DOCSLIB.ORG

264 Final COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EVALUATION of EU Legislation on D

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
264 Final COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EVALUATION of EU Legislation on D EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 6.11.2020 SWD(2020) 264 final COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EVALUATION of EU legislation on design protection {SWD(2020) 265 final} EN EN Table of contents 1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................... 4 2. BACKGROUND TO THE INTERVENTION ................................................................................. 5 2.1. DESCRIPTION OF THE INTERVENTION AND ITS OBJECTIVES ............................................... 5 2.2. BASELINE AND POINTS OF COMPARISON .................................................................................. 6 3. IMPLEMENTATION/STATE OF PLAY ........................................................................................ 9 3.1. DESCRIPTION OF THE CURRENT SITUATION ............................................................................ 9 3.2. USE OF THE DESIGN PROTECTION SYSTEM ............................................................................ 10 3.3. TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT AND AWARENESS OF DESIGN PROTECTION ........... 16 4. METHOD .......................................................................................................................................... 18 4.1. SHORT DESCRIPTION OF METHODOLOGY ............................................................................... 18 4.2. LIMITATIONS AND ROBUSTNESS OF FINDINGS ..................................................................... 18 5. ANALYSIS ........................................................................................................................................ 19 5.1. OVERALL FUNCTIONING OF THE EU SYSTEM FOR DESIGN PROTECTION .............. 19 5.1.1. GENERAL FEEDBACK ON THE FUNCTIONING OF THE EU SYSTEM FOR DESIGN PROTECTION .................................................................................................................................... 19 5.1.2. GENERAL FEEDBACK ON THE ACHIEVEMENT OF THE EU INTERVENTION’S OBJECTIVES ..................................................................................................................................... 20 5.2. PROTECTION TOOLS ................................................................................................................... 20 5.2.1. DIFFERENT WAYS OF PROTECTING DESIGNS ......................................................................... 20 5.2.2. PROTECTION REQUIREMENTS AND SCOPE OF PROTECTION ............................................. 24 5.2.3. RIGHTS CONFERRED ...................................................................................................................... 29 5.2.4. DEFENCES TO INFRINGEMENT ................................................................................................... 31 5.2.5. TERM OF PROTECTION .................................................................................................................. 33 5.2.6. RELATION TO OTHER FORMS OF IP PROTECTION ................................................................. 34 5.2.7. CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................................................. 36 5.3. PROCEDURES ................................................................................................................................. 37 5.3.1. MEANS AND REQUIREMENTS OF DESIGN REPRESENTATION ............................................ 37 5.3.2. DIFFERENT FILING OPTIONS ....................................................................................................... 41 5.3.3. SUBSTANTIVE EXAMINATION .................................................................................................... 45 5.3.4. ADMINISTRATIVE INVALIDITY PROCEEDINGS ...................................................................... 47 5.3.5. EXPERIENCE WITH THE COMMUNITY AND NATIONAL REGISTRATION SYSTEMS ...... 49 5.3.6. FEES ................................................................................................................................................... 53 5.3.7. CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................................................. 56 5.4. ENFORCEMENT ............................................................................................................................. 58 5.4.1. DESIGN RIGHTS AS PROTECTION TOOLS AGAINST THE UNLAWFUL BEHAVIOUR OF THIRD PARTIES ............................................................................................................................... 59 5.4.2. FUNCTIONING OF THE DESIGN ENFORCEMENT SYSTEM .................................................... 60 1 5.4.3. FUNCTIONING OF THE COMMUNITY DESIGN COURTS......................................................... 62 5.4.4. CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................................................. 63 5.5. SPARE PARTS ................................................................................................................................. 64 5.5.1. SPECIFIC RULES ON SPARE PARTS USED FOR REPAIR PURPOSES ..................................... 64 5.5.2. SEGMENTED INTERNAL MARKET FOR SPARE PARTS .......................................................... 66 5.5.3. CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................................................. 69 5.6. INTERNATIONAL DIMENSION .................................................................................................. 