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.
Click here subscribe for free.
Who we all are...
Functionality - Doceram Pins Hopes on Court of Justice
This space-age (and, to my eye, strangely attractive) shape was registered, in several variants, as RCD 242730-0001 to -0017 in 2004 by DOCERAM, a German company making technical ceramics. It is apparently a weld centering pin, which according to their literature "enables optimal centering of the welding nut over the sheet hole". DOCERAM appear to have sued someone, who counterclaimed for invalidation, in the District Court (LG) of Düsseldorf. The appeal (OLG Düsseldorf 7 July 2015, I-20 U 124/15 (Schweisszentrierstiften- DOCERAM) considered whether the design was invalid as being dictated by the technical function of the product. The Court referred to various cases and books, including AMP v Utilux [1972] RPC 103 and OHIM's lead case, R 690/2007-3 Lindner Recyclingtech v Franssons Verkstader (Chaff Cutters) [2010] ECDR 1, but decided to refer the issue to the Court of Justice of the EU. Their questions, reproduced below, appear to be essentially a request to review the Chaff Cutters decision - something which should be welcomed by all, as the issue is treated differently across the various Community Design courts. However, in view of the importance of the issue to the design system, we recommend that interested parties ensure that the Court has the benefit of their opinions and experience in reaching their decision. The reference is number C-395/16 and the questions are:
From which point of view is it to be assessed whether the individual design features of a product have been chosen solely on the basis of considerations of functionality? Is an ‘objective observer’ required and, if so, how is such an observer to be defined?
Posted by: David Musker @ 09.13
Tags: RCD, invalidity, function, functionality, CJEU,
Perm-A-Link: https://www.marques.org/blogs/class99?XID=BHA756