Limitations in the Field of Designs

Article
  • 64 Downloads

Abstract

Considering the weight given to exceptions and limitations in current intellectual property research, this paper endeavours to explore sui generis design rights from the standpoint of limitations to their scope of protection. This paper focuses on the current EU framework with insights from its travaux préparatoires, comparing it to several other legislations and international instruments. A primary assessment shows that these limitations have a reduced interference with the scope of protection, and stem from a copyright or patent approach to the hybrid subject matter of designs. This paper further explores situations where the interaction between the scope of design protection and its limitations to design rights triggers conflicts. It examines in particular the recent autonomous interpretation by the ECJ of the limitation authorising reproduction for the purpose of citation.

Keywords

Design EU law Limitations Exceptions Scope of protection 

References

Journals

  1. Beier FK, Haertel K, Levin M, Kur A (1991) Proposal of the Max Planck Institute for a European Design Law. IIC 22(4):441–594Google Scholar
  2. Bogsch A (1959) Report adopted by the Study Group on the international protection of works of applied art, designs and models. Paris, Unesco House, 20–23 April 1959, SGD/VII (rev.)Google Scholar
  3. Burstein S (2016) The patented design. Tenn Law Rev 83:161Google Scholar
  4. Catala P (1983) Ebauche d’une théorie juridique de l’information. Informatica e diritto, IX Annata IX(1):15–31Google Scholar
  5. Derclaye E, Taylor T (2015a) Happy IP: replacing the law and economics justification for intellectual property rights with a well-being approach. EIPR 37(4):197–209Google Scholar
  6. Derclaye E, Taylor T (2015b) Happy IP: aligning intellectual property rights with well-being. IPQ 1:1–14Google Scholar
  7. Dreier T (2010) Limitations: the centrepiece of copyright in distress—an introduction. JIPITEC 1:50Google Scholar
  8. Fischman Afori O (2010) The role of the non-functionality requirement in design law. Fordham Intell Prop Media Ent LJ 20:847Google Scholar
  9. Galindo-Rueda F, Millot V (2015) Measuring design and its role in innovation. OECD Science, Technology and Industry Working Papers 1. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5js7p6lj6zq6-en
  10. Geiger C (2004) De la nature juridique des limites au droit d’auteur. Propr Intell 13:882Google Scholar
  11. Geiger C (2006) “Constitutionalising” intellectual property law? The influence of fundamental rights on intellectual property in the european union. IIC 37(4):371–406Google Scholar
  12. Geiger C (2009) Promoting creativity through copyright limitations: reflections on the concept of exclusivity in copyright law. Vand J Entertain Technol Law 12:515–548Google Scholar
  13. Geiger C, Griffiths J, Senftleben M, Bently L, Xalabarder R (2015) Limitations and Exceptions as Key Elements of the Legal Framework for Copyright in the European Union—Opinion of the European Copyright Society on the Judgment of the CJEU in Case C-201/13 Deckmyn. IIC 46(1):93–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gerdau De Borja A (2008) Exceptions to design rights: the potential impact of Article 26(2) TRIPS. EIPR 30(12):500–508Google Scholar
  15. Guibault L (2011) The Netherlands: Darfurnica, Miffy and the right to parody. JIPITEC 3:236Google Scholar
  16. Hartwig H (2016) “What you see is what you get”—Erzeugnisangabe und Schutzumfang im Geschmacksmusterrecht. GRUR 882 et seqGoogle Scholar
  17. Klawitter C (2012) Werbung mit fremden Bidern: Für eine geschmacksterspeczifische Auslegung des Zitatrechts bei der Abbildung geschützter Erzeugnisse Dritter GRUR-Prax 1Google Scholar
  18. Kur A (1993) The Green Paper’s approach—what’s wrong with it? EIPR 15(10):374–378Google Scholar
  19. Kurz C (2014) Kann ein Geschmacksmuster beschreibend benutzt warden und wo kann man darüber streinte? KSzW. 1:3–9Google Scholar
  20. McCutcheon J (2015) Designs, Parody and artistic expression—a comparative perspective of Plesner v. University of Western Australia-Faculty of Law Research Paper, Louis Vuitton, p 15Google Scholar
  21. Mikalsen R (2016) The scope of the Paris Convention’s temporary presence exception from patent infringement for visiting foreign vessels. JIPLP 11(8):612–618Google Scholar
  22. Mouron P (2013) La parodie, nouvelle limite externe au droit des dessins et modèles?. RLDI 98:72–78Google Scholar
  23. Passa J (2011) La fonction du droit des dessins et modèles. RLDA 63:82–86Google Scholar
  24. Raahauge KM (2015) The design concept—anything, everything, something and nothing. Artifact 3(4):1.1–1.2. https://scholarworks.iu.edu/journals/index.php/artifact/
  25. Reichman J (1994) Legal hybrids between the patent and copyright paradigms. Columbia Law Rev 94(8):2432–2558CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Schovsbo J, Ramsey L (2013) Mechanisms for limiting trade mark rights to further competition and free speech. IIC 44:671–700CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Stone D (2016) Trunki—how did things go so wrong? JIPLP 11(9):662–681Google Scholar
  28. Valentin A (2015) New ruling determines design rights’ scope of protection. http://en.horten.dk/News/2015/September/New-ruling-determines-design-rights-scope-of-protection. Accessed 14 July 2017

