• 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
      • Clara Elinor Grünewald
    • Commitment
  • Contact
    • Where To Find Us
    • Write us!
    • Request call back
  • Blog

ECJ: Form of a bicycle under copyright protection

16. June 2020

The ECJ has ruled on the shape of a bicycle under copyright protection, an overlap between copyright and patent protection. A product in which the technical functionality is a determining factor for the shape can only be under copyright protection if free creative decisions establish originality.

Form eines Fahrrads

The case brought before the European Court of Justice (ECJ) by the Tribunal de l’entreprise de Liège (Belgium) concerns bicycles. Brompton Ltd. was the holder of a patent on the folding mechanism of the bicycle (foldable in three positions: unfolded, “stand-by” and folded), which later became in the public domain and was produced in the same way by GET2GET (South Korea) after the patent became available. Furthermore, the founder of Brompton Ltd. held a copyright on the appearance of the Brompton bicycle since 1975.

Brompton Ltd brought an action against GET2GET, claiming that there were other three-position folding bicycles on the market whose appearance was different from its own bicycle. GET2GET had infringed its copyright on the Brompton bicycle.

The Belgian court asked the ECJ to clarify the overlap between copyright and patent protection in this case. Can the shape of a bicycle, in which the technical functionality is the determining factor for the shape of the product, even be protected by copyright?

Copyright and patent protection

In practice, this referral question to the ECJ is important because the maximum term of protection for a patent is 20 years, for a copyright it covers the life of the author and seventy years after his death. In addition, the granting of a patent always entails the publication of the patent, since the aim is always to develop and improve the state of the art. So if a product protected by a patent were also protected under copyright law, this would result in a very long period of protection, which would be contrary to EU regulations.

Copyright and patent law in the EU regulations

Articles 2 to 4 of Directive 2001/29/EC provide for copyright in all EU member states. The member states are free to determine the scope of copyright protection and the conditions under which such protection is granted. At the same time, Art. 9 of this Directive assures that legal provisions concerning patents, trademarks or designs would not be affected by this Directive.

And in the absence of full harmonisation of copyright law in the EU, it is important to establish the principle of cumulative protection as a Community design and under copyright law – this is again explicitly mentioned in Regulation (EC) No 6/2002. And Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 provides that a protected design shall not be eligible for protection as a Community design if its features are exclusively dictated by its technical function.

Decision by the national court

ECJ does not exclude a product from copyright protection in principle if its shape is necessary to achieve a technical result. However, the condition for copyright protection is necessarily intellectual creation and free creative choices which express an originality of the ‘work’ (within the meaning of Directive 2001/29). The ECJ ruled that the national courts of the EU Member States must examine whether this is the case for a bicycle.

In the present case, although the shape of the bicycle is obviously necessary to achieve a precise technical result, namely the ability of the bicycle to assume three positions, one of which makes it possible to keep the bicycle balanced on the ground, the Court held that the shape of the bicycle is not in itself a guarantee of originality. And the criterion of originality cannot be satisfied by the components of an object which are characterised only by their technical function, the ECJ stated.

However, it was for the national court to decide whether technical functionality was the sole determining factor in the shape of the bicycle or whether the artistic freedom was left free despite the technical constraints.

Alternative technical methods not relevant

However, the existence of alternative technical means, as claimed by Brompton Ltd. for foldable bicycles, is not relevant in this context, the ECJ ruled, following former decisions in the Doceram case (technical function in design) and the Cofemel case (fashion under copyright protection).

The existence of an earlier and now expired patent would only be taken into account in the decision, the ECJ added, if the patent shows a close connection between the chosen and patented form and the copyrighted product.

Are you also seeking protection for your product?

Our lawyers are experienced in trademark and patent law, national and international law.

 

Sources: 

Judgement of ECJ, EU:C:2020:461

Image:

Estebanescu | pixabay.com | CCO License

  • share  30 
  • share 
  • share 
  • tweet  
  • share 

Category iconDesign Law,  Patent Law,  Product- and Trademark piracy Tag iconECJ,  patent protection,  copyright protection,  work,  intellectual creation,  technical result,  shape of a bicycle,  Alternative,  technical functionality,  copyright and patent protection

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
This form uses Google Recaptcha.

You must accept cookies from Google recaptcha to use this form.

More information can be found in our privacy policy.

load form

Recent Posts

  • Bacardi wins in trademark dispute Vodka 42 BELOW 20. January 2021
  • HALLOUMI vs. BBQLOUMI: Cyprus loses again in trademark dispute 20. January 2021
  • Short word marks and similarity: First letter is not everything 19. January 2021
  • Where in Europe is a patent application worthwhile? 18. January 2021

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:

18. January 2021
Where in Europe is a patent application worthwhile?

Where in Europe is a patent application worthwhile?

15. January 2021
BGH ‘Cigarette package’: Extension of undisclosed features in EU patent

BGH ‘Cigarette package’: Extension of undisclosed features in EU patent

11. January 2021
Patent for coding of audio signals confirmed by German BPatG

Patent for coding of audio signals confirmed by German BPatG

8. January 2021
GAIA-X: German funding program for European Cloud

GAIA-X: German funding program for European Cloud

5. January 2021
Employee invention of managing directors or board members?

Employee invention of managing directors or board members?

4. January 2021
4IR and industry 4.0: Statistics of International Patent Applications

4IR and industry 4.0: Statistics of International Patent Applications

Footer

Contact

Franklinstr. 61-63
D-60486 Frankfurt am Main
Germany

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 199
[email protected]

Customer Reviews

Meyer-Dulheuer MD Legal Patentanwälte PartG mbB Patentrecht, Markenrecht, Eigentum hat 4,78 von 5 Sternen 23 Bewertungen auf ProvenExpert.com

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
  • Info secure emails
  • Company
  • Our Law Firm
  • ISO Certificate
  • Privacy Policy
  • Data handling for clients
  • Imprint

Follow Us

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google+
  • LinkedIn
  • xing
  • Email

Newsletter Signup

This form uses Google Recaptcha.

You must accept cookies from Google recaptcha to use this form.

More information can be found in our privacy policy.

load form

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

Kontaktformular

 

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

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

This form uses Google Recaptcha.

You must accept cookies from Google recaptcha to use this form.

More information can be found in our privacy policy.

load form

Contact Form

 

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

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

This form uses Google Recaptcha.

You must accept cookies from Google recaptcha to use this form.

More information can be found in our privacy policy.

load form