Abstract
The Nordic countries adopted similar Designs Acts in the 1970s and these Acts remained in place until the European Union (EU)-harmonized design regime took over in the early 2000s. This chapter first describes the background to the pan-Nordic Acts and then moves on to point out how they generally failed to live up to the expectations of the legislators in providing a tailor made protection system for the ‘modern’ functional (‘Scandinavian’) designs that had emerged from the 1950s. Next, the chapter turns to the current protection in the Nordic countries under the EU regime. It is shown how designers in some of the Nordic countries have more or less abandoned the national system based on the national Design Acts and instead have turned to the EU Design Regulation. It is also argued that the national (Danish) courts are becoming better at following the guidance from the Court of Justice of the European Union and are coming out of the shadows of the pan-Nordic Acts and into the harmonized EU-based design system. The final part uses the Nordic experiences to reflect on the recommendations in the recent Evaluation of EU Legislation on Design Protection.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
This chapter is based on a paper presented at a seminar on design law in Scandinavia at Waseda University, Tokyo Japan, in January 2020. Thanks to Christoph Rademacher, Faculty of Law, Waseda University and to Tsukasa Aso, Faculty of Design, Kyushu University for arranging the seminar and to the participants.
- 2.
Directive 98/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 1998 on the legal protection of designs, (1998) OJ L 289/28 (EU Design Directive).
- 3.
The EEA Agreement is from 1992 and extends the EU single market to the non-EU countries who are parties to the Agreement. EEA-countries are bound to observe the EU rules which affect the internal market including the EU directives and regulations in the field of intellectual property rights.
- 4.
COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 6/2002 of 12 December 2001 on Community designs, [2002] OJ L 3, 1–24 (EU Design Regulation).
- 5.
- 6.
See Derclaye (2018).
- 7.
See Chapter 17 by Professor Stina Teilmann-Lock, and for the development in law, see Schovsbo and Rosenmeier (2018) with references, including to three decisions from the Supreme Court reported in Ugeskrift for Retsvæsen (1935), 692, 695 and 699, which denied protection to Mart Stam and Marcel Breuer’s ‘Freischwinger’ chairs and tables.
- 8.
Schovsbo and Rosenmeier (2018).
- 9.
Lov om Mønstre [Design Act], No. 107 of 1 Apr 1905.
- 10.
At the time, Finland did not have a Design Act. The Norwegian Design Act from 1910 provided for protection of up to 15 years after the first registration and even applied a neutral definition of protectable design. In practice, however, that Act was rarely used. In Sweden, the Design Act from 1899 was limited to ornaments within the metal industry, see Schovsbo and Rosenmeier (2018).
- 11.
For more, see Schovsbo and Riis (2017).
- 12.
- 13.
Lov om mønstre [Design Act], No. 218 of 27 May 1970 (Denmark); Mönsterrättslag [Design Act], No. 221/1971 of 12 Mar 1971 (Finland); ov om Mønster [Design Act], No. 33 of 29 May 1970 (Norway) and Mönsterskyddslag [Design Act], 1970: 485 (Sweden). The international context of the Nordic law reform was the inclusion of Article 5quinquies in the Paris Convention in 1958 (Lisbon). According to this rule, ‘Industrial designs shall be protected in all the countries of the Union’. The obligations created by the provision are very vague and do not even require the protection of designs by sui generis legislation. However, it was found at the time that the Swedish Act did not meet the obligations imposed by this Article and Finland did not even have an Act. Therefore, some legal initiatives were thought to be needed.
- 14.
- 15.
- 16.
English and French language versions are available on the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) website. The English version is available at Denmark—The Danish Designs Act (Act No. 218 of 27 May 1970). Available via WIPO. The Danish Designs Act (Act No. 218 of May 27, 1970). https://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/details.jsp?id=1121. Accessed 25 Oct 2021.
- 17.
Traditionally, design protection has been based either on a ‘patent’ (registration) or a ‘copyright’ (no registration) approach. Both of these approaches can be criticized for failing to meet the needs of ‘designs’ and ‘designers’. It was to get away from the deadlock created by this traditional choice that the framers of the EU design system developed a ‘Design Approach’ as a ‘third way’, see Kur and Levin (2018).