Books

  1. Bently L, Sherman B (2014) Intellectual property law, 4th edn. OUP, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bodenhausen GHC (1968) Guide to the application of the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property. BIRPI, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  3. Bürdek BE (2005) Design: history, theory and practice of product design. Birkhäuser, BaselGoogle Scholar
  4. Eichman/Von Falckenstein/Kühne (2015) Designgesetz, 5th edn. C.H. Beck, MunichGoogle Scholar
  5. Eichmann H, Kur A (eds) (2016) Designrecht, 2nd edn. Nomos, Baden BadenGoogle Scholar
  6. Gervais D (2012) The TRIPS Agreement, drafting history and analysis, 4th edn. Sweet & Maxwell, LondonGoogle Scholar
  7. Ginsburg J, Ricketson S (2006) International copyright and neighbouring rights, vol 1. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  8. Gotzen F (ed) (1992) The Green Paper on the legal protection of industrial design. Story-Scentia, Kluwer, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  9. Hara K (2011) Designing design. Lars Müller Publishers, BadenGoogle Scholar
  10. Kur A, Levin M (eds) (2011) Intellectual property in a fair world trade system—proposals for reform of TRIPS. Edward Elgar, CheltenhamGoogle Scholar
  11. Levin M (1984) Formskydd. LiberFörlag, StockholmGoogle Scholar
  12. Raynard J, Py E, Tréfigny P (2016) Droit de la propriété industrielle. LexisNexis, ParisGoogle Scholar
  13. UNCTAD-ICTSD (2005) Resource book on TRIPS and development. Cambridge University Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Vial S (2015) Le design. Presses universitaires de France, Que sais-je? ParisGoogle Scholar

Book Chapters

  1. Bisson G (2015) The Hague system today and tomorrow. In: De Werra J (ed) Design law. Schulthess, Genève, pp 18–39Google Scholar
  2. Firth A (2009) Repairs, interconnections, and consumer welfare in the field of design. In: Heath C, Kamperman Sanders A (eds) Spares, repairs and intellectual property rights. Kluwer Law International, Alphen aan den Rijn, pp 147–180Google Scholar
  3. Gurry F (2016) Developments in the international intellectual property system. In: Geiger C (ed) The intellectual property system in a time of change: European and international perspectives. LexisNexis, CEIPI no 64, Paris, pp 57–65Google Scholar
  4. Kur A (1996) TRIPS and design protection. In: Beier FR, Schricker G (eds) From Gatt to TRIPS—the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, IIC Studies no 18. VCH, Weinheim, pp 141–159Google Scholar
  5. Kur A (2001) Exceptions to protection where copyright and trademarks overlap. In: Ginsburg J, Besek M (eds) Adjuncts and alternatives to copyright. ALAI-USA, New York, pp 594 et seqGoogle Scholar
  6. Kur A (2008a) Cumulation of intellectual property rights pertaining to product shapes. In: Ghidini G, Genovesi LM (eds) Intellectual property and market power: ATRIP papers 2006–2007. Eudeba, Buenos Aires, pp 613–632Google Scholar
  7. Kur A (2008b) Limiting IP protection for competition policy reasons—a case study based on the EU spare-parts-design discussion. In: Drexl J (ed) Research handbook on intellectual property & competition law. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 313–345Google Scholar
  8. Kur A (2011) Limitations and exceptions under the three-step test—how much room to walk the middle ground. In: Kur A, Levin M (eds) Intellectual property rights in a fair world system, proposals for a reform of TRIPS. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 208–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Ohlgart D (1996) Commentary. In: Franzosi M (ed) European design protection: commentary to directive and regulation proposals. Kluwer Law International, Alphen aan den Rijn, pp 142–145Google Scholar
  10. Senftleben M (2011) Overprotection and protection overlaps in intellectual property law—the need for horizontal fair use defences. In: Kur A, Mizaras V (eds) The structure of intellectual property law: can one size fit all?. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 136–181Google Scholar
  11. Senftleben M (2015) Free signs and free use: how to offer room for freedom of expression within the trademark system. In: Geiger C (ed) Research handbook on human rights and intellectual property. Edward Elgar, Northampton, p 354 et seqGoogle Scholar
  12. Suthersanen U (2004) Harmonising design law in a free trade area: jurisprudential lessons from the E.U. and the U.S. In: Antons C, Blakeney M, Heath C (eds) Intellectual property harmonisation within ASEAN and APEC. Kluwer, Aalphen an den Rijn, pp 57–91Google Scholar

Case-law

  1. District Court of the Hague, May 4, 2011, Nadia Plesner Joensen/Louis Vuitton Malletier SA, IER 2011/39 (obs. Sakulin W)Google Scholar
  2. District Court Düsseldorf, 26.09.2013, 14c O 143/11 UGoogle Scholar
  3. District Court Düsseldorf, 26.09.2013, 14c O 251/10 UGoogle Scholar
  4. Eastern High Court (Demark), Jan. 29, 2016, Sangenic International Limited v. Lamico ApS, B-214515Google Scholar
  5. ECJ, 238/87, AB Volvo & Erik Veng, 5 Oct. 1988Google Scholar
  6. ECJ, 53/87, CICRA et al. v. Renault, 5 Oct. 1988Google Scholar
  7. ECJ, C-23/99, Commission c/France, 26 Sept. 2000Google Scholar
  8. ECJ, C–228/03, Gillette Company and Gillette Group Finland, 17 March 2005Google Scholar
  9. ECJ, Grand Chamber, joined cases C-403/08 and C-429/08, Football Association Premier League et a. v. QC Leisure et a. and Karen Murphy v. Media Protection Services Ltd, 4 Oct. 2011Google Scholar
  10. ECJ, C–145/10, Painer, 1 Dec. 2011Google Scholar
  11. ECJ, Grand Chamber, C-201/13, Johan Deckmyn, Vrijheidsfonds VZW, Helena Vandersteen et a., 3 Sept. 2014Google Scholar
  12. ECJ Opinion of the Advocate General, joined cases C-24/16 and C-25/16, Nintendo Co. Ltd/BigBen Interactive GmbH, Big Ben Interactive SA, 1 March 2017Google Scholar
  13. ECJ, joined cases C-24/16 and C-25/16, Nintendo Co. Ltd/BigBen Interactive GmbH, Big Ben Interactive SA, 27 Sept. 2017Google Scholar
  14. German Supreme Court, April 7, 2011—I ZR 56/09—ICE, GRUR 2011, 1117; Bardhele Pagenberg IP Report 2011 V, 28Google Scholar
  15. Paris Court of Appeal, pôle 5, ch. 2, 27 Nov. 2015, S.A.S. Piganiol c/S.A.S. Publicis Conseil et al., no 13/21612, JurisData no 2015-029315; Propr. Industr. no 2, févr. 2016, comm. 13, Greffe PGoogle Scholar
  16. Paris Court of Appeal, pôle 5, ch. 2, Sept. 21, 2012, SCPE/SARL Jalons Éd. et SARL Cogenor. D. 2013, 1924, obs. Galloux JCGoogle Scholar
  17. Paris District Court, Ordonnance en référé, March 25 2008Google Scholar
  18. WTO Panel report, March 17, 2000, WT/DS114/R (CanadaPatent Protection for Pharmaceutical Products)Google Scholar
  19. WTO Panel report, June 15, 2000, WT/DS160/R (USASection 110(5) of the US Copyright Act)Google Scholar
  20. WTO Panel report, March 15, 2005, WT/DS174/R (ECProtection of Trademarks and Geographical Indications for Agricultural Products and Foodstuffs)Google Scholar

Other

  1. BIRPI/WIPO (1970) Model Law for Developing Countries on Industrial Designs. GenevaGoogle Scholar
  2. Europe Economics (2015) The economic review of industrial design in Europe—final report, MARKT/2013/064//D2/ST/OPGoogle Scholar
  3. 2016 Hague Yearly Review, International Registration of Industrial Designs, WIPO/PUB/930/2016, Economics and Statistics Series, WIPO, Geneva, 2017Google Scholar
  4. Green Paper on the Legal Protection of Industrial Design (1990) Working document of the services of the Commission. III/F/5131/91-EN, June 1990Google Scholar
  5. Legal Review on Industrial Design Protection in Europe (2016) MARKT2014/083/D. Publications Office of the European Union, LuxembourgGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition, Munich 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Associated researcher at ILITIPNational Research University Higher School of Economics, Russian FederationMoscowRussia
  2. 2.Doctoral candidate at CEIPIUniversity of StrasbourgStrasbourgFrance

Personalised recommendations