69 5.6.1. LINK TO THE INTERNATIONAL HAGUE AGREEMENT .......................................................... 70 5.6.2. CONFORMITY WITH THE DESIGN LAW TREATY .................................................................... 70 5.7. COHERENCE WITH THE TRADE MARK REFORM .............................................................. 71 5.8. COMPLIANCE WITH THE LISBON TREATY .......................................................................... 72 5.9. OVERALL CONCLUSIONS ........................................................................................................... 72 ANNEX 1: PROCEDURAL INFORMATION ........................................................................................... 75 ANNEX 2: STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION – SYNOPSIS REPORT ............................................... 78 ANNEX 3: METHODS AND ANALYTICAL MODELS .......................................................................... 85 ANNEX 4: RESULTS OF THE OPEN PUBLIC CONSULTATION – FACTUAL SUMMARY REPORT ............................................................................................................................................. 88 ANNEX 5: OVERVIEW OF COSTS – BENEFITS IDENTIFIED IN THE EVALUATION .................. 132 ANNEX 6: CONVERGENCE OF PRACTICES ....................................................................................... 138 2 Glossary Term or acronym Meaning or definition 3D Printing Study “The Intellectual property implications of the development of industrial 3D printing”, April 2020 CJEU Court of Justice of the European Union Directive Directive 98/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 1998 on the legal protection of designs EC European Commission Economic Review “The Economic Review of Industrial Design in Europe”, January 2015 Enforcement Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of Directive 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights EPO European Patent Office EU European Union EUIPO European Union Intellectual Property Office EUTM European Union trade mark EUTM Regulation Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2017 on the European Union trade mark Fees Regulation Commission Regulation (EC) No 2246/2002 of 16 December 2002 on the fees payable to the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) in respect of the registration of Community designs Hague System Hague System for the International Registration of Industrial Designs Implementing Commission Regulation (EC) No 2245/2002 of 21 October 2002 implementing Regulation Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 on Community designs IP Intellectual property IPR Intellectual property rights Legal Review “Legal review on industrial design protection in Europe”, April 2016 Observatory European Observatory on Infringements of Intellectual Property Rights Public Consultation Public consultation “Evaluation of EU legislation on design protection”, 18 December 2018 - 30 April 2019 RCD Registered Community Design Regulation Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 of 12 December 2001 on Community designs UCD Unregistered Community Design WIPO World Intellectual Property Organization 3 1. INTRODUCTION This evaluation aims to provide an in-depth assessment of the overall functioning of the design protection system in the European Union including both EU and national levels. It analyses to what extent the current EU legislation on design protection, consisting of: Directive 98/71/EC on the legal protection of designs1 (‘the Directive’), Regulation (EC) 6/2002 on Community Designs2 (‘the Regulation’), Regulation (EC) 2245/2002 implementing the Community Design Regulation3 (‘the Implementing Regulation’), and Regulation (EC) 2246/2002 on fees payable to the European Union Intellectual Property Office (‘the Fees Regulation’)4, has achieved its objectives
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Saisie-Contrefaçon
    Sabine Agé ÖV-Expertengespräch IP-Rechtsdurchsetzung in Europa Vienna ● 16 January 2017 Bringing evidence of infringement in France after the Enforcement directive: the saisie- contrefaçon and other available tools ÖV-Expertengespräch “IP-Rechtsdurchsetzung in Europa: Gut, besser … und morgen?” Vienna ● 16 January 2017 Sabine AGÉ Avocat Paris Lyon Evidence gathering in France after the IP Enforcement Dir. Overview Provisions of the IP Enforcement Directive (IPED) and of the French Intellectual Property Code (IPC) Overview of the means of evidence used in France Saisie-contrefaçon Protection of confidential information Use of the information gathered during the saisie- contrefaçon Right of information and rendering of accounts 2 Bringing evidence of infringement in France after the Enforcement directive: the saisie-contrefaçon and other available tools 1 Sabine Agé ÖV-Expertengespräch IP-Rechtsdurchsetzung in Europa Vienna ● 16 January 2017 Evidence gathering in France after the IP Enforcement Dir. IPED: a minimum Art. 2 : Scope “Without prejudice to the means which are or may be provided for in Community or national legislation, in so far as those means may be more favourable for rightholders, the measures, procedures and remedies provided for by this Directive shall apply, in accordance with Article 3, to any infringement of intellectual property rights as provided for by Community law and/or by the national law of the Member State concerned.” 3 Evidence gathering in France after the IP Enforcement Dir. IPED: fairness and proportionality Art. 3 : General obligation “1. Member States shall provide for the measures, procedures and remedies necessary to ensure the enforcement of the intellectual property rights covered by this Directive.
    [Show full text]
  • The Integration of International and Domestic Intellectual Property Lawmaking
    Essay: The Integration of International and Domestic Intellectual Property Lawmaking by Graeme B. Dinwoodie* It is increasingly impossible to analyze intellectual property law and policy without reference to international lawmaking. That is not, however, merely because several recent domestic reforms have been prompted by international developments.1 Indeed, because of significant U.S. influence in the formation of contemporary intellectual property treaties, U.S. law has undergone less change than most in order to comply with newly-assumed international obligations. Nor is it simply because, in an era of global trade and technological advances, a state is unable effectively to regulate economic activity on its own. Rather, the need for a broader awareness flows most directly from the integration of the international and domestic lawmaking processes. Consider this historical example. As nations met in Berlin in 1908 to revise the Berne Convention, the United States received an invitation to attend with “full free- dom of action.”2 Instead, the Register of Copyrights attended only as an observer.3 The reason might now seem unduly quaint. Thorvald Solberg, the Register of Copyrights explained to the Conference that the United States found it impracticable to send a delegate authorized to commit it to actual adhesion to the Berne Convention since some of the questions to be discussed there were pending before the Congress and premature action at the Convention might embarrass the legislative branch of the Government.4 Today, in contrast, there is a conscious blending of domestic and international lawmaking. International lawmaking demands attention to Washington; and domestic lawmaking cannot be conducted without regard for what is going on in Brussels, * Associate Professor of Law, University of Cincinnati College of Law; LL.B., Glasgow University, 1987; LL.M., Harvard Law School, 1988.
    [Show full text]
  • Review of the EU Copyright Framework
    Review of the EU copyright framework European Implementation Assessment Review of the EU copyright framework: The implementation, application and effects of the "InfoSoc" Directive (2001/29/EC) and of its related instruments European Implementation Assessment Study In October 2014, the Committee on Legal Affairs (JURI) requested from the European Parliament Research Service (EPRS) an Ex Post Impact Assessment on Directive 2001/29/EC on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society (InfoSoc). This EPRS publication was originally commissioned in the context of JURI's own- initiative implementation report, which was adopted in Plenary in July 2015, Rapporteur Julia Reda MEP. However, it is also relevant to the work of JURI Committees' Working Group on Intellectual Property Rights and Copyright (CWG), chaired by Jean Marie Cavada MEP. Furthermore, this request was made in the wider context of the Commission's review of the EU legislative framework on copyright, and the ensuing legislative proposals, which have been a long time in the planning and which are now expected for the 4th quarter of 2015. The objective of these proposals is to modernise the EU copyright framework, and in particular the InfoSoc Directive, in light of the digital transformation. Accordingly, in response to the JURI request, the Ex-Post Impact Assessment Unit of the European Parliament Research Service decided to produce a "European Implementation Assessment on the review of the EU copyright framework". Implementation reports of EP committees are now routinely accompanied by European Implementation Assessments, drawn up by the Ex-Post Impact Assessment Unit of the Directorate for Impact Assessment and European Added Value, within the European Parliament's Directorate-General for Parliamentary Research Services.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 6: Design and Design Frameworks: Investing in KBC and Economic Performance
    323 | DESIGN AND DESIGN FRAMEWORKS: INVESTMENT IN KBC AND ECONOMIC PERFORMANCE CHAPTER 6. DESIGN AND DESIGN FRAMEWORKS: INVESTMENT IN KBC AND ECONOMIC PERFORMANCE This chapter addresses the nature and the economic impact of design by looking at design-related intellectual property and how businesses protect their knowledge based capital. The chapter reviews the nature and various definitions of design and how design-related IP, specifically registered designs, relates to other formal IP mechanisms such as patents, trademarks, and copyright. It looks at the primary areas of design activity in a subset of OECD countries and investigates the similarities and differences of the constituent design IP regimes as well as the various treaties governing international design IP regulation. The review continues with an examination of how design-related IP functions in comparison to and in conjunction with other formal and informal IP protection mechanisms and what factors motivate firms to choose and appropriate combinations of protection mechanisms. By examining historical patterns of design registrations in a variety of ways, this chapter identifies trends, at the national level, of how firms perceive the importance of design-related IP. Analysis of national origins of registrations in both the European Community and the United States provides an indicator of the activity of those countries’ businesses relative to their proximities to the markets. It explores the existence of possible alternative indicators for design activity and of industry-specific variations across the sample set. The chapter concludes with a review of input and output measures as stated in the limited set of studies that have endeavoured to establish or quantify the value and/or benefit of design and design-related IP.
    [Show full text]
  • Shifting Attitudes to Injunctions in Patent Cases
    ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| EUROPE PATENT INJUNCTIONS ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| Shifting attitudes to injunctions in patent cases Final injunctions for successful parties in patent cases in Europe have generally been seen as automatic. But, as Stephen Bennett , Stanislas Roux-Vaillard and Christian Mammen explain, attitudes are evolving ntil relatively recently, the question of whether a final injunction should be granted to a pat - MINUTE entee who has succeeded at trial has not really READ troubled the courts of Europe. Although the 1 Continental European civil law systems and the Despite their differing common law common law systems have approached the and civil law systems, courts in the Uissue from different starting points, the outcome has been over - UK and continental Europe have whelmingly the same: injunctions are granted to successful pat - tended to grant injunctions to suc - entees at the end of trial as a matter of course. cessful patent owners after a trial as Things are changing and the issue has been receiving a greater a matter of course. However, this po - degree of interest in recent times. This has arisen because of ar - sition has come under pressure guments made by defendants in (predominantly) cases con - thanks to arguments advanced by cerning patents for multi-function devices (mobile
    [Show full text]
  • The Risks of Patent Litigation Within the EU Enforcement Framework – How to Address Abusive Practices
    CRIDES Working Paper Series no. 2/2020 The Risks of Patent Litigation Within the EU Enforcement Framework – How to Address Abusive Practices by Alain Strowel and Amandine Léonard February 2020 Cite as: Alain Strowel and Amandine Léonard, The Risks of Patent Litigation Within the EU Enforcement Framework – How to Address Abusive Practices, CRIDES Working Paper Series no.2/2020 The CRIDES, Centre de recherche interdisciplinaire Droit Entreprise et Société, aims at investigating, on the one hand, the role of law in the enterprise and, on the other hand, the function of the enterprise within society. The centre, based at the Faculty of Law – UCLouvain, is formed by four research groups: the research group in economic law, the research group in intellectual property law, the research group in social law (Atelier SociAL), and the research group in tax law. www.uclouvain.be/fr/instituts-recherche/juri/crides This paper © Alain Strowel and Amandine Léonard 2020 is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/ THE RISKS OF PATENT LITIGATION WITHIN THE EU ENFORCEMENT FRAMEWORK HOW TO ADDRESS ABUSIVE PRACTICES Alain Strowel and Amandine Léonard The Risks of Patent Litigation Within the EU Enforcement Framework The Risks of Patent Litigation Within the EU Enforcement Framework – How to Address Abusive Practices By Alain Strowel and Amandine Léonard* Keywords: Patent litigation, Flexibility and Injunctive Relief, Proportionality, Abuse of Rights, Patent Assertion Entities, Patent Trolls, Article 3(2) Enforcement Directive, Directive (EU) 2004/48 Abstract The debate over the degree of flexibility at the disposal of national courts in Europe to grant, deny, or tailor, injunctive relief in patent litigation seems to be a never-ending story.
