• Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer
+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
[email protected]
Contact form
Patentanwaltskanzlei

Patentanwaltskanzlei

  • Deutsch

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Instagram
  • LinkedIn
  • xing
  • Email
MENUMENU
  • Services
    • Advice On Protective IP Rights
    • Patent Application /TM Registration
    • Enforcement Of IP Rights
    • Defence Against IP Rights Enforcement
    • Costs
  • Company
    • Fields of Law
      • Patent Law
      • Utility Model Law
      • Employees‘ Inventions
      • Trademark Law
      • Design Law
      • Trademark and Product Piracy
      • Expert Opinions
    • Our Law Firm
      • Dr. Tim Meyer-Dulheuer
      • Dr. Klaus Zimmermann
      • Zhichao Ying
      • Walter Benjamin Feldheim
    • Commitment
  • Contact
    • Where To Find Us
    • Write us!
    • Request call back
  • Blog

CFI: Analysis of the technical function of Features of appearance

20. November 2020

The analysis of the technical function of features of appearance was at the centre of an invalidity procedure concerning an industrial and technical Community design before the CFI. Both the applicant and the CFI referred to the analysis in accordance with the DOCERAM judgment from 2018.

Analyse der Technischen Funktion

This case concerned invalidity proceedings concerning a Community design for the product “fluid distribution equipment” of  Tinnus Enterprises LLC (U.S.), filed and registered in 2015 at the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

Two parties (Mystic Products Import (Spain) & Export, SL and Koopman International BV (Netherlands)) have filed invalidity applications against this registration. They claimed that all the features of the contested design were exclusively dictated by its technical function. In such a case, an industrial design is not eligible for protection as Community design (now obsolete term; since 2014, Community design is called a “registered design”).

The two applications for a declaration of invalidity were successful before the Cancellation Division and the Board of Appeal upheld the decision: the contested design was based on features of a product, namely a fluid distribution system, which were exclusively dictated by the technical function of that product.

This decision was challenged by the owner of the contested design and the case has now been heard before the European Court of First Instance (CFI). The applicant relied on the DOCERAM decision and requested a systematic and structured approach to the assessment, including an analysis of the technical function of a product. Such an approach would require

  1. the determination of the technical function,
  2. the determination of the appearance characteristics
  3. and, in particular, to determine whether each of those characteristics is dictated by the technical function

However, the Board of Appeal did not carry out that structured examination and analysis of the technical function. In fact, the Board of Appeal analysed the technical characteristics of the product (and not the features of its appearance) and analysed the functions of those technical characteristics (but not the technical function of the product).

CFI: Features can produce several technical effects

However, the CFI rejected the applicant’s argument. The fact that the visual features of the product in question are identical to its individual components does not mean that the Board of Appeal erroneously identified those characteristics. Nor do appearance features have to refer to a single technical effect. Characteristics may produce several technical effects, the CFI explained, as long as they contribute to the achievement of the technical result intended by the product.

According to the Court, the decisive factor is the examination of the causal link between the technical function of each of those features and the technical function of the product concerned.

Thus, where a characteristic contributes to the technical function of a product, there is a causal link which makes it possible to conclude that this characteristic is dictated by the technical function – unless it can be shown that this feature is necessary mainly for visual purposes and aspects. However, that is not the case here.

Analysis of the technical function did not explicitly reveal “exclusively”

The applicant submits that the appearance featutures of a product must be “exclusively determined by its technical function” in accordance with EU Regulation 6/2002, but that the Board of Appeal did not establish this exclusive function in its decision on the contested design.

The terminology contested by the applicant is in fact not always consistent with the EU Regulation, the CFI acknowledged, but this is not an incorrect application of the Regulation. On the contrary, the Board of Appeal clearly concluded, precisely with reference to that regulation, that all the features of appearance of the product in question merely fulfil its technical function.

Contested design subject of a multiple application

The contested design was part of a so-called multiple application; Tinnus Enterprises is thus the proprietor of several visually distinct Community designs for the product “fluid distribution equipment”. The company has also filed a patent application for the same product to which the contested design applies.

Tinnus Enterprises therefore complained, in a further plea, that the Cancellation Division had found a technical function for all the features of appearance only because of the visual differences between the Community designs. And the Board of Appeal abbreviated the required analysis of the technical function and decided on the basis of the patent application on the technical function of all features. This was an erroneous examination, according to the plaintiff.

The CFI rejected this complaint. The Board of Appeal – and also the Cancellation Division – had not only relied on the patent application, but also on other “relevant objective circumstances”, which are also mentioned in the highly regarded DOCERAM judgment of the ECJ. These include the nature and use of the product in question, its characteristics and function and, according to the DOCERAM judgment, the other designs.

