• 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

Napkin vs. table linen design: Antique spell book refutes Individual character

19. November 2021

A table linen design had been protected as a registered EU design since 2007. But now it was declared invalid: the earlier publication of a rather similar napkin design refuted the peculiarity and individual character. Napkin versus table linen – and the image of the napkin in an antique US spell book (!) prevailed.

Tischtuch Design gegen Serviette

The table linen design now declared invalid was registered as a Community design under No. 650627-0003 on 12 January 2007. It was not until almost 10 years later, in February 2016, that the intervener, Nap-Kings, SL (Spain), filed an application for a declaration of invalidity of the table linen design under Article 52 of Regulation No 6/2002.

It claimed that the contested design was not new and also lacked individual character, in particular when compared to the design of a napkin that had appeared in the previously disclosed publication The Classics of Magic by Tom Osborne, Napkin Folding – a book of magic published in the United States.

Ancient spell book refutes novelty and individual character

The Cancellation Division and the Board of Appeal of EUIPO agreed to the application for invalidity with reference to the publication of the very similar napkin in the aforementioned book “The Classics of Magic”. In its reasoning, the Board of Appeal also dealt in detail with the lack of individual character of the table linen design. In doing so, the Board of Appeal stated

  • both designs were squares with a border
  • the sewn (and not printed or drawn) element of the framed and dotted perimeter would not detract from the similarity between them
  • the fact that this sewn element may fulfil a technical function, namely to prevent fraying, would not affect the perception of the two designs, since the border would contextually fulfil an aesthetic or ornamental function, since it would have been possible to choose a different geometric shape

The owner of the contested table linen design challenged this decision before the European Court (CFI). In particular, he claimed that the magic book in question with the image of the napkin could not have been known to the professional circles in the napkin and table linen sector in the Union, unless by chance. Because on Amazon, for example, this magic book was classified in 2016 under the heading “Humour and entertainment books in the sub-category of puzzles and toys” – absolutely far from table linen.

He also held that the existence of a copyright granted in 1945 in relation to this magic book was not sufficient to prove the specific distribution of this book prior to the filing of the design in dispute. An online sale of the magic book via Amazon could only be proven for the time after the registration of the table linen design.

CFI: Folding napkins is in the public domain

However, the CFI rejected his complaint. The court emphasised that in no way can the reverse conclusion be drawn from the availability of a book on Amazon as to whether and when a distribution of that book had taken place, all the more so when one considers the time of the book’s publication (and the grant of copyright under the US Copyright Act of 1909), which was 1945.

Moreover, the author of this magic book had depicted the older napkin design as the most common and well-known way of depicting a napkin and, moreover, the various ways of folding napkins were already in the public domain. Therefore, the claim must be rejected, the CFI ruled, because the professionals in the table linen sector in question could only have become aware of this design by chance.

Border different – optical effect? Technical function?

Finally, the proprietor of the contested tablecloth design identified substantial differences in the representations between the napkin and the table linen. In particular, the fine, successive, almost continuous dots in the contested tablecloth design would, in contrast to the earlier design, create an optical effect of movement and not the visual effect of a quilted seam. The border had an ornamental function separate from its technical function (protection against fraying).

The CFI also rejected these objections. In fact, this border fulfilled at most a dual function, the court found, both a technical and an ornamental one. But these differences, rightly asserted by the plaintiff, were not so pronounced in themselves and taken as a whole that the contested table linen design created a new overall impression on the informed user, the CFI summarised. But this is decisive for determining the individual character of a design: do consumers have a “deja vu” or not?

In any case, the European Court ruled that the representations of the napkin and table linen evoked the same overall impression in the user. The contested Community design ‘Table linen Design’ therefore lacked individual character and was rightly declared invalid.

Do you also want to protect or defend design?

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

 

Sources for text and image:

Judgement of CFI, EU:T:2021:793

  • share  
  • share 
  • share 
  • share 
  • share 

Category iconDesign Law Tag iconantique book,  antique magic book,  Community Design,  Déjà-vu,  Design,  EU design,  individual character,  lack of individual character,  novelty,  optical effect,  overall impression,  proven distribution of antique book,  tablecloth design,  technical function

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

5. November 2021
Design of complex product: interpretation of ‘intended use’

Design of complex product: interpretation of ‘intended use’

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.