- 18.
- 19.
This section reuses text from Schovsbo (2020a).
- 20.
Bekendtgørelse af designloven [Consolidated Designs Act] Consolidated Act No. 89 of 29 Jan 2019 (Denmark)—an English version is available at Danish Patent and Trademark Office (DKPTO) The Consolidated Designs Act. http://old2.dkpto.org/media/23039373/the%20consolidate%20designs%20act%202019.pdf. Accessed 25 Oct 2021; Mönsterskyddslag [Design Protection Act] (1970: 485) as amended up to Act (2020: 542) (Sweden); Mallioikeuslaki [Registered Designs Act], Act No. 221 of 12 Mar 1971, as amended up to Act No. 718 of 25 Aug 2016 (Finland); LOV-2003-03-14-15: Lov om beskyttelse av design (designloven) [Designs Act, Act No. 15 of 14 Mar 2003, relating to Design Protection] consolidated version of 2019 (Norway). The Acts may be found at WIPO, WIPO Lex Database. https://wipolex.wipo.int/en/main/legislation. Accessed 25 Oct 2021 (where machine tools for translation are also available).
- 21.
Emphasis added.
- 22.
This is similar to the protection for CRDs under the EU Design Regulation. Unregistered EU designs protection is only provided against ‘copying’, see EU Design Regulation, Art. 19.
- 23.
Corrigendum to Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights, OJ L 157, 30.4.2004, OJ L 195, 2.6.2004, pp. 16–25.
- 24.
Information in Danish and recorded designs can be found at DesDoc®. https://desdoc.dkpto.dk/. Accessed 25 Oct 2021.
- 25.
This was held explicitly by the Court of Justice of the European Union in C-32/08, Fundación Española para la Innovación de la Artesanía (FEIA) v Cul de Sac Espacio Creativo SL and Acierta Product & Position SA, ECLI:EU:C:2009:418. The same principles apply with regard to the Danish Design Act.
- 26.
See, e.g., Schovsbo and Svendsen (2013), pp. 93–96.
- 27.
This is so because the Nordic countries follow the principle of cumulation, see Schovsbo and Rosenmeier (2018).
- 28.
Most likely, courts would find the transfer of copyright to be more narrow than the transfer for design rights. Therefore, it matters even in employment situations whether or not the product is protected both by design and copyright law.
- 29.
C-32/08, Fundación Española para la Innovación de la Artesanía (FEIA) v Cul de Sac Espacio Creativo SL and Acierta Product & Position SA, ECLI:EU:C:2009:418, para. 50.
- 30.
For more detail, see: Schovsbo (2020a).
- 31.
- 32.
In particular C-5/08, Infopaq International A/S v Danske Dagblades Forening, ECLI:EU:C:2009:465; C-145/10, Eva-Maria Painer v Standard Verlags GmbH and Others, ECLI:EU:C:2011:798; C‑310/17, Levola Hengelo BV v Smilde Foods BV, ECLI:EU:C:2018:899; C-683/17, Cofemel—Sociedade de Vestuário SA v G-Star Raw CV, ECLI:EU:C:2019:721; and C-833/18, SI and Brompton Bicycle Ltd v Chedech / Get2Get, ECLI:EU:C:2020:461.
- 33.
These points are deduced from the case law cited in the previous note.
- 34.
The Danish judgment is reported in Ugeskrift for Retsvæsen (2020), p. 2817. C-683/17, Cofemel — Sociedade de Vestuário SA v G-Star Raw CV, ECLI:EU:C:2019:721.
- 35.
Schovsbo (2020c).
- 36.
Schovsbo(2020a).
- 37.
Schovsbo(2020a).
- 38.
See World Intellectual Property Organization. WIPO Statistics Data Center. https://www3.wipo.int/ipstats/. Accessed 25 Oct 2021.
- 39.
