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

Patent- & Rechtsanwaltskanzlei

  • 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. Karl-Hermann Meyer-Dulheuer
      • Dr. Tim Meyer-Dulheuer
      • Dr. Klaus Zimmermann
      • Zhichao Ying
      • Dr. Christoph Hölscher
    • Commitment
  • Contact
    • Where To Find Us
    • Write us!
    • Request call back
  • Blog

Design of complex product: interpretation of ‘intended use’

5. November 2021

Visibility is relevant in design protection. What is protected is exactly what is shown in the application. And what applies to the underside of a saddle? This is regulated separately for elements in a complex product by German § 4 DesignG – in accordance with EU law, which, however, needs to be interpreted, especially ‘intended use’.

intended use: saddle designIn principle, a design (as German design as well as a European community design) must be represented in its application in a quality that clearly shows all details for which protection is claimed. This is also enshrined in the highest European case law (see Mast-Jägermeister v. EUIPO; ECJ, C:2018:534).
It follows from this alone that visibility is elementary in design protection. A design protection is generally only registered for exactly the representation in which the design was applied for with all visible parts.

This is, of course, particularly difficult in a complex product, which is why the German Design Act also provides a special paragraph for design protection of complex products: § 4 DesignG in implementation of the EU Directive 98/71/EC. According to this, an element that is inserted into a complex product must be visible in the representation of the design – “when it is used as intended”. This regulation applies to any complex industrial or handicraft object and also includes individual parts that are to be assembled into a complex product.

Case ‘Sattelunterseite’ before BGH

In practice, however, this is not always easy to assess. Specifically, the “saddle underside” case was heard before the Federal Supreme Court as an appeal of the decision of the Federal Patent Court on a nullity action against the design of a bicycle or motorbike saddle. In the action for revocation, it was argued that this protected design lacked novelty and individual character compared to the previously known set of shapes. Above all, it was also excluded from design protection under § 4 Design Act, as it was not visible as a structural element of the complex products “bicycle” or “motorbike” when used as intended. The BPatG had explained that the intended use of the bicycle by the end user included both the riding process itself and the mounting and dismounting of the bicycle, but that the representation of the design was not visible in this process. The disputed saddle was shown in the representation only as the underside of a saddle, i.e. from the perspective from below.

The Federal Patent Court upheld the action, mainly with reference to § 4 Design Act. A saddle, when used as intended in the product into which it is incorporated (i.e. as a bicycle or motorbike), would only be visible from above, possibly also from the side, but never from below, the BPatG had stated. However, according to the unambiguous wording of Sec. 4 Design Act, it was necessary that a component “inserted” into the complex product remained visible. Therefore, it declared the saddle design invalid (30 W (pat) 809/18).

Time of the determination of visibility

The owner of the contested saddle design appealed against this decision to the Federal Court of Justice (BGH). The latter upheld the BPatG’s finding that, with regard to “visibility in intended use”, what matters is the visibility of the design contained on the underside of the saddle after the component (saddle) has been installed in the complex product (bicycle), but not before the installation or after the removal of the component.

Specific use or viewer perspective relevant for visibility?

The BGH emphasised that according to recital 12, first sentence, of Directive 98/71/EC, the protection conferred by a design does not extend to features of a component which are invisible when the component is incorporated. However, the court explained, it was not clear from EU Directive 98/71/EC whether the determination of visibility requires the use in certain use and above all also the viewer’s perspective or whether the objective possibility of being able to recognise the design when the component is installed is sufficient.

Therefore, the BGH decided to refer this question to the ECJ for a preliminary ruling.

Interpretation of ‘intended use’?

Should the ECJ see an intended use or viewer perspective as a requirement for visibility within the meaning of the Directive, the BGH also asks for interpretation and concretisation of the term “intended use”:

  • Does it depend on the intended use of the manufacturer of the product or on the usual use of the complex product by consumers?
  • How should “ancillary uses” be classified or acts indirectly related to the main purpose? (In the present case, these would be, for example, measures of storage and transport or a possible use as the underside of a motorbike saddle)
  • And are there criteria for assessing “intended” use within the meaning of Art. 3(3) and (4) of Directive 98/71/EC?

These are indeed as yet unresolved questions on the terms ‘visibility’ and ‘intended use’, legal clarity would be very welcome. In any case, the case of the ‘underside of the saddle’ is suspended pending the ECJ’s decision on this reference for a preliminary ruling.

Do you need assistance in protecting or defending a design?

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


 

Sources for text and image:

BGH ‘Sattelunterseite’, I ZB 31/20

 

  • share  
  • share 
  • share 
  • tweet 
  • share 

Category iconDesign Law Tag iconintended use,  preliminary ruling ECJ,  question for a preliminary ruling,  BGH,  interpretation Directive 98/71/EC,  complex product,  element in complex product,  protected design,  secondary use,  § 4 DesignG,  design protection,  Interpretation,  visibility

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

  • 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
  • EOS lip balm no 3D trademark – appeal before ECJ not admissible 24. 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

© Patent- & Rechtsanwaltskanzlei Meyer-Dulheuer MD Legal Patentanwälte PartG mbB

Contact Form

 

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

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

Kontaktformular

 

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

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