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...
FRIDAY, 7 OCTOBER 2011
Component designs - the General Court rule on the informed user of a motor
The EU General Court (formerly Court of First Instance) handed down judgments last month on two design invalidation actions brought by Honda against Kwang Yang Motor Co of Taiwan, concerning internal combustion engines for small consumer goods such as lawnmowers or other tools.
At first instance (Decisions ICD 000000990 of 17 Aug 2006 and ICD 000001006 of 30 Aug 2006), OHIM rejected the applications to invalidate, holding that because these were technical goods, there was limited design freedom and hence the designs were different enough from the prior art to avoid invalidity.
On appeal (Honda v Kwang Yang, R 1380/2006-3, [2008] E.C.D.R. 5; also R 1337/2006-3), as in several other cases, the Board took a more expansive view of the scope of the designs. Whilst it was true that these were technical goods, evidence of other products on the market showed that there was nonetheless wide freedom as to how to position and shape the components of the engine. They therefore found the designs invalid.
Finally, some years on, the General Court issued substantially identical decisions T 10/08 and T 11/08. As in most previous design appeals, the GC upheld OHIM's line, finding that the Board of Appeal had been correct in law as to the tests applied.
Perhaps the only finding of substantive interest to me in the case was in relation to the identity of the informed user. These engines were not themselves end-products which a normal consumer would buy. The usual purchaser, as pointed out by the proprietor, was the maker of lawnmowers or other end-products, not the user of those products. The proprietor's motivation was to point out that such a manufacturer might well have quite a lot of technical knowledge of the engine, and be responsive to small differences.
On the other hand, where a product is a component part included in a larger product (as was the case here), according to CDR Art 4, only those parts which are visible in "normal use" by the "end user" are to be judged for novelty and individual character. It might therefore make sense for the "informed user" who judges the question of individual character also to be the "end user", and that is what the Board of Appeal held. A person who buys a lawnmower and mows lawns may well know (and care) much less about those parts of the engine he can see whilst so doing. The General Court upheld the decision of the Board on this point.
Thus, technical components of products are to be judged through the spectacles of the end user of the overall product, not the trade buyer of the component.
It remains to be seen whether the same is true of, say, oil or other containers (see for example R 1516/2007-3) where there is a trade buyer and an end user, but the container is not a "component part" so CDR Art 4 has no impact. Posted by: David Musker @ 11.46
Tags: component, design freedom, engine, honda, individual character, informed user, kwang yang,
Perm-A-Link: https://www.marques.org/blogs/class99?XID=BHA295
Component designs - the General Court rule on the informed user of a motor
At first instance (Decisions ICD 000000990 of 17 Aug 2006 and ICD 000001006 of 30 Aug 2006), OHIM rejected the applications to invalidate, holding that because these were technical goods, there was limited design freedom and hence the designs were different enough from the prior art to avoid invalidity.
On appeal (Honda v Kwang Yang, R 1380/2006-3, [2008] E.C.D.R. 5; also R 1337/2006-3), as in several other cases, the Board took a more expansive view of the scope of the designs. Whilst it was true that these were technical goods, evidence of other products on the market showed that there was nonetheless wide freedom as to how to position and shape the components of the engine. They therefore found the designs invalid.
Finally, some years on, the General Court issued substantially identical decisions T 10/08 and T 11/08. As in most previous design appeals, the GC upheld OHIM's line, finding that the Board of Appeal had been correct in law as to the tests applied.
Perhaps the only finding of substantive interest to me in the case was in relation to the identity of the informed user. These engines were not themselves end-products which a normal consumer would buy. The usual purchaser, as pointed out by the proprietor, was the maker of lawnmowers or other end-products, not the user of those products. The proprietor's motivation was to point out that such a manufacturer might well have quite a lot of technical knowledge of the engine, and be responsive to small differences.
On the other hand, where a product is a component part included in a larger product (as was the case here), according to CDR Art 4, only those parts which are visible in "normal use" by the "end user" are to be judged for novelty and individual character. It might therefore make sense for the "informed user" who judges the question of individual character also to be the "end user", and that is what the Board of Appeal held. A person who buys a lawnmower and mows lawns may well know (and care) much less about those parts of the engine he can see whilst so doing. The General Court upheld the decision of the Board on this point.
Thus, technical components of products are to be judged through the spectacles of the end user of the overall product, not the trade buyer of the component.
It remains to be seen whether the same is true of, say, oil or other containers (see for example R 1516/2007-3) where there is a trade buyer and an end user, but the container is not a "component part" so CDR Art 4 has no impact. Posted by: David Musker @ 11.46
Tags: component, design freedom, engine, honda, individual character, informed user, kwang yang,
Perm-A-Link: https://www.marques.org/blogs/class99?XID=BHA295
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