For all countries, see the statistics at European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO). WIPO Statistics for Community Designs. https://euipo.europa.eu/tunnel-web/secure/webdav/guest/document_library/contentPdfs/about_euipo/the_office/statistics-of-community-designs_en.pdf. Accessed 25 Oct 2021.
- 40.
For a ‘full comparison’ on the costs of protection in Denmark and EUIPO, see Løje (2020), p. 316 f.
- 41.
- 42.
Greenland is a part of the Kingdom of Denmark (and is covered by the Danish Design Act by Royal Decree No. 656 of 11 June 2010) but not a member of the EU.
- 43.
- 44.
- 45.
- 46.
Schovsbo and Svendsen (2013), pp. 104 ff.
- 47.
See generally Schovsbo et al (2021), p. 419. ‘Concepts’, however, have been rejected. The Maritime and Commercial Court thus found that the combination of a dispenser for soap, a brush for doing dishes and a holder for the two items could not be protected as such. Instead, protection had to be claimed for the individual items, see V-34-10, Maritime and Commercial Court, 12 Feb 2012.
- 48.
See the judgment from the Maritime and Commercial Court reported in Ugeskrift for Retsvæsen (2018), p. 2595. The abstract nature of design protection follows from C-24/16 and 25/16, Nintendo Co. Ltd v BigBen Interactive GmbH og BigBen Interactive SA, ECLI:EU:C:2017:724. A third party’s use of a design cannot be prevented if the use is covered by an exception such as the right to make a citation under the EU Design Directive, Art. 13(1)(c). See also Kur (2020), p. 241 (pointing out that the ‘nature’ of the protection (that is, abstract or actual) was not dealt with clearly in the travaux).
- 49.
Judgment from the Maritime and Commercial Court reported in Ugeskrift for Retsvæsen (2018), p. 2595 and see also Schovsbo et al (2021), pp. 442 f.
- 50.
C-345/17, Karen Millen Fashions Ltd v Dunnes Stores og Dunnes Stores (Limerick) Ltd, ECLI:EU:C:2014:2013.
- 51.
See V-0004-12, Maritime and Commercial Court, 23 Apr 2013.
- 52.
See Schovsbo et al (2021), pp. 425 ff.
- 53.
See BS-9628/2020-SHR, Maritime and Commercial Court, 30 Mar 2021. The case concerned a smoke alarm, and the ‘informed’ user was defined as: ‘someone who without being a designer or technical expert is acquainted with various designs in the relevant sector, has a certain level of knowledge about the parts of which such products consist and on that basis pays a certain amount of attention to the various products or designs’ (translation by author). This definition seems to compare well with the case law from the EU Courts and the EUIPO, for an overview of the latter, see Stone (2016), para. 12.17 ff. And see also Levin (2018), pp. 56 ff. (focusing on the decisions from the EU Courts). From Danish case law see also BS-28148/2019-SHR, Maritime and Commercial Court, 14 June 2021. Here, the Maritime and Commercial Court found that since the parties had not provided any information as to the definition of the informed user for the product in question, the Court was unable to decide on the (in)validity of the design which was, therefore, upheld. On similar grounds, the Court could not rule on infringement.
- 54.
C-395/16, DOCERAM GmbH v CeramTec GmbH, ECLI:EU:C:2018:172, para. 31.
- 55.
As suggested by Schovsbo and Dinwoodie (2018), pp. 151 ff. and 170.
- 56.
BS-16630/2020-SHR, Maritime and Commercial Court, 24 Aug 2020.
- 57.
BS-28148/2019-SHR, Maritime and Commercial, 14 June 2021.
- 58.
Schovsbo and Dinwoodie (2018), p. 170.
- 59.
Judgment of the Supreme Court in Ugeskrift for Retsvæsen (2015), p. 2011.
- 60.
C-397/16, Acacia Srl v Pneusgarda Srl and Audi AG and Acacia Srl and Rolando D'Amato v Dr. Ing. h.c.F. Porsche AG, ECLI:EU:C:2017:992.
- 61.
Fenger and Broberg (2020).
- 62.
Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, 13 Dec 2007, Official Journal C 326, 26/ 10/ 2012 P. 0001–0390.
