• 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

Design disclosure in GER: Case study tubular radiator

25. May 2021

In an invalidity action against a design for a tubular radiator, the design was already published before the grace period – a clear case of design disclosure? The German BPatG ruled with interesting comments on § 5 DesignG.

Design Offenbarung Röhrenheizkörper
Design in dispute “tubular radiator”

The disputed radiator design (No. 40 2013 004 752-0002) for a tubular radiator was filed on 30 October 2013 and registered in the Design Register in 2014. The owner is Mert Radiator GmbH (Germany). The design proprietor claimed that its managing director Mr Mert had personally developed the contested design in July 2012 and had the radiators with the contested design manufactured by the company T… in Turkey and delivered to Germany.

However, the company T… had already supplied radiators with the design to various companies under the product name “DIFTA” before the filing date, so that the contested design was already known to the trade circles. In addition, the company Mert Radiator had also distributed radiators manufactured by the company T… and corresponding to the appearance of the contested design under the product name “BELLUNA”.

Based on these arguments, an action for revocation was brought against the protected design tubular radiator, on which the Federal Patent Court ruled (September 2020, 30 W (pat) 802/18). The applicant claimed that the design had already been disclosed and that it also lacked individual character.

The BPatG ruled on this with interesting comments on § 5 DesignG.

Already delivered before application – design disclosure?

The technical drawing of the “DIFTA” radiator dated 2 April 2013 showed the contested design even before the filing date of the application, but the invoices submitted as proof of delivery of the “DIFTA” radiator showed only two companies as recipients.

Nevertheless, the BPatG ruled that the design had not been disclosed as a result. Acts of disclosure to only two companies did not have the broad effect required for disclosure under § 5 Design Act, the court explained, because it was known that an extraordinarily large number of companies were active in the field of heating technology.

Published before the grace period – design disclosure?

Already before the grace period of § 6 DesignG (in Germany 12 months before the design application) the design had been published, which was proven by invoices. However, according to the court, this was a communication of the design necessary for the performance of the contract.

However, communications within the scope of business relations are to be regarded as confidential within the meaning of § 5 sentence 2 Design Act and do not entail any possibility of knowledge of the professional circles necessary for a disclosure under § 5 Design Act. Therefore, there was no design disclosure here either, the court ruled.

This even applies if the design was disclosed as a result of an abusive act against the designer, the BPatG added, referring to § 6 sentence 2 DesignG with regard to design disclosure.

What is striking in this decision of the BPatG is the difference to the interpretation of design disclosure by any publication on the internet, for example by products offered online or even only by product placement in a film sequence, which has been prescribed by the BGH since 2018.

Tubular radiators – a design with individual character?

The court also rejected the plaintiff’s objection that a tubular radiator lacked the necessary individual character. In the case of a tubular radiator, not only an inlet and an outlet pipe were technically predetermined, but also that the heating pipes ran horizontally. The pattern density was therefore rather high at the filing date of the contested design, because numerous other radiators were already known on which a towel could be slid. Overall, the designer’s freedom of design in the present case was therefore rather in the normal to low range.

Ergo, even less clear differences from the design vocabulary than in the case of a higher degree of freedom of design can justify the individual character of the design, and the BPatG considered this to be the case with this design. All in all, the contested design gave the overall impression of an open, stepped and very airy radiator, the BPatG ruled; moreover, it was particular that the heating tubes were grouped in groups of four and that the length of the heating tubes in each group decreased evenly from the bottom to the top.

The application for a declaration of invalidity based on the absolute grounds for invalidity of lack of novelty or individual character (§ 33 (1) in conjunction with § 2 (2), (3) Design Act) was therefore unfounded, the court ruled.

Do you also want to protect or defend design?

Our lawyers have many years of expertise in design law and trade mark law as well as in the entire field of intellectual property and are entitled to represent you before any court – in Germany and also internationally.
Please feel free to contact us if you are interested.

 

Sources:

Judgement of BPatG ‘Design Röhrenheizkörper’, 30 W (pat) 802/18

Image:

Design in dispute from the design register

 

 

  • share  
  • share 
  • share 
  • share 
  • share 

Category iconDesign Law Tag icon§ 5 DesignG,  BPatG,  design density,  design disclosure,  DesignG,  disclosure,  disclosure under § 5,  grace period,  individual character,  invalidity action,  invalidity action against design,  judgement,  Mert,  tubular radiator

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.