Log in

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.

Who we all are...
Blog Administrator
David Musker
Henning Hartwig
Hidde Koenraad
Krystian Maciaszek
Peter Gustav Olson
TUESDAY, 30 AUGUST 2016
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:

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 (OJ 2002 L 3, p. 1) 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?

 

Posted by: David Musker @ 09.13
Tags: RCD, invalidity, function, functionality, CJEU,
Perm-A-Link: https://www.marques.org/blogs/class99?XID=BHA756

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






 

 

 

 

 

 


CONTACT

info@marques.org
+44 (0)116 2747355
POST ADDRESS

9 Cartwright Court, Cartwright Way
Bardon, Leicestershire
LE67 1UE

EMAIL

Ingrid de Groot
Internal Relations Officer
ingrid.de.groot@marques.org
Alessandra Romeo
External Relations Officer
aromeo@marques.org
James Nurton
Newsletter Editor
editor@marques.org
Robert Harrison
Webmaster
robertharrison@marques.org
BLOGS

Signup for our blogs.
Headlines delivered to your inbox