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...
THURSDAY, 21 APRIL 2011
Harvesting designs
This month's Alicante News reports a decision of the Invalidity Division relating to a combined harvester (shown left). The registration (1603382-0001) was declared invalid (ICD 7081) because "every essential feature of the design has been chosen with a view to achieving the best possible technical performance. Those features were therefore solely dictated by the product's technical function (Article 8(1) CDR)".
This decision follows a trend at OHIM on this point - the Board of Appeal this time last year issued a lengthy decision (R211/2008-3) discussing this point, and the purpose of the provision. For those fans of old-old UK design law, this discussion includes mention of Amp v Utilux.
In this author's view this is a worrying direction for OHIM to take - how can advisors consider what was in the mind of the designer? what are the essential features of the design? are these all chosen for technical performance? Posted by: Robert Watson @ 12.26
Tags: Invalidity, technical function,
Perm-A-Link: https://www.marques.org/blogs/class99?XID=BHA226
Harvesting designs
This month's Alicante News reports a decision of the Invalidity Division relating to a combined harvester (shown left). The registration (1603382-0001) was declared invalid (ICD 7081) because "every essential feature of the design has been chosen with a view to achieving the best possible technical performance. Those features were therefore solely dictated by the product's technical function (Article 8(1) CDR)".
This decision follows a trend at OHIM on this point - the Board of Appeal this time last year issued a lengthy decision (R211/2008-3) discussing this point, and the purpose of the provision. For those fans of old-old UK design law, this discussion includes mention of Amp v Utilux.
In this author's view this is a worrying direction for OHIM to take - how can advisors consider what was in the mind of the designer? what are the essential features of the design? are these all chosen for technical performance? Posted by: Robert Watson @ 12.26
Tags: Invalidity, technical function,
Perm-A-Link: https://www.marques.org/blogs/class99?XID=BHA226
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