- 63.
Defining the limits of this principle is controversial, compare C-283/81, Srl CILFIT and Lanificio di Gavardo SpA v Ministry of Health, ECLI:EU:C:1982:335 (a very narrow reading) with C-160/14, João Filipe Ferreira da Silva e Brito m.fl. v Estado português, ECLI:EU:C:2015:565, para. 42 (which gives more leeway to national courts).
- 64.
See Stone (2016), paras 20.29 ff.
- 65.
European Commission (2020a).
- 66.
- 67.
European Commission (2020b), p. 72.
- 68.
European Commission (2020b), p. 72 f.
- 69.
European Commission (2020b), p. 73.
- 70.
European Commission (2020b), p. 73.
- 71.
European Commission (2020b), p. 73.
- 72.
European Commission (2020b), p. 73.
- 73.
- 74.
Commission of the European Communities (1991), p. 132 f.
- 75.
Commission of the European Communities (1991), p. 134.
- 76.
The following reuses text from Schovsbo (2020a).
- 77.
Indeed, the importance of this aspect is highlighted in European Commission (2016), p. 53. From Denmark, see also Kristensen (2020), p. 247 (that the inexperienced designer from Denmark might be reluctant to seek protection in ‘far-away’ Alicante or Geneva) and in the same vein Alhonnoro (2020), p. 307 (on Finland) and Bengtson (2020) (on Norway).
- 78.
- 79.
Schovsbo (2020a) argues that the obligation in the Paris Convention does not imply an obligation to apply a national design system alongside the EU Design Regulation.
- 80.
- 81.
See also Derclaye (2018) (on the interface between copyright and design law).
- 82.
References
Alhonnoro M (2020) Is There Still a Need for National Design Protection? A View from Industry. Nordiskt Immateriellt Rättsskydd:302–308
Bengtson H (2020) Is There Still a Need for National Design Protection? Nordiskt Immateriellt Rättsskydd:309–314
Church O, Derclaye E, Stupfler G (2021) Design Litigation in the EU Member States: Are Overlaps with Other Intellectual Property Rights and Unfair Competition Problematic and are SMEs Benefitting from the EU Design Legal Framework? Eur Law Rev 1:37–60
Church O, Derclaye E, Stupfler G (2019) An Empirical Analysis of the Design Case Law of the EU Member States. Int Rev of Intellect Prop and Compet Law 50:685–719
Commission of the European Communities (1991) Green Paper on the Legal Protection of Industrial Design. EC Commission Working Document, III/F/5131191-EN (Brussels, June 1991). Available via University of Pittsburgh, Archive of European Integration (AEI). http://aei.pitt.edu/1785/1/design_gp_1.pdf. Accessed 25 Oct 2021
Derclaye E (2018) (ed) A Model Copyright/Design Interface: Not an Impossible or Undesirable Task? In: Derclaye E (ed) The Copyright/Design Interface: Past, Present and Future. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 421–452
Derclaye E (2021) EU Design Law: Transitioning Towards Coherence? 15 Years of National Case Law. In: Bruun N, Dinwoodie G, Levin M, Ohly A (eds) Transition and Coherence in Intellectual Property Law. Cambridge University Press, pp 56–67
European Commission (2020a) Making the Most of the EU’s Innovative Potential—An Intellectual Property Action Plan to Support the EU’s Recovery and Resilience. 25 Nov 2020, COM (2020) 760. https://ec.europa.eu/docsroom/documents/43845. Accessed 25 Oct 2021
European Commission (2020b). Commission Staff Working Document. Evaluation of EU Legislation on Design Protection. Brussels, 6 Nov 2020, SWD(2020) 264 final. https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/1846-Evaluation-of-EU-legislation-on-design-protection_en. Accessed 25 Oct 2021
European Commission (2016) Legal Review on Industrial Design Protection in Europe. Under the contract with the Directorate General Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs. MARKT2014/083/D. https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/43fd4a5c-6c26-4639-ac9a-281ab57687de. Accessed 25 Oct 2021.
