• 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

In detail: Design Protection in the EU for Auto Spare Parts – Part 1

5. August 2016

 

In the automotive industry, design rights are an important tool to protect the overall look of a car since the design of a product is often the main reason that consumers chose it over others. In addition to the design of a car as a whole, spare parts (such as alloy wheels, bumpers or the grill of a car) can -in certain circumstances- also enjoy legal protection as Community designs, as long as the designs are visible to the user, in ordinary use and fulfil the prerequisites of ‘novelty’ and ‘individual character’.

In order to encourage producers to invest in designs, there needs to be accessible, modern and effective legal protection for their design rights.

Currently, there is a broad range of legal tools to protect designs at national and EU level. This gives right holders flexibility and a choice of protection that can be used according to their needs.

Since the mid-1990s there has been a debate across the European Union on whether certain spare parts should be excluded from design right protection. The discussions largely focus on the battle in the automotive industry between the car manufacturers and the independent spare part manufacturers: first-mentioned want a high level of protection for their spare part designs in view of the lucrative after-sales market, whereas the independent spare part manufacturers wish to see liberalisation of the spare parts market.

As a result of this battle, the general principle that spare parts are eligible for design right protection is restricted to some extent by the statutory exceptions for “must fit” and “must match” designs.

 

No (design-)protection for must fit spare parts

According to Article 8(2) of the Community Design Right Regulation (CDR), a design cannot be protected if it comprises features of the appearance of a product, which must necessarily be reproduced in their exact form and dimensions in order to permit the product in which the design is incorporated or to which it is applied to be mechanically connected to or placed in, around or against (must fit with) another product to perform its function.

This exclusion from protection is motivated by the objective of preventing technological innovation being hampered by granting design protection to features dictated solely by a technical functionality (see also Article 8(1) CDR) and to guarantee the interoperability of products of different origin. However, the ‘must fit’ clause only covers designs for which there are technically no alternatives as regards to the shape of the design. If there are alternative forms for the design, then this design can generally be protected as a Community design. In plain terms: no alternative in design, no protection.

 

Must match parts and the “repair clause”

A more controversial issue is the protection of ‘must match’ spare parts.

These are spare parts, whose shape and configuration is dependent on the shape and configuration of a complex product (such as cars), yet, there does exist an alternative in design. This does not rely on the functionality of spare parts, but more on their appearance.

Full-scale approximation as regards the use of protected designs for the purpose of permitting the repair of a complex product so as to restore its original appearance could not be achieved between the Member States of the European Union.

A consumer and SME-friendly solution could have been the so-called “repair clause”. The repair clause should indemnify visible spare parts (mostly mechanical) from design protection. Not visible – and safety-critical – parts can not be enjoy protection . The safety of non-visible parts (also replicas) are guaranteed by the type approval procedure. However, in May 2014 the European Commission has officially withdrawn its plans to recast EU Design Directive (98/71 / EC).

But there is light at the end of the tunnel: Many EU member states have implemented a “repair clause” in their national law in order to liberalize their market.

 

> In Part #2 we will continue speaking about the repair clause and continue the battle of ‘must fit’ and ‘must match’ spare parts. Stay tuned!

Did you miss our previous Design-Article? Check here.

 

As a carmaker or spare part manufacturer, are you affected by restrictions on the Design Right?

Our lawyers are here to help you and find the best solution for your activities in the European Union.Ask for a call-back. We can help you – promised!?

 

Sources:
Text: Europa.eu / timesofmalta.com 
Pictures: RitaE /pixabay.com / CCO License   | Life-Of-Pix /pixabay.com / CCO License  

 

  • share  
  • share 
  • share 
  • share 
  • share 

Category iconDesign Law

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.