• 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
      • Dr. Christoph Hölscher
    • Commitment
  • Contact
    • Where To Find Us
    • Write us!
    • Request call back
  • Blog

Peculiarity of a design – is there a deja vu?

12. February 2019

The fact that individual features of an earlier design are known in advance does not preclude the individual character of a more recent design. In the nullity proceedings, the European Court ruled on two luminaires and specified the degree of freedom of the designer and the individual character of a design.

Peculiarity of a design

Eglo luminaire design
earlier Eglo luminaire design

In its judgment, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) pointed out that the individual character of a design exists if a consumer does not perceive a “déjà vu” in relation to the existing design treasure. What is decisive is that there is a difference in the overall impression, whereby differences which go beyond insignificant details but which are nevertheless too weak to influence the overall impression are also ignored (Puma [jumping cat of prey], T-666/11). The Court further pointed out that a general design trend is irrelevant for the assessment of individual character.

Characteristics of the design contested were known beforehand

Brilon luminaire design
Brilon luminaire design

The applicant, Eglo Leuchten GmbH (Austria), filed an application for a declaration of invalidity against a Community design of luminaires filed in 2014 by the intervener Briloner Leuchten GmbH & Co. KG (Germany) in 2014.

The applicant claimed that the contested design lacked individual character within the meaning of Article 6 of Regulation No 6/2002. In 2008, the applicant itself developed a so-called ring luminaire, which was clearly different from the then known luminaire designs. Many features of the contested design were therefore known beforehand.

The Cancellation Division of the EUIPO followed this reasoning and declared the contested design invalid, but the Board of Appeal annulled this decision and dismissed the application for a declaration of invalidity (contested decision, 26 September 2017). The differences between the conflicting designs were sufficient for a different overall impression, the Board of Appeal stated.

Degree of freedom of the designer

This view was confirmed by the CFI in its judgment. The more limited the freedom of the designer in developing the design, the more small differences between the compared designs are sufficient to create a different overall impression on the informed user, the Court clarified. The degree of freedom of the designer with regard to the fixing device, the lampholder and the number and arrangement of the lamp heads, as in the present case, is only average. However, the designer’s freedom of design is not, in principle, subject to any restrictions as regards the design of the lampholders and the fixing devices.

New applicant for the design wins

Both luminaire designs have a ring-shaped luminaire head, but there are visible differences in the inside of these rings. The design in dispute also has a device for fixing it to the ceiling, but the earlier design does not. The CFI ruled that the visible features of the conflicting designs therefore exhibit considerable differences and produce a different overall impression.

 

Would you also like to protect your design or trademark?

Then please do not hesitate to contact us. Our patent attorneys and attorneys at law are experienced and highly qualified in all areas of intellectual property law, both nationally and internationally.

Request your call-back without any obligations!

CAT-call_en

Source for text and pictures:

Judgement of CJEU EU:T:2019:67 (in German)

  • share  
  • share 
  • share 
  • tweet 
  • share 

Category iconDesign Law Tag iconDesign

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

  • 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
  • EOS lip balm no 3D trademark – appeal before ECJ not admissible 24. 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

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

Contact Form

 

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

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

Kontaktformular

 

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

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