History of Design and Design Law: Connections, Influences and Observations

Dobinson, Jonathan; Aso, Tsukasa; Rademacher, Christoph

doi:10.1007/978-981-16-8782-2_27

Jonathan Dobinson⁴,
Tsukasa Aso⁵ &
Christoph Rademacher⁶

501 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter provides a summary and an analysis of the 26 preceding chapters. What emerges is that the design and design protection history of each country is extremely diverse and complex—the result of a myriad of interconnected and multi-directional factors. It also reveals the connected and often complementary relationship of the two histories, not only for each country, but between countries, often as a result of government policies, trade, colonialism, immigration and globalization. Despite this complexity, it is possible to identify some themes that highlight a connection between the history of design and design law: the changing nature of design and the subject matter of design protection; modernism, technology, mass production and substantive protection requirements; nation building, government policy and design protection systems; the designer and their role in design protection. The chapter briefly examines regional and international influences in design history, before focusing on influences in design protection, including international instruments, cross-jurisdictional influences and responses to imitation cultures. The chapter also makes some key observations on the history of design protection, including on the subject matter of protection, the nature of rights, functional design, examination, substantive protection requirements, deferred publication and overlapping copyright and design protection. The final section considers the future of design and design protection.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Chapter: USD 29.95; Price excludes VAT (USA)

eBook: USD 139.00; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Softcover Book: USD 179.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Hardcover Book: USD 179.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

1.
We sincerely thank Professor Minako Ikeda and Professor D.J. Huppatz for their feedback on an earlier draft of this chapter.
2.
See the list of references, and in some cases additional bibliographies, at the end of each chapter. For a recent discussion of IP history, see Alexander (2020).
3.
Sherman and Bently (2002 [1999]), p. 206.
4.
See Chapter 12 (Germany); Chapter 16 (Italy); Chapter 17 (Scandinavia); Chapter 22 (United States of America (US)).
5.
See, e.g., Schovsbo and Teilmann-Lock (2016).
6.
See, e.g., Chapter 1 (Japan); Chapter 9 (United Kingdom (UK)); Chapter 11 (Germany).
7.
See, e.g., Chapter 21 (US).
8.
See, e.g., Chapter 9 (UK); Chapter 15 (Italy); Chapter 17 (Scandinavia).
9.
See, e.g., Chapter 3 (South Korea); Chapter 7 (Singapore); Chapter 19 (Russia); Chapter 25 (Australia).
10.
Alexander (2020), Chap. 13 (Kindle location 5804).
11.
See, e.g., Chapter 23 (Brazil) and Chapter 25 (Australia).
12.
See Chapters 3 and 4 (South Korea); Chapters 23 and 24 (Brazil).
13.
See Chapters 19 and 20 (Russia).
14.
See Chapters 5 and 6 (China).
15.
Chapter 9 (UK). See, e.g., the discussion of ‘Japanese Modern’ in Chapter 1 (Japan); and ‘industrial aesthetics’ in Chapter 13 (France). On the social aims of design see, e.g., Chapter 5 (China); Chapter 9 (UK); Chapter 11 (Germany); Chapter 19 (Russia); Chapter 23 (Brazil).
16.
See, e.g., Chapter 1 (Japan); Chapter 9 (UK); Chapter 13 (France).
17.
See, e.g., Chapter 3 (South Korea); Chapter 5 (China).
18.
See, e.g., Chapter 11 (Germany); Chapter 15 (Italy). See also Chapter 3 (South Korea); Chapter 5 (China).
19.
Chapter 11 (Germany).
20.
See Chapter 21 (US).
21.
See Chapter 9 (UK).
22.
See Chapter 1 (Japan). See also Chapter 13 (France) on the l’art de vivre (the art of living).
23.
Pascoe (2014); Moran et al. (2018). See Chapter 25 (Australia).
24.
See, e.g., the discussion in Chapter 26 (Australia).
25.
See, e.g., Chapter 2 (Japan) and Chapter 8 (Singapore). However, see Chapter 26 (Australia).
26.
See, e.g., the section on ‘unfair and economic parasitical competition’ in Chapter 14 (France).
27.
See, e.g., Chapter 10 (UK) and Chapter 14 (France).
28.
See discussion under ‘Overlapping Copyright and Design Protection’ below.
29.
See, e.g., Chapter 10 (UK) and Chapter 20 (Russia).
30.
See, e.g., Chapter 16 (Italy).
31.
See, e.g., Ishōhō [Design Act], Act No. 125 of 13 Apr 1959, Art. 1; 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), Recital 14; Chapter 26 (Australia).
32.
See, e.g., Chapter 12 (Germany); Chapter 16 (Italy); Chapter 18 (Nordic countries).
33.
Reichsgericht [Reich Court of Justice], decision of 14 Jan 1933, Case No. I 149/32, published in GRUR (1933), 323 in Chapter 12 (Germany).
34.
Supreme Court of Italy, 7 July 1994, no. 10516, in Chapter 16 (Italy).
35.
For example, see Chapter 16 (Italy).
36.
See Chapter 10 (UK).
37.
See, e.g., Apple Inc [2017] ADO 6 in Chapter 26 (Australia); but also Chapter 2 (Japan); Chapter 4 (South Korea); Chapter 8 (Singapore) and Chapter 24 (Brazil).
38.
See Chapter 21 (US). See also Chapter 19 (Russia).
39.
See Chapter 9 (UK); Chapter 21 (US). See also Chapter 1 (Japan); Chapter 3 (South Korea); Chapter 5 (China) and Chapter 7 (Singapore).
40.
See, e.g., Chapter 12 (Germany). See also Commission of the European Communities (1991), para. 5.4.1.
41.
See, e.g., Chapter 2 (Japan); Chapter 4 (South Korea); Chapter 6 (China); Chapter 8 (Singapore); Chapter 14 (France).
42.
See, e.g., Chapter 10 (UK); Chapter 24 (Brazil) and Chapter 26 (Australia).
43.
See, e.g., Chapter 22 (US).
44.
See, e.g., Chapter 26 (Australia).
45.
See, e.g., Chapter 2 (Japan).
46.
See, e.g., EU Design Directive, Arts 3, 4 and 5; Chapter 12 (Germany); Chapter 14 (France); Chapter 16 (Italy) and Chapter 18 (Nordic countries).
47.
See, e.g., the discussion of D. Sebel & Co. Ltd v. National Art Metal Co. Pty Ltd (1965) 10 FLR 224 in Chapter 26 (Australia) and more recently Samsung Electronics (UK) Limited v Apple Inc. [2012] EWHC 1882 (Pat).
48.
See Chapter 1 (Japan); Chapter 13 (France); Chapter 17 (Scandinavia); Chapter 19 (Russia); Chapter 26 (Australia), respectively.
49.
See, e.g., Chapter 1 (Japan); Chapter 3 (South Korea); Chapter 9 (UK); Chapter 25 (Australia).
50.
See, e.g., Chapter 1 (Japan); Chapter 3 (South Korea); Chapter 9 (UK); Chapter 11 (Germany); Chapter 15 (Italy); Chapter 25 (Australia).
51.
See, e.g., Chapter 11 (Germany); Chapter 15 (Italy).
52.
See Chapter 19 (Russia) which includes other examples of US and USSR exchange.
53.
See, e.g., Chapter 23 (Brazil) and Chapter 25 (Australia).
54.
See, e.g., Chapter 1 (Japan); Chapter 23 (Brazil); Chapter 3 (South Korea) and Chapter 5 (China).
55.
See, e.g., Chapter 11 (Germany); Chapter 13 (France); Chapter 15 (Italy); Chapter 17 (Scandinavia). Some chapters note how design has been present at some important political moments in history, including the Hans Wegner’s ‘Round Chair’ at the John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon televised US election debate in 1960 (see Chapter 17 (Scandinavia)); or the historic ‘Kitchen Debate’ between the then US Vice President Richard Nixon and the Soviet First Secretary Nikita Khrushchev (see Chapter 19 (Russia)).
56.
See, e.g., Chapters 5 and 6 (China) and Chapter 20 (Russia).
57.
See, e.g., Chapter 1 (Japan); Chapter 4 (South Korea); Chapter 9 (UK); Chapter 13 (France); Chapter 19 (Russia); Chapter 21 (US).
58.
Such as the separation of Singapore from Malaysia in August 1965, and the mass withdrawal of British troops from Singapore in the late 1960s and early 1970s, see Chapter 7 (Singapore).
59.
For industrialization, see generally, but for industrialization due to a lack of natural resources, see in particular, Chapter 3 (South Korea) and Chapter 7 (Singapore).
60.
See, e.g., Chapter 3 (South Korea); Chapter 23 (Brazil); Chapters 25 and 26 (Australia).
61.
See, e.g., Chapter 21 (US) and Chapter 25 (Australia).
62.
See, e.g., Chapter 1 (Japan) and in relation to competition, see, in particular, accounts of international trade competition and, at times, conflict between UK and France (Chapters 9 and 10 (UK) and Chapter 14 (France)) and between China and the US (Chapter 6 (China)).
63.
See, e.g., Chapter 1 (Japan); Chapter 3 (South Korea); Chapters 5 and 6 (China); Chapters 7 and 8 (Singapore); Chapter 9 (UK); Chapters 19 and 20 (Russia).
64.
For example, the dispatch of US industrial design company Smith, Scherr & McDermott International (SSM) to help activate industrialization in South Korea (Chapter 3 (South Korea)); or a United Nations taskforce in Singapore (Chapter 7 (Singapore)).
65.
See, e.g., Chapter 1 (Japan); Chapter 3 (South Korea); Chapter 19 (Russia).
66.
See, e.g., Chapter 5 (China); Chapter 19 (Russia).
67.
See, e.g., Chapter 1 (Japan); Chapter 3 (South Korea); Chapter 7 (Singapore); Chapter 9 (UK); Chapter 19 (Russia).
68.
See, e.g., Chapter 1 (Japan); Chapter 7 (Singapore); Chapter 9 (UK); Chapter 11 (Germany); Chapter 13 (France); Chapter 17 (Scandinavia); Chapter 19 (Russia); Chapter 25 (Australia).
69.
See, e.g., Chapter 1 (Japan); Chapter 3 (South Korea); Chapter 25 (Australia).
70.
See, e.g., Chapter 1 (Japan); Chapter 3 (South Korea); Chapter 7 (Singapore); Chapters 9 and 10 (UK); Chapter 13 (France); Chapter 23 (Brazil).
71.
Chapter 9 (UK); Chapter 19 (Russia); Chapter 25 (Australia).
72.
See, e.g., Chapter 2 (Japan); Chapters 3 and 4 (South Korea); Chapter 6 (China); Chapter 22 (US).
73.
See, e.g., Chapter 1 (Japan); Chapter 17 (Scandinavia).
74.
See, e.g., Chapter 1 (Japan); Chapter 7 (Singapore); Chapters 9 and 10 (UK); Chapter 11 (Germany); Chapters 19 and 20 (Russia).
75.
See, e.g., Chapter 11 (Germany); Chapter 15 (Italy); Chapter 17 (Scandinavia) and Chapter 13 (France).
76.
See, e.g., Hall (2021) and the role of women designers in Chapter 17 (Scandinavia); Chapter 21 (US); and Chapter 15 (Italy). See the mention of designers in Chapter 1 (Japan); Chapter 3 (South Korea); Chapter 5 (China); Chapter 7 (Singