• 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 sports helmet: BPatG confirms nullity

20. January 2020

The BPatG confirms the nullity of the design with its judgement on the design sports helmet. The focus was on the presentation of the design in variations and previous case law on the theory of intersection. However, the cost decision in this case is also important for practice.

The current judgement of the Federal Patent Court (BPatG) confirms the nullity of the design sports helmet. The Federal Supreme Court (BGH) had already determined nullity for this design a year ago, but referred the case back to the Federal Patent Court because the BGH is denied its own decision on the merits (according to § 23 (5) DesignG in conjunction with § 108 (1) PatG).

Schnittmengentheorie

Design with variations: no uniform object of protection

The subject matter of the protection was filed as a single application of the design, but nevertheless with different embodiments of the product. This did not visibly reflect the appearance of “a” product, the BGH had ruled (I ZB 25/18). In such a case the design does not indicate a uniform object of protection within the meaning of § 1 No. 1 DesignG and is therefore invalid under § 33 (1) No. 1 DesignG. The ruling of the BGH on the sports helmet thus followed the view of the ECJ on Community designs, as stated in the Mast-Jägermeister ruling.

With its decision (30 W (pat) 802/15), the German BPatG now confirmed the invalidity for the sports helmet design, which had already been decided by the BGH. The court ruled that no uniform object of protection could be derived from the registered design and thus not the appearance of “a” product within the meaning of § 1 No. 1 DesignG, so that it lacked the design capability according to § 1 No. 1 DesignG due to the fact that the object of protection could not be determined.

BGH and BPatG distance themselves from the previous case law

Thus the BGH and now the BPatG distance themselves from the previous case law of the intersection theory. By forming an intersection of the coinciding features of the helmet’s appearance, a basic form valid for all representations was assumed according to the intersection theory. In practice, this is often desired, since the actual creative idea from the design applicant’s point of view lies in the basic shape of the product, which is then to be marketed in multiple colour and pattern variations.

However, only the features of the appearance of this object which are visibly reproduced in the application can be protected under § 37 (1) DesignG, because the representations of the design must clearly and unambiguously indicate the object for which protection is sought. For a summary of different embodiments of a product, a multiple application of several designs is therefore advisable under § 12 (1) DesignG.

In the case of sports helmets, however, only one single design was applied for, which showed a sports helmet. For the representation of this design, however, the applicant had submitted seven representations as black and white photos of the sports helmet, showing the helmet in various colour gradations and patterns, among other things.

Cost decision: doubling the value of the object

Also of great interest in practice is the cost decision which the BPatG sets out in its ruling. If it is not possible to make a sufficiently reliable determination of the type and extent of use of the cancelled design, the corresponding value of the object must be determined at the discretion of the parties both in the case of a declaration of invalidity or cancellation of a design and a trademark (§ 34a (5) sentence 2 DesignG or §§ 50, 54 MarkenG and § 33 (1), § 23 (2) RVG).

In the case of unused trade marks or trade marks for the use of which no sufficiently reliable findings can be made, a standard value of € 50,000 is considered appropriate, the BPatG stated. However, the value of the subject matter of nullity proceedings under design law should be assessed significantly higher than that of cancellation proceedings under trademark law. While trademarks identify goods and services according to their origin from a certain company, the registered design concerns the design of a product with regard to its visual appearance and usability and thus the product as such, the court explained.

Taking into account all aspects, in particular the remaining term of the design subject matter of the proceedings, a doubling of the object value of € 50,000 generally assumed in trademark cancellation proceedings for unused trademarks and thus a standard object value of € 100,000 was appropriate, but also sufficient, the BPatG ruled.

Would you also like to protect your design or your brand?

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


 

Sources: 

Judgement of BPatG “Design sports helmet” 30 W (pat) 802/15

Image:

Open-Clipart-Vectors / pixabay.com / CCO License  |  OpenClipart-Vectors /pixabay.com / CCO License (grey helmet)

  • share  
  • share 
  • share 
  • share 
  • share 

Category iconDesign Law Tag iconBGH,  collective application,  decision on costs,  design variants,  design with variations,  object value,  sports helmet,  uniform object of protection,  Variation

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.