slide1 n.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Design Case Law of the Court of Justice PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Design Case Law of the Court of Justice

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 18

Design Case Law of the Court of Justice - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 238 Views
  • Uploaded on

Design Case Law of the Court of Justice. Dr. Catherine Jenewein Former Legal Secretary to Judge Azizi, General Court, Court of Justice of the European Union; Patent Lawyer, European Patent Office Prof. Charles Gielen NautaDutilh N.V. University of Groningen Dr. iur. Henning Hartwig

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Design Case Law of the Court of Justice' - guy


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
slide1

Design Case Law

of the Court of Justice

slide2

Dr. Catherine Jenewein

Former Legal Secretary to Judge Azizi, General Court, Court of Justice of the European Union; Patent Lawyer, European Patent Office

Prof. Charles Gielen

NautaDutilh N.V.

University of Groningen

Dr. iur. Henning Hartwig

Bardehle Pagenberg

Cecilia Wikström Chair: Théophile Margellos

Member of European ParliamentChairperson

OHIM Boards of Appeal

slide3

Prior Art in Community Design Law

The Concept of Reciprocity

Dr. Henning Hartwig

Partner, Bardehle Pagenberg

slide4

Article 6 (1) CDR

A design shall be considered to have individual character if the overall impression it produces on the informed user differs from the overall impression produced on such a user by any design which has been made available to the public (…) before the date of filing the application for registration or, if a priority is claimed, the date of priority.

slide5

Article 6 (2) CDR

In assessing individual character, the degree of freedom of the designer in developing the design shall be taken into consideration.

slide6

Article 6 (2) does not indicate “prior art” or “existing design corpus” (cf. Recital 14 CDR)

Interaction between “individual character” and “degree of freedom of the designer”

What is the response of the European Courts?

slide7

General Court

“(…) the greater the designer’s freedom in developing the challenged design, the less likely it is that minor differences between the designs at issue will be sufficient to produce a different overall impression on an informed user. Conversely, the more the designer’s freedom in developing the challenged design is restricted, the more likely minor differences between the designs at issue will be sufficient to produce a different overall impression on an informed user.”

slide8

General Court

“Therefore, if the designer enjoys a high degree of freedom in developing a design, that reinforces the conclusion that the designs which do not have significant differences produce the same overall impression on an informed user.”

Kwang v Honda at [33]

slide9

General Court

“As appears from the representations of engines produced by the intervener during the proceedings before OHIM and the General Court, there are designs for internal combustion engines in varying shapes and configurations which differ considerably from those used in the challenged design. Internal combustion engines exist in a wide variety of shapes and combinations of components, as the informed user of such an engine, who has some knowledge of the relevant industrial sector, is aware. Kwang v Honda at [37]

slide10

General Court

“Since the positioning and shape of the components of an internal combustion engine are not limited by any particular technical necessity, the designer’s degree of creativity with respect to such internal combustion engines is not limited. It follows that the Board of Appeal has not committed an error in holding that the designers of internal combustion engines enjoy a high degree of freedom in the development of designs relating to those internal combustion engines including the challenged design.” Kwang v Honda at [38]

slide11

“Degree of freedom of the designer” to be completed by the “existing design corpus” or “prior art”

Interaction between “degree of freedom of the designer” and finding “different overall impression”

“Same overall impression” (+) if designs do not have “significant differences“ (in case of high degree)

slide12

Some open questions

What is the meaning of “significant differences“?

What is the test in case of a low degree of freedom?

Is the existing design corpus limited to the indication of

product of the challenged Community design?

Is the existing design corpus limited in time (only disclosure

prior to the application date)?

slide13

Article 10 (1) CDR

The scope of the protection conferred by a Community design shall include any design which does not produce on the informed user a different overall impression.

slide14

Article 10 (2) CDR

In assessing the scope of protection, the degree of freedom of the designer in developing his design shall be taken into consideration.

slide15

Is it likely that the General Court and/or Court of Justice will confirm the reciprocity test also in view of Article 10?

Court of Justice in “Grupo Promer”: No mention

General Court in “Grupo Promer”: No mention

slide16

German Federal Supreme Court

“A great concentration of designs and, thus, only little freedom of the designer will lead to a narrow scope of protection of the design so that minor differences in appearance may produce a different overall impression on the informed user. In contrast, a low concentration of designs and, therefore, a great freedom of the designer will lead to a broad scope of protection of the design so that even major differences in appearance may not produce a different overall impression on the informed user.”

Pram I at [24]

slide17

Austrian Supreme Court

“By applying consistent terminology for both the scope of protection and the individual character, the Regulation gives rise to parallel criteria: A high degree of individual character allows a large scope of protection whereas a low degree of individual character only permits a limited scope of protection. If the informed user is willing to confirm individual character in case of minor differences between the prior and the Community design, he must likewise confirm non-infringement in case of such differences between the asserted and the accused design.”Sprayer

slide18

Concept of Reciprocity?

(+) Interaction between prior art and validity of a Community design

(+) Interaction between prior art and scope of protection of a

Community design

(+) Interaction between prior art and infringement of a Community

design

(?) Interaction between validity, scope of protection and infringement

of a Community design?