This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
In it, the CJEU confirmed that an Unregistered Community Design under Regulation 6/2002 may vest in a partial design (which the CJEU defines as “a section of the ‘whole’ that is the product”). In August, Advocate General (AG) Øe advised the Court to answer that partial designs may indeed be protected under UCD rights.
Just before closing down for summer vacation, Advocate General (AG) Saugmandsgaard Øe issued his Opinion in Case C-123/20 concerning the protectability of ‘partial designs’ (design rights for part of a product) as an unregistered Community design right.
In this ruling, which originated from a design invalidity claim before the EUIPO (OHIM, as it was known then), the Court of Justice construed the meaning of the ‘informed user’. Under EU design law, the ‘informed user’ is the standard on the basis of which it examines both the validity and the infringement of a design.
While awaiting for the new EU Design Directive (expected in 2022 ), this Kat decided to look back at one of the current Directive’s most discussed provisions: functional designs. 8(1) of Regulation 6/2002), “a design right shall not subsist in features of appearance of a product which are solely dictated by its technical function.”
In a recent decision, the Third Board of Appeal (BoA) of the EUIPO found that a design for heated socks, pictured to the lower right, is not necessarily functional (case R 878/2022-3 ). Background Design owner, Lenz, sells products known as “ heated socks ”. In 2012, Lenz registered the Community design, shown to the right.
It is a common misconception, particularly among multinational businesses, that the European design protection system is nearly identical to the design patent system in the United States. In fact, this is not the case: The EU design system has significant advantages as well as certain disadvantages compared to the US system.
While this Kat was inquiring about the role of alternative designs in examination of Art. 8(1) Regulation 6/2002, the Düsseldorf Higher Regional Court (OLG Düsseldorf) sent a referral to the CJEU on just this issue ( C-684/21 ). 8(1) Regulation 6/2002. The case goes as follows.
Whether or not these types of products or components can be protected as industrial designs must be addressed case by case. The legal protection of industrial designs mainly covers aesthetics, the specific shape or aesthetic configuration of a product. of Regulation 6/2002. of Regulation 6/2002). Article 4.3
Three years after the 2020 amendments to the Geographical Indication Rules, 2002 , the Ministry of Commerce and Industry (MoCI) published the 2023 draft amendments on October 20, inviting objections and suggestions from the relevant stakeholders.
A Kat awaiting weekly IP updates Designs Katfriend Henning Hartwig reviewed the interpretation of Articles 6 and 14 of Regulation 6/2002 (CDR). Marcel Pemsel looked into a recent decision of the German Supreme Court concerning copyright protection for two Birkenstock sandal designs. The survey closes on 1 April 2025.
The system is designed to be navigable by non-lawyers and, instead of a judge and/or jury, the case is heard by a panel of three officers and the entire process is held online. Seven of the registrations took place before the year 2002, making them older than 20 years. Before 2002 7 2002-2020 42 2020/2021 19 2022 15.
4(2) Design Regulation. The decision in R2843/2019-3 concerned an invalidity application brought against Community design No 1 292 122-0001. The design (to the right) depicts an electrode for a plasma- cutting torch and is registered for “Welding torches (part of -)”. In turn, the design holder argued that Art.
The sentencing doesn’t come as a surprise, as Kanda pleaded guilty to three charges; violating the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988, the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, and Fraud Act 2006.
By decision of 24 January 2024 ( T-537/22 ), the General Court of the European Union (GC) confirmed the validity of the Registered Community Design (RCD) by Lego A/S (Lego) “Building blocks from a toy building set” by stating that an RCD is invalid only if all its features are excluded from protection. On 2 February 2010 Lego obtained RCD No.
Reports indicated that two people – a 41-year-old man and a 30-year-old woman – had been arrested under suspicion of offenses under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 and money laundering. To serve half sentence in custody with the remainder served on license. Confiscation Under Proceeds of Crime Act.
Designs are meant to protect the appearance of a product or a part thereof. 6/2002 (‘Design Regulation’) stipulates:-- A Community design shall not subsist in features of appearance of a product which are solely dictated by its technical function. The existence of other design alternatives was considered irrelevant.
They too have a notice and takedown regime, part of their Electronic Communications and Transactions Act of 2002 (PDF), but the implementation of it is very different from that of the United States or the European Union. Find the Host’s Designated Agent: Hosts designate an agent to receive copyright notices on their behalf.
Under the Community Design Regulation (EC 6/2002), an owner of a Community design right has several options when bringing an infringement case. As a primary rule, article 88(1) stipulates that the Community design courts shall apply the provisions of the Regulation on the matters covered thereby.
This Kat has found a recent decision issued by the Paris Court of Appeal in a dispute over the allegedly unlawful reproduction of a t-shirt design. This ruling was an opportunity for the court to reiterate that a garment can be protected by copyright and design law. Opull’ence appealed.
Turnitin launched in 2000, Audible Magic began providing a similar service for audio files in 2002 and YouTube’s Content ID System debuted in 2007. The various anti-copying tools we have available were designed to solve a very specific problem that existed on the internet over 20 years ago. Bottom Line.
A famous Kat Facts Puma SE filed an application to register a Community design on 26 July 2016. The design represents different views of a trainer, falling within class 02-04 of the Locarno Agreement. Then the Court ruled on the breach of Article 7(1) of Regulation 6/2002. Handelsmaatschappij J.
Today, April 27, is International Design Day, an event, which seeks to recognize the value of design in society and business. On this significant date, we take the opportunity to look at a recent judgment by the General Court of the European Union (EGC) that will allow companies to extend the protection of a design by twelve months.
