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...
EUIPO Guidelines, Hague Agreement and Mamas and Papas
Class 99 summarises some recent developments for design practitioners:
EUIPO Guidelines on RCDs
New Guidelines for Examination of Registered Community Designs at the EUIPO entered into force on 1 October.
The changes since the last version can be seen in the PDF versions of the Guidelines for Examination of Applications for RCDs and the Guidelines for Examination of Design Invalidity Applications.
Hague Agreement developments
As of 5 November, Hague System users can designate Canada in an international design application, meaning the total number of contracting parties that can be designated is now 69.
More information on Canada’s accession is in Information Notice 2018/7. The e-filing interface can be used to file applications.
In addition, San Marino has acceded to the Geneva Act of the Hague Agreement. It will enter into force in San Marion on 26 January 2019. More information is available in Hague Notification No. 136.
Mamas and Papas judgment
The EU General Court published its judgment in Case T-672/17 Mamas and Papas Ltd v EUIPO/Jane Wall-Budden on 23 October.
The case concerns Budden’s RCD filed on 18 August 2010, which is represented by seven coloured views (one of which is pictured). The design is intended to be incorporated into cot bumpers.
Mamas and Papas Ltd filed a declaration of invalidity asserting (1) it lacked novelty and individual character and (2) it differed from the state of the art only in features which are solely dictated by its technical function. In support of this, Mamas and Papas submitted images of an earlier design, Bumpster I.
The Invalidity Division rejected these arguments, as did the Board of Appeal.
The General Court upheld the BoA decision, finding that it was not proven that an earlier design which is identical or produces a similar overall impression had been made available to the public before the filing of the application.
Mamas and Papas had not adduced “any solid, objective evidence of effective disclosure of the earlier design on the market”. In particular, photos of the Bumpster I product did not indicate the date, place or means of disclosure.
If you would like to publish a post on these or any other design-related developments on Class 99, please contact the MARQUES editor. We welcome new contributors!
Posted by: Blog Administrator @ 13.56Tags: EUIPO Guidelines, Hague Agreement, Mamas and Papas,
Perm-A-Link: https://www.marques.org/blogs/class99?XID=BHA859