    [Show full text]
  • Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights
    ENFORCEMENT OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS Report on the application of Directive 2004/48 BEUC Response Contact: Kostas Rossoglou – [email protected] Ref.: X/2011/041 - 31/03/11 BEUC, the European Consumers’ Organisation 80 rue d’Arlon, 1040 Bruxelles - +32 2 743 15 90 - www.beuc.eu EC register for interest representatives: identification number 9505781573-45 Summary The European Consumers’ Organisation (BEUC) welcomes the opportunity to submit its views on the implementation of the IPR Enforcement Directive 2004/48 and its ongoing review. BEUC is concerned with the approach followed by the European Commission (DG Markt) vis-à-vis Intellectual Property Rights and the proposals outlined in the report regarding the need to revise the current rules. BEUC is strongly opposed to a possible revision that would aim at eroding consumers’ fundamental rights and at establishing disproportionate enforcement mechanisms for a number of reasons. In particular: • The Directive has been implemented by Member States only recently and therefore the feedback on its effectiveness remains limited; • The European Commission has yet to carry out the assessment of the impact of the Directive on innovation and the development of the information society, as required by Article 18 of the Directive 2004/48; • The decision to revise the Directive has been based on the feedback received by right holders’ representatives within the framework of a stakeholder dialogue established by DG Markt without the participation of civil society, academics and data protection authorities;
    [Show full text]
  • En En National Parliament Reasoned Opinion On
    European Parliament 2014-2019 Committee on Legal Affairs 19.5.2016 NATIONAL PARLIAMENT REASONED OPINION ON SUBSIDIARITY Subject: Reasoned opinion of the Estonian Parliament on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 96/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1996 concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services (COM(2016)0128 – C8-0114/2016 – 2016/0070(COD)) Under Article 6 of the Protocol (No 2) on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, national parliaments may, within eight weeks of the date of transmission of a draft legislative act, send the Presidents of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission a reasoned opinion stating why they consider that the draft in question does not comply with the principle of subsidiarity. The Estonian Parliament has sent the attached reasoned opinion on the aforementioned proposal for a directive. Under Parliament’s Rules of Procedure the Committee on Legal Affairs is responsible for compliance with the subsidiarity principle. NP\1095285EN.doc PE582.429v01-00 EN United in diversity EN ANNEX Decision of the Estonian Parliament Reasoned opinion for the presidents of the European Parliament, the European Commission, and the Council of the European Union on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 96/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1996 concerning the posting of workers
    [Show full text]
  • Directive 96/9/Ec
    DIRECTIVE 96/9/EC (Database Directive) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 1996 on the legal protection of databases [Introductory remarks] 1. General. The Database Directive has created a two-tier protection regime for electronic and non-electronic databases. Member States are to pro- tect databases by copyright as intellectual creations (Chapter 2), and provide for a sui generis right (database right) to protect the contents of a database in which the producer has substantially invested (Chapter 3). Both rights may apply cumulatively if the prerequisites for both regimes are fulfilled. The introduction of sui generis protection was considered necessary after supreme courts in the Netherlands and the US had held that copyright does not protect databases reflecting merely economic investment or intellectual effort (see Feist (US) and Van Dale (Netherlands)). Prior to implementation, intellectual property protection for non-original compilations existed in just a few Member States (the United Kingdom, Denmark, Sweden and the Nether- lands). Many Member States provided only for unfair competition remedies, to be applied in special circumstances, or no remedies at all. However, the absence of a harmonized legal framework for unfair competition in Europe necessitated the introduction of a sui generis right to complement copyright protection for databases (recital 6). 2. Harmonization. The Directive is based on arts. 47(2), 55 and 95 of the EC Treaty, and is aimed at harmonizing the legal protection of databases across the European Community. The copyright chapter of the Directive harmonizes the originality standard for databases, which prior to the implementation dif- fered greatly between Member States, especially between countries of the authors’ right tradition where a measure of creativity, personal character or personal imprint was required, and the two Member States (Ireland and the UK) of the British copyright tradition where mere skill and labour sufficed.
