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 firstname.lastname@example.org.
Who we all are...
TUESDAY, 17 OCTOBER 2017
DOCERAM Opinion due this week plus latest news from MARQUES
Advocate General Saugmandsgaard Øe's Opinion in the closely watched DOCERAM v CeramTec case (C-395/16) is due this Thursday 19th October.
The Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf last year referred two questions to the CJEU:
1. Does a technical function that precludes protection within the meaning of Article 8(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 of 12 December 2001 on Community designs also exist if the design effect is of no significance for the product design, but the (technical) functionality is the sole factor that dictates the design?
2. If the Court answers Question 1 in the affirmative:
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?
Class 99 will publish a post analysing the Opinion after it is published.
MARQUES statement on EPO election and upcoming events
Class 99 readers might also be interested in some recent posts on our sister blog Class 46:
Chair of the MARQUES Council Gregor Versondert congratulates António Campinos on his election as EPO president: read here.
Last chance to register for Question the Trade Mark Judges, plus Meet the Judges in Germany and save the dates for events in Lisbon and Beijing: read here.
Posted by: Blog Administrator @ 04.16
DOCERAM, CJEU, Saugmandsgaard ?e,
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