Laurens Kamp opened the event and welcomed guests to the Amsterdam offices of Simmons & Simmons LLP.  David Stone, who was wearing multiple hats as a member of the board of directors of INTA, partner at Simmons & Simmons, and speaker at the roundtable, then welcomed people on behalf of INTA.  Hidde Koenraad kicked off the substantive session by giving an overview of the possibilities under trade mark law to protect product appearance (including topical issues such as whether the absolute grounds for exclusion of shape marks apply to 2D shapes or only 3D shapes, and the scope of the substantial value exclusion).  David Stone then discussed the different opportunities provided by design law and consequential filing strategies (generally: file as many variations and separate elements as budget permits).

The audience then divided into groups and were given real products in need of IP protection (thanks to all those who assisted with replacing products intemperately destroyed by the Royal Mail).  Groups had to protect the appearance of the product they were given by filing two trade marks and two registered designs.  After a short coffee break, lookalike products were revealed and the groups were able to see whether their filing strategy was sufficient to protect their product against the lookalike (success rates were varied!).  The greatest debate arose in connection with The Coca-Cola Company's 2009 victory against Yoplait in relation to RCD 389101-1 for aluminium bottles (The Coca-Cola Company v Yoplait France; Cour D'Appel de Paris, 27 May 2009; Case FR 09 00283).  The case demonstrated the ability of design law to provide a remedy despite different branding, and the importance of identifying the innovative concept behind a new product (in this case a bottle made from aluminium).

The session concluded with further updates from Hidde Koenraad and David Stone on recent developments in trade mark and design law respectively.  The design update generated an interesting discussion about what the informed user did and did not assess (overall impression v. everything else e.g. technical function) and who they were and were not (a legal construct v. a child in the approximate age range of 5 to 10).  After the event guests retired to the handy on-premises bar.