And with regard to the plaintiff’s patent application, it was found, in particular, that the appearance of the product in respect of which the contested design was applied for was virtually unchanged in comparison with the strict embodiment of the design as presented in the patent application. The Board of Appeal therefore used that patent application for the – necessary – analysis of the product and the analysis of the technical function of the features.

The action was therefore dismissed in its entirety.

Would you also like to secure or defend your design or trademark?

Our lawyers have many years of expertise in design law and trademark law and are entitled to represent you before any court in Germany and internationally.
Please contact us if you are interested.


Sources: 

Judgement of CFI, EU:T:2020:543

Image:

bogitw | pixabay.com | CCO License

  • share  
  • share 
  • share 
  • share 
  • share 

Category iconDesign Law Tag iconAlternative Designs,  analysis,  analysis of technical function,  Board of Appeal,  Design,  Designs,  determination of appearance features,  determination of technical function,  DOCERAM,  DOCERAM judgment,  ECJ,  EU design,  exclusively,  exclusively by technical function,  features,  Features of appearance,  Invalidity Division,  inventive step,  judgment,  multiple application,  objective circumstances,  protected EU design,  registered Design,  simultaneous patent application

Reader Interactions

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Primary Sidebar

More articles about: Design Law

All articles

Blog Menu

  • Design Law
  • Healthcare & Lifesciences
  • International Intellectual Property
  • Licenses
  • News from our law firm
  • Overall
  • Patent Law
  • Product- and Trademark piracy
  • Trademark Law

Recent Posts

  • What is the public allowed to know? 3. June 2024
  • BPatG: Patent claim of cancer drug on active substance as salt 7. March 2022
  • Grant for European IP Protection: SME Fund 2022 4. March 2022
  • CODE-X vs. Cody’s: Likelihood of confusion in drinks? 25. February 2022

Fields of Law

  • Patent Law
  • Utility Model Law
  • Employees’ Inventions
  • Trademark Law
  • Design Law
  • Trademark and Product Piracy
  • Expert Opinions
  • Costs

Das könnte Sie auch interessieren:

4. March 2022
Grant for European IP Protection: SME Fund 2022

Grant for European IP Protection: SME Fund 2022

17. February 2022
China joins the Hague Agreement

China joins the Hague Agreement

4. February 2022
Grill bowl design: patent drawings against design

Grill bowl design: patent drawings against design

31. January 2022
BGH Radiator Design: Right to be heard

BGH Radiator Design: Right to be heard

4. January 2022
Classifications 2022: IPC, Nice and Locarno

Classifications 2022: IPC, Nice and Locarno

19. November 2021
Napkin vs. table linen design: Antique spell book refutes Individual character

Napkin vs. table linen design: Antique spell book refutes Individual character

Contact us or request a call back

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
[email protected]
Request a call back

Footer

Contact

Hanauer Landstrasse 287
D – 60314 Frankfurt am Main
Deutschland
+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 199
[email protected]

Office Hours
Moday – Friday:   08:00-18:00

Fields of Law

  • Patent Law
  • Utility Model Law
  • Employees’ Inventions
  • Trademark Law
  • Design Law
  • Trademark and Product Piracy
  • Expert Opinions
  • Costs

Law Firm

  • Request non-binding call back
  • Company
  • Our Law Firm
  • ISO Certificate
  • Privacy Policy
  • Data handling for clients
  • Imprint

Follow Us

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • xing
  • Email

Newsletter Signup

Newsletter INT

© Meyer-Dulheuer MD Legal Patentanwälte PartG

Contact Form

 

Give us a call, send us an email or fill out the contact form.

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
[email protected]

Rückruf INT

Please note: If we deal specifically with your individual case, this is what is known as an initial consultation. In accordance with Section 34 of the Rechtsanwaltsvergütungsgesetz, this incurs one-off costs of 190 euros plus MwSt. We will be happy to assist you in a personal consultation after our telephone call.

Kontaktformular

 

Rufen Sie uns an, schicken Sie uns eine Mail oder füllen Sie das Kontaktformular aus.

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
[email protected]

Rückruf

Um dieses Angebot nutzen zu können, müssen Sie der Speicherung Ihrer personenbezogenen Daten zustimmen. Wir behandeln diese streng vertraulich und verwenden sie nur zur Kontaktaufnahme mit Ihnen. Mehr dazu lesen Sie in unserer Datenschutzerklärung.

Bitte beachten Sie: Wenn wir uns konkret mit Ihrem Einzelfall befassen, ist dies eine sogenannte Erstberatung. Für eine solche entstehen gemäß § 34 Rechtsanwaltsvergütungsgesetz einmalige Kosten in Höhe von 190 Euro plus MwSt. Gerne helfen wir Ihnen im Anschluss an unser Telefonat in einem persönlichen Beratungsgespräch weiter.