Fenger N, Broberg M (2020) Danske domstoles forhold til EU-Domstolen. Ugeskrift for Retsvæsen B: 177–188
Kristensen TE (2020) National Designs—Against the Wind. Nordiskt Immateriellt Rättsskydd 2:246–248
Kur A (2020) The EU Design Approach—What is Left and What is Right? Nordiskt Immateriellt Rättsskydd 2:230–245
Kur A, Levin M (2018) The Design Approach Revisited: Background and Meaning. In: Kur A, Levin M, Schovsbo J (eds) The EU Design Approach—A Global Appraisal. Edward Elgar, pp 1–27
Levin M (2018) The Harmonizing Decisions from Luxembourg. In: Kur A, Levin M, Schovsbo J (eds) The EU Design Approach—A Global Appraisal. Edward Elgar, pp 49–80
Løje J (2020) The Danish Design Act in the Light of the EU Design Regulation. Nordiskt Immateriellt Rättsskydd 2:315–322
Ohly A (2018) ‘Buy me because I’m cool’: The ‘Marketing Approach’ and the Overlap Between Design, Trade Mark and Unfair Competition Law. In: Kur A, Levin M, Schovsbo J (eds) The EU Design Approach—A Global Appraisal. Edward Elgar, pp 108–141
Schovsbo J (2020a) Design Protection in the Nordic Countries: Welcome to the Smorgasbord. Nordiskt Immateriellt Rättsskydd 2:323–343
Schovsbo J (2020b) Copyright and Design law: What is Left After All and Cofemel?—Or: Design law in a ‘Double Whammy.’ Nordiskt Immateriellt Rättskydd 2:280–285
Schovsbo J (2020c) Danish Supreme Court Denies Copyright in Rubber Boots. J Intel Prop Law & Pract 15(9):679–681
Schovsbo J, Dinwoodie G (2018) Design Protection for Products that are ‘Dictated by Function.’ In: Kur A, Levin M, Schovsbo J (eds) The EU Design Approach – A Global Appraisal. Edward Elgar, pp 142–171
Schovsbo J, Rosenmeier M (2018) The Copyright/Design Interface in Scandinavia. In: Derclaye E (ed) The Copyright/Design Interface: Past, Present and Future. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 108–127
Schovsbo J, Riis T (2017) Design Law: Caught Between Chairs? In: Ghidini G, Ullrich H, Drahos P (eds) Kritika: Essays on Intellectual Property, vol 2. Edward Elgar, pp 88–118
Schovsbo J, Rosenmeier M, and Salung Petersen C (2021) Immaterialret [Intellectual Property Law], 6th edn. DJØF Publishing, Copenhagen
Schovsbo J, Svendsen NH (2013) Designret—Designloven med kommentarer [Design Right – the [Danish] Design Act with commentaries], 2nd edn. DJØF Publishing, Copenhagen
Schovsbo J, Teilmann-Lock S (2016) We Wanted More Arne Jacobsen But All We Got Was Boxes: Experiences from the Protection of Designs in Scandinavia from 1970 till the Directive. Int Rev Intellect Prop Compet Law 47:418–437
Stone D (2016) European Union Design Law: A Practitioners Guide, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford
The Design Law Report (1966) Betænkning 417/1966 vedrørende en ny dansk lov om mønstre udarbejdet af den af handelsministeriet den 5.2.1960 nedsatte kommission i samarbejde med tilsvarende finske, norske og svenske kommissioner (’mønsterlovsbetænkningen’) [Parliamentary Report No. 417/1966 concerning a new Danish Act on Designs Prepared by the Commission which was formed by the Ministry of Trade on 5 Feb 1960 in collaboration with similar Finnish, Norwegian and Swedish commissions]
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Schovsbo, J. (2022). Design Protection in the Nordic Countries: The Past, the Present and Maybe the Future. In: Aso, T., Rademacher, C., Dobinson, J. (eds) History of Design and Design Law. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-8782-2_18
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-8782-2_18
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-16-8781-5
Online ISBN: 978-981-16-8782-2
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)