• 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

Industrial and technical designs: disclosure and individual character

12. August 2020

In invalidity proceedings concerning an industrial and technical Community design, the CFI explained the proof of disclosure of an earlier design and its individual character: technical features are not relevant for individual character.

Eigenart pneumatisches Werkzeug

The Facts

In October 2012, Glimarpol sp. z o.o. (Poland) filed an application for a community design with the European Patent and Trademark Office (European Union Intellectual Property Office, EUIPO). The community design was filed for a pneumatically driven tool and registered in classes 08-01 and 08-05 of the Locarno Classification of Industrial Design.

In May 2016 the intervener, Metar sp. z o.o. (Poland) filed an application for a declaration of invalidity of the contested design and relied on its own prior design for a pneumatic rock drill.

The Cancellation Division subsequently declared the contested Community design invalid in 2017 on the ground of lack of individual character. Glimarpol’s appeal against this decision was also dismissed by the EUIPO Board of Appeal (the contested decision of October 2018). Glimarpol therefore brought this case to the European Court of First Instance (CFI). In particular, the applicant claimed that the Board of Appeal wrongly found that the earlier design had been disclosed in 2009. It was also wrongly found that the contested design lacked individual character. In particular, the applicant submits that the instructions for use of that design were not of a commercial nature and were not intended for the general public.

The applicant submits in that regard that the earlier Community design cannot be regarded as having been made available to the public, since it was disclosed in explicit or implicit circumstances of confidentiality. In particular, the intervener disclosed the earlier design in order to obtain a certificate of conformity or for administrative purposes. However, that assertion is not supported by evidence. It must therefore be rejected.

The European Court therefore dealt primarily with the disclosure of a Community design and the individual character of a design within the meaning of the interpretation of Article 7(1) of Regulation No 6/2002.

Disclosure of a Community design

In principle, a two-step analysis should be carried out to determine whether an earlier Community design has been disclosed, the Court explained. On the one hand, it had to be examined whether there was evidence of disclosure and that this disclosure had taken place before the filing date or priority date of the contested Community design. Secondly, it had to be assessed whether this could have become known to the circles specialised in the sector claimed in the normal course of business and “reasonably”. However, the relevant EU Regulation does not specify how such evidence and proof should look like in practice (Regulation (EC) No. 2245/2002). The CFI held that the applicant for a declaration of invalidity is therefore free to choose the evidence it considers useful in support of its application for a declaration of invalidity to EUIPO.

In the present case, however, the applicant Glimarpol had not provided any evidence at all to support the claim that the earlier Community design had only been disclosed in confidence and not publicly. This objection was therefore rejected by the CFI.

Peculiarity of a design

The CFI also examined the decision of the Board of Appeal that the contested design lacked individual character. As already made clear in previous case law, the individual character of a design results from the overall impression of difference or the absence of “déjà vu” from the point of view of an informed user, the CFI explained. The emphasis is on the overall impression, which must be assessed. Therefore, the Board of Appeal did not have to limit itself to an analytical comparison of a list of similarities and differences, but rightly referred to the overall impression.

The comparison of the overall impressions produced by the designs must be synthetic and cannot be limited to an analytical comparison of a list of similarities and differences, the Court stated. The comparison must be based on the features disclosed in the contested design and must relate only to the elements actually protected, without taking account in particular of technical features which are excluded from design protection. Moreover, this comparison must, in principle, relate to the design as registered, and one should always examine one’s application documents with due care.

Technical characteristics not relevant for the characteristic

In any event, in the present case, the contested design is intended to be incorporated in pneumatic rock drills consisting of the same components with the same characteristics as the rock drills covered by the earlier design. It is true, as the applicant complains, that the contested decision makes no express reference to the support for the rock drills in question, the Court of First Instance acknowledged. However, this is negligible and does not contribute to a changed overall impression. For it is obvious that the role of the support is secondary and subordinate in relation to the tool itself, namely the rock drill, the CFI held.

Other differences which the applicant claimed were again technical differences, the Court found. The Court also found that even an average degree of freedom of the designer is determined by the technical requirements and functionalities of a rock drill. Those alleged differences are therefore not such as to confer individual character on the contested design, as the Board of Appeal rightly found.

The CFI therefore dismissed the action in its entirety and upheld the Board of Appeal’s decision.

Do you need protection for your design or invention?

Our attorneys have many years of expertise in design and patent law as well as in the entire field of intellectual property and are entitled to represent you before any court – in Germany and internationally.


 

Sources: 

Judgement of CFI, EU:T:2020:321

Image:

cedzak123 | pixabay.com | CCO License

  • share  14 
  • share 
  • share 
  • tweet  
  • share 

Category iconDesign Law Tag iconjudgment,  CFI,  Community Design,  Design,  peculiarity,  Board of Appeal,  overall impression,  individual character,  disclosure,  differences,  Peculiarity of a design,  individual character of a design,  technical features,  disclosure of a Community design,  industry and technology,  technical design,  technical function design

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

  • EPO practice of national patent offices – more uniform 18. February 2021
  • BGH: Black Forest ham – not only packaged in the Black Forest 16. February 2021
  • UK trademark after Brexit: earlier UK trademark in opposition 16. February 2021
  • Employee’s invention in insolvency 15. February 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:

25. January 2021
Time limit missed for remedying deficiencies at EUIPO

Time limit missed for remedying deficiencies at EUIPO

22. December 2020
3D printing in design/copyright: Violation of IP rights (2)?

3D printing in design/copyright: Violation of IP rights (2)?

18. December 2020
New Year 2021: News on Nice, Locarno and IPC

New Year 2021: News on Nice, Locarno and IPC

18. December 2020
EUIPO ‘SME Fund’: grant promotes SME applications for IP rights

EUIPO ‘SME Fund’: grant promotes SME applications for IP rights

8. December 2020
Design and trademark protection and brexit: Need for action?

Design and trademark protection and brexit: Need for action?

30. November 2020
No distinctiveness: 3D mark bottle shape with label

No distinctiveness: 3D mark bottle shape with label

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