There has been quite a bit of debate around the registrability of GUIs under industrial design law in India. While the Designs Act, 2002, recognised protection for GUIs, the Indian Patents Office has been reluctant to grant registration to GUIs. By: International Lawyers Network
Famous for its easily-recognizable design of breathable and water-friendly clogs, Crocs was founded in 2002 in the US by three college friends who enjoyed sailing. Released on October 21, 2022, this case decision concerned the validity of the industrial design rights for Crocs’ MAMMOTH line of fleece clogs (“939 Design”).
A Registered Community Design (‘RCD’) enjoys protection only if it is new and has individual character vis-à-vis designs disclosed prior to its filing or priority date ( Art. 4(1), 7 of Regulation 6/2002 , ‘Design Regulation’). 7(1) Design Regulation ). 7(1) Design Regulation ).
This Kat’s attention has recently been drawn to a Kat-focused ruling: that of design and copyright protection of a cat litter tray. Resolved by the first instance Community design court in Brussels, this case tackled issues such as forum shopping and cumulation of rights in a work of applied art (case A/22/02872 ). Pursuant to Arts.
Earlier this fall the Federal Court of Canada issued a rare decision concerning industrial design infringement and reaffirmed several points of law favouring holders of industrial design registrations in Canada seeking to enforce their rights. By: Smart & Biggar
Here, the court found that the patent provided “no details” about specific embodiments beyond “an alphanumeric designation, SJ25C1, as the source”, and no “general characteristics that would allow” the binding portion to operate. Provisional App: 52334_60383872 ].
The ECJ has ruled on the conditions in which the appearance of a part of a product (or “partial design”) may be protected as an unregistered Community design. The German court had dismissed the claims on the ground that two of the alleged design rights did not arise, and the third was not infringed.
The European Court of Justice (ECJ) recently ruled on the possibility of claiming protection for a part of a product or a component part of a complex product as an unregistered Community design. Ferrari filed an appeal on a point of law before the German Federal Court of Justice ( Bundesgerichtshof ). The decision of the ECJ.
Here they are in case you missed them: TRADE MARKS Katfriend Marijus Dingilevskis posted on a recent decision of the Lithuanian Supreme Court, which states that even if a trade mark has been registered in the international register for 40 years, this is no guarantee that a subsequent national designation will be also registered.
However, this 2002 decision did not define whether AI technology can be an inventor. United Kingdom: Thaler v The Comptroller-General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks [2020] EWHC 2412 (Pat). Canada: Apotex Inc v Wellcome Foundation Ltd [2002] 4 SCR 153. In light of the recent court decision of Thaler v Hirshfeld et al.
There has been quite a bit of debate around the registrability of GUIs under industrial design law in India. While the Designs Act, 2002, recognised protection for GUIs, the Indian Patents Office has been reluctant to grant registration to GUIs. Vs. The Controller of Patents and Designs and Anr. [1]
The trade mark application was filed by an Australian fashion designer, who was born Katie Jane Perry but has also gone by the names Katie Howell and Katie Taylor (called "Ms Taylor" in the judgment). Katy Perry is a famous American pop artist, who was born Katheryn Hudson, but adopted the stage name Katy Perry in 2002.
Law relating to intellectual property (A complete comprehensive material on intellectual property covering acts, rules, conventions, treaties, agreements, case-Law and much more) [Google Scholar] New Delhi: Department of Science and Technology (DST), Government of India; 2002. New York: Longman; 2002. The Design Act.
Like the United States, China offers protection for 2D and 3D designs of products and packaging, which is often known by U.S. Before diving into details, the chart below illustrates how 2D and 3D designs are protected as different IP rights in China. Protection of 2D Designs. Protection of 3D Designs. Trademark.
Normal 0 false 21 false false false DE X-NONE HE A design for a component part of a complex product can enjoy design protection in the EU only if the component part remains visible during normal use of the complex product ( Art. 4(2)(a) of Regulation 6/2002 , ‘Design Regulation’). 3(c) Design Regulation ).
Under Section 297A(a) of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, both men admitted “Selling, Distributing Or Letting For Hire Or Exposing For Sale Or Hire An Unauthorized Decoder.” McVicker further admitted possessing criminal property, contrary to Section 329 (1)(c) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.
Meanwhile, in the UK, computer-generated works receive copyright protection, but the law designates the author as “the person by whom the arrangements necessary for the creation of the work are undertaken”, implying a necessary human element as well for copyright ownership. In Apotex Inc v Wellcome Foundation.,
90369855 (June 24, 2002) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Peter W. With respect to the marks, the Board found that the "relatively modest geometric designs in the applied-for mark and cited mark do not significantly contribute to the mark’s commercial impression, but rather are subordinate to the letters 'KR' in both marks."
In 2002, Mark Chester, an engineer at Koso America, Inc. (“Koso”), participated in a project to create a new valve for a hydraulic actuator. REXA argued that Chester and MEA’s actuator incorporated and disclosed confidential designs contained within the prototype Koso developed in 2002. ” REXA, Inc.
Image from here Analysing the Riyadh Design Law Treaty in the Indian Context After nearly two decades of negotiations, WIPO Member States have adopted the Design Law Treaty (DLT). In this post by Kartikeya S., he discusses the key points from the treaty.
Fish Principals Craig Deutsch , Jennifer Huang , and Grace Kim , discuss challenging design patents at the PTAB in their Law360 Expert Analysis article. Challenging design patents at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board is difficult — nearly two-thirds of petitions directed to design patents have been denied institution.
The first charge alleges offenses under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act (CDPA) 1988, specifically section 296ZB(2)(a). The second charge relates to an alleged offense under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, specifically section 329(1). Charge Under the Proceeds of Crime Act.
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 9,000+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
Let's personalize your content