CLASS 99
The blog for design law, in Europe and worldwide. This weblog is written by a team of design experts and fans. To contribute, or join us, or for any other reason, email class99@marques.org.
Want to receive Class 99 by email?
Click here subscribe for free.
Click here subscribe for free.
Who we all are...
WEDNESDAY, 15 DECEMBER 2010
When toilet seats make impressions on their users
In Duravit AG v B&N Developing ApS, Duravit accused B&N's BEN Studio-toilet of infringing its design rights in the 'Starck 3' toilet, for which it held a Community design registration. The Danish Maritime and Commercial Court dismissed the infringement claim, awarding costs in favour of the successful defendant.
In the case of both parties' toilets there was (i) a raised rear edge, (ii) a clearly marked band around the outside of the bowl and (iii) square mounting holes in the sides. The design of the band and the mounting holes, and to some extent the design of the raised rear edge, were not functional but were largely the result of the designer's fancy. However, the informed user would have different impressions of the two products since (i) the Starck 3-toilet was much longer than the BEN Studio-toilet, creating the effect of a distinct space between the rear edge and the seat and (ii) Starck had a less sharp band around the outside of the bowl, less significant and different designed cuts for the mounting holes and more rounded edges, producing a narrower and more elegant impression than did BEN. This being so, there was no infringement.
The Court ordered Duravit to pay Dkr50,000 in costs to B&N.
Class 99 would have liked to know more about this case. In particular, in relation to which precedents and what standards did the court determine who was the informed user?
Source: "Court rejects design registration violation claim" by Mads Marstrand-Jørgensen (Norsker & Co, Denmark), published online for International Law Office. Posted by: Blog Administrator @ 22.22
Tags: comparison of products, Denmark,
Perm-A-Link: https://www.marques.org/blogs/class99?XID=BHA199
When toilet seats make impressions on their users
 |
| The Starck 3 |
In the case of both parties' toilets there was (i) a raised rear edge, (ii) a clearly marked band around the outside of the bowl and (iii) square mounting holes in the sides. The design of the band and the mounting holes, and to some extent the design of the raised rear edge, were not functional but were largely the result of the designer's fancy. However, the informed user would have different impressions of the two products since (i) the Starck 3-toilet was much longer than the BEN Studio-toilet, creating the effect of a distinct space between the rear edge and the seat and (ii) Starck had a less sharp band around the outside of the bowl, less significant and different designed cuts for the mounting holes and more rounded edges, producing a narrower and more elegant impression than did BEN. This being so, there was no infringement.
The Court ordered Duravit to pay Dkr50,000 in costs to B&N.
Class 99 would have liked to know more about this case. In particular, in relation to which precedents and what standards did the court determine who was the informed user?
Source: "Court rejects design registration violation claim" by Mads Marstrand-Jørgensen (Norsker & Co, Denmark), published online for International Law Office. Posted by: Blog Administrator @ 22.22
Tags: comparison of products, Denmark,
Perm-A-Link: https://www.marques.org/blogs/class99?XID=BHA199
MARQUES does not guarantee the accuracy of the information in this blog. The views are those of the individual contributors and do not necessarily reflect those of MARQUES. Seek professional advice before action on any information included here.
The Class 99 Archive
