Design Protection Act has ripped a hole for other design industries to incorporate copyright law or copyright-oriented protection. However, limited by the dependency theory, a hybrid system that adopts both copyright and patent approach is borne by the shell of copyright law, making its legislative exploration nondescript. In view of this, China should refrain from adopting the US-style reform path. The design system should be separated from the Patent Law. The shackles of the patent system should be thrown off, meanwhile, the copyright approach should not become the next settlement for design protection.

Chapter Ⅲ analyses of the background, legislative system and application of the new legislative orientation of design in the EU, which is to determine whether the design approach is suitable in China. Adhering to the original intention of reconciling the diverse design styles and systems of member states, the market-oriented legislative concept was born. Under such legislative orientation, the design definition abandoned the traditional criterion of aesthetic effect but adopted the combination of the overall concept and the negative definition. For purely functional designs, however, the confirmative rules still hesitated between multiplicity of forms and causality theories. Design rights were generated under the dual-track system of those registered and unregistered designs to meet the diverse needs of the industry. Relatively novelty and individual character were adopted respectively as the requirements for the preliminary screening and deep filtering mechanism so as to embody the progressive dualist approach. A shorter term of registration protection combined with the method of renewal allowed the design right holders to decide their own needs for legislative protection according to the commercial success achieved in the market. Moreover, the right exceptions and limitations put the difficult issue of the repair clause aside by means of a freeze-plus solution. Through its application, the legal system has not only been recognized by most member states, but also hailed as a Copernican paradigm transformation by scholars in other jurisdictions.

Chapter Ⅳ analyses of the fitness of the new legislative paradigm with the needs in China, which is to clarify the construction direction of sui generis design law. In view of the current era, industrial needs and legislative environment in China are different from the EU in the early 21^st century. To determine whether the market orientation is the best interpretation in line with design development, the coordination of the paradigm shift with legislative costs, the balance of interests and international conventions is examined, which finds that (i) with the introduction of the outlines and planning documents on intellectual property, relevant departments have successively increased resource input to support the sui generis of design; (ii) for the compatibility of the design approach, the legal transformation was not completely reconstruction; and (iii) China National Intellectual Property Administration could still serve as the competent authority for design, which would avoid concerns about the cost of legal or institutional adjustment arising from its making a fresh start. In addition, the design approach can expand or narrow its protection to an appropriate extent according to the market demand of the industry, dispelling the unfounded misgivings about excessive restrictions on competition caused by separate legislation. In this digital era, the combination of legislative publicity with We-the-Media, media convergence and other platforms helps the public to accept early that the design system has already transformed. Moreover, the transition to a market-oriented approach is not in conflict with existing international conventions, which do not impose a substantive design legislative orientation. The coordination based on the new orientation is also conducive to our introduction of regional and even global design conventions to countries along the Belt and Road, as well as the development of the Chinese Proposal. In the meantime, rather than completely copy the EU design system, China will be rooted in national conditions and adhere to the contemporary and local characteristics of the design approach.

Chapter Ⅴ aims to adapt the specific core system under the design approach.The logical structure of design breadth-design height-design width-design examination dimension is conducive to building the systematic basis for discussions over the design system. Guided by the market orientation, China should sublate the aesthetics/function dichotomy and adopt a neutral design definition, abandon the wording of aesthetic taste to set a wide caliber of the design approach, and identify purely functional designs by the two-level reverse exclusion method. For reconstruction of the authorization standard, as a typical issue of design height, China shall adopt the relatively novelty standard to prevent unclear or unknown prior disclosure from becoming an obstacle to obtaining the design right afterward. As for the individual character requirement corresponding to the novelty-plus rule, it should sublate the confusion theory and innovation theory but adopt the demand theory, and match the two elements with the general designer and the general consumer in the fictitious subjects, respectively, to prevent mechanical copying and smart copying, thus embodying the binary progressive logical system. With respect to the width of authorization, unregistered design and repair clause are introduced respectively, trying to maintain a balance of protection in the dynamic market development and demand with both advancing and regressing measures. In addition, to further ensure the transformation of substantive legal norms, China may further promote the disclosure system of genetic resources in the field of design examination practice. Methods of image submission may also be improved, and the local classification system explored to suit the implementation of the emerging designs of non-physical product.