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...
TUESDAY, 4 DECEMBER 2012
OHIM amends amendment guidelines
OHIM's Alicante News brings word of forthcoming changes to the Examination Manual. That of most interest is probably the practice on pictures which are considered objectionable. It had been the case that these could be deleted or substituted. The new practice will apparently remove the possibility of deletion as this would change the identity of the design.
It appears to us that this is not always the case. For example, a design consisting of the usual six orthogonal views (front, back, top, bottom, left, right) is usually fully represented without the addition of an isometric view (although that addition is usually desirable for those who don't dream in 3D), so the removal of a formally defective isometric view ought not to change the design. Likewise, an isometric view may remove the need for one of the orthogonal views if one side is fully seen in perspective.
It is also unclear whether the same logic would apply to priority claims. OHIM only allows 7 views but it is not uncommon for a priority application elsewhere to include a larger number. If Community Design X represented in 6 views has a different identity to Community Design X represented in 7 views for amendment purposes, can Community Design X in 7 views claim priority from foreign Design Y represented in 9 views? And what of novelty - does adding or removing a view automatically create a novel design? I therefore think the answer has to be - it depends on what the views show, and not just on their number. Let's see whether the Guidelines say the same. Posted by: David Musker @ 13.15
Tags: amendment, Examination, Guidelines, OHIM, Registered Community design, representations, views,
Perm-A-Link: https://www.marques.org/blogs/class99?XID=BHA415
OHIM amends amendment guidelines
It appears to us that this is not always the case. For example, a design consisting of the usual six orthogonal views (front, back, top, bottom, left, right) is usually fully represented without the addition of an isometric view (although that addition is usually desirable for those who don't dream in 3D), so the removal of a formally defective isometric view ought not to change the design. Likewise, an isometric view may remove the need for one of the orthogonal views if one side is fully seen in perspective.
It is also unclear whether the same logic would apply to priority claims. OHIM only allows 7 views but it is not uncommon for a priority application elsewhere to include a larger number. If Community Design X represented in 6 views has a different identity to Community Design X represented in 7 views for amendment purposes, can Community Design X in 7 views claim priority from foreign Design Y represented in 9 views? And what of novelty - does adding or removing a view automatically create a novel design? I therefore think the answer has to be - it depends on what the views show, and not just on their number. Let's see whether the Guidelines say the same. Posted by: David Musker @ 13.15
Tags: amendment, Examination, Guidelines, OHIM, Registered Community design, representations, views,
Perm-A-Link: https://www.marques.org/blogs/class99?XID=BHA415
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