    [Show full text]
  • Europarecht Europarecht
    E 21002 F EUROPARECHT EUROPARECHT Heft 4 • Juli – August 2004 4 Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft Heft • Baden-Baden 2004 Inhaltsverzeichnis Aufsätze Prof. Dr. Martin Nettesheim, Tübingen Die Kompetenzordnung im Vertrag über eine Verfassung für Europa ............. 511 Dr. Dr. Wolfgang Durner, München Die Unabhängigkeit nationaler Richter im Binnenmarkt – Zu den Loyalitätspflichten nationaler Gerichte gegenüber der EG-Kommission, insbesondere auf dem Gebiet des Kartellrechts.................... 547 Dr. Jörg Gundel, Berlin Europarechtliche Probleme der Bürgerversicherung.......................................... 575 Rechtsprechung Verpflichtung zur Rücknahme bestandskräftiger Bescheide Urteil des Gerichtshofs vom 13.01.2003 (Vorabentscheidungsersuchen des College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven (Niederlande)), Kühne & Heitz NV/Productschap voor Pluimvee en Eieren, Rs. C-453/00 ...... 590 Bestandskraft staatlicher Verwaltungsakte oder Effektivität des Gemeinschaftsrechts? – Anmerkung zu dem Urteil des EuGH vom 13.01.2003, Rs. C-453/00 Von Prof. Michael Potacs, Klagenfurt................................................................ 595 Eintragung ausländischer Handwerksbetriebe in die Handwerksrolle Urteil des Gerichtshofs vom 11.12.2003 (Vorabentscheidungsersuchen des Amtsgerichts Augsburg), Bruno Schnitzer, Rs. C-215/01 ............................ 603 Verlegung des steuerlichen Wohnsitzes in einen anderen Mitgliedstaat Urteil des Gerichtshofs vom 11.03.2004 (Vorabentscheidungsersuchen des Conseil d‘État), Hughes de Lasteyrie du Saillant/Ministère
    [Show full text]
  • The E-Commerce Directive As the Cornerstone of the Internal Market
    STUDY Requested by the IMCO committee The e-commerce Directive as the cornerstone of the Internal Market Assessment and options for reform Policy Department for Economic, Scientific and Quality of Life Policies Directorate-General for Internal Policies Authors: Alexandre de STREEL, Martin HUSOVEC PE 648.797 - May 2020 EN DO NOT DELETE PAGE BREAK The e-commerce Directive as the cornerstone of the Internal Market Assessment and options for reform Abstract The e-commerce Directive was adopted in 2000 and has played a key role in the development of online platforms in Europe. The study assesses the effects of the Directive as a cornerstone of the Digital Single Market. On that basis, it proposes some reforms for the future Digital Services Act. This document was provided by the Policy Department for Economic, Scientific and Quality of Life Policies at the request of the committee on Internal Market and Consumer Protection (IMCO). This document was requested by the European Parliament's committee on Internal Market and Consumer Protection AUTHORS Alexandre de STREEL, University of Namur and Centre on Regulation in Europe (CERRE) Martin HUSOVEC, London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE) ADMINISTRATORS RESPONSIBLE Mariusz MACIEJEWSKI Christina RATCLIFF EDITORIAL ASSISTANT Irene VERNACOTOLA LINGUISTIC VERSIONS Original: EN ABOUT THE EDITOR Policy departments provide in-house and external expertise to support EP committees and other parliamentary bodies in shaping legislation and exercising democratic scrutiny over EU internal policies.
    [Show full text]
  • Protection of Industrial Design in the US and in the EU – Different Concepts Or Different Labels
    Protection of industrial design in the US and in the EU - Different concepts or different labels? - Lena Schickl University of Washington, Seattle Abstract Industrial designs matter. It is undisputed that design is crucial for the success of a product. That is why companies are using intellectual property laws in an effort to protect their industrial design. This article will describe how intellectual property laws can protect design and compare the design protection regime in the US and the EU. The comparison will show that design protection is significantly different in the US and the EU. Within the EU, further harmonization is needed in order to provide for a strong coherent design protection. The paper will point out that the ubiquitous requirement of non-functionality outside the realm of utility patent law in the US is no longer appropriate in a world where the most successful designs purposefully combine functional and aesthetic elements. Keywords design protection; community design; design patent; trade dress 2 Table of Contents I. Why design protection matters II. Terminology III. Overview: Design Protection Standards in International Treaties A. The Berne Convention B. The Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property C. The TRIPS Agreement D. The Hague Agreement IV. Design Protection in the US A. Design Patent 1. Legislative History 2. Threshold for Protection a. Novelty and Non-Obvious Requirement b. Original and Ornamental 3. Problems related to Patent-like Approach B. Trade Dress Protection C. Copyright Protection D. Interrelationship of the Different Forms of Protection V. Design Protection in the EU A. Background 1. Directive on the Legal Protection of Designs (1998) 2.
    [Show full text]