• 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

Collective application in design protection

19. April 2021

Often a design is developed or sold in multiple embodiments: in different colours or embodiments. For this, there is the so-called multiple application in design protection for Germany and also in the EU. A look at German case law shows what is important here.

Golfschläger ohne Sammelanmeldung

In principle, a photographic or other graphic representation of the object for which design protection is claimed must be submitted with the application for protection of a design (§ 7 (1) German Design act). Up to ten representations with different views may be submitted per design, in the meantime also as a 3D view.

However, it is by no means possible to protect different versions of the design with only one application. This is what the so-called multiple application is for. According to § 12 (1) German Design Act, several designs can be combined in one application. Such a multiple application can comprise up to 100 designs, including a design in multiple embodiments.

Collective application: Formal errors in the design application

As with all IP applications, it is important to exercise fundamental care when filing an application for registration of an IP right. Formal errors can lead to protection not being granted for a design. This was confirmed by the Federal Patent Court in 2019 in proceedings concerning an IP application for coloured golf club heads (30 W (pat) 720/16). This was because the applicant in this case had neither ticked the relevant “multiple application” box nor had it responded to the Design Authority’s correct objection that the application did not formally comply with the requirements of a (multiple) application for several designs.

 “One” appearance is a must for a single application

But since the applicant had not filed and adapted her design as a multiple application, design protection for her colourful golf club heads was refused. If deviations of the individual illustrations deposited as a representation of a design cannot be eliminated, this leads to a lack of design capacity under Section 1 No. 1 DesignG, the BPatG ruled in this case, because the registered design does not represent a (uniform) appearance of “a” product. This had been the case in the present case, as the individual illustrations showed a large number of very different shapes and colours, which at most partly coincided in the surface design (shape of a golf club head), but otherwise showed completely different colour designs and partly also lettering designs.

Collective application: individual designs remain individual objects of protection

The decision of the Federal Patent Court “Möbel für Unterhaltungselektronik” (30 W (pat) 704/15) from 2016 also attracted a lot of attention. The case concerned defects in a design application as a multiple application, which, however, did not affect all designs. In such a case, the objection had to be limited to a single design, the court ruled, and a defect had to be remedied by correcting the individual design in question. Individual designs remain separate objects of protection in a multiple application, the BPatG ruled. A rejection of the multiple application as a whole is therefore erroneous in law if only some of the design representations have defects.

BGH and multiple execution of a design: multiple application necessary

In recent years, the Federal Supreme Court (BGH) has also provided new case law for multiple embodiments of a design: if a design is represented with different features of the appearance, this can no longer be considered “one basic form” and is not protectable as a single application for design protection, because this does not visibly reflect the appearance of “one” product, the BGH ruled in the “Sporthelm” decision of 2019, which received much attention. This explicitly revised the case law of the intersection (of matching features) that had applied until then.

For the protection of a design in multiple embodiments, a multiple application is therefore necessary.

Characteristics of a design

Basically, the following features are relevant for design protection: all features of the lines, contours, colours, shape, surface structure and also the materials of the product itself or its ornamentation.

Uniform design appearance – in “abstract” colour

It is not surprising that applicants for a design try to present the relevant features in an abstract form, if possible, in order to secure a wider scope of protection. For example, if a line drawing is deposited, this will protect an object with certain contours.

We would also like to describe this concretely using the example of colour, namely the BGH decision “Sportbrille” from 2018 (I ZB 26/18). In the case, the application for a design was accompanied by a black and white photograph to reproduce the design – which showed a contrast of the colour in greyscale. The application (for a single design) was accompanied by black-and-white photographs in which colour contrasts were shown once in a light-dark combination and the other time vice versa in a dark-light combination.

This application for an IP right was rejected by the BGH. If the application for a design is accompanied by a black-and-white photograph for the reproduction of the design with a representation of a colour contrast in greyscale, the light-dark contrast apparent therefrom is made the subject-matter of protection, the BGH explained. However, since the colour contrast was represented in different combinations (light-dark and also vice versa dark-bright), no uniform subject-matter of protection was recognisable.

It is true that a design is granted protection by the representation of black and white drawings with a single application, namely for the shape of an object; this is completely independent of the colour scheme. However, if contrasting colours are used, something else applies, the BGH made clear. With a contrasting colour scheme, a different overall impression can be created compared to a design represented in black and white.

A product must be indicated for each design

In principle, a product must also be indicated for each design; a maximum of five terms may be indicated for this purpose. A product is understood to be any industrial or handicraft object, also, for example, packaging and textile samples and even complex things such as a car body.

However, it should be noted that design protection is excluded if the design is determined exclusively by the technical-functional specifications (in this context, please note the rules on must-match (protectable as a design) and must-fit).

Final

With a multiple application, different embodiments of a design can also be placed under uniform protection, for example in different colours or embodiments. Although this costs more than a single application (currently for a multiple application (up to 100 designs) 7 euros per design, minimum 70 euros in paper form, digitally 6 euros per design, minimum 60 euros), it has a clear fee advantage over multiple single applications. In any case, there is practically no alternative: multiple versions of a design are no longer valid as individual applications before the courts.

Would you also like to protect or defend your product as a design?

Our lawyers will be happy to advise you. If you are interested, please contact us, we look forward to hearing from you!


 

Sources:

Judgements are quoted in the text

Image from Judgement “Golfschläger” of BPatG, 30 W (pat) 720/16

  • share  
  • share 
  • share 
  • share 
  • share 

Category iconDesign Law Tag iconCharacteristics of a design,  collective application,  costs of collective application,  Design Application,  design features,  design protection,  features,  golf clubs,  industrial property right design,  ski goggles,  sports helmet,  uniform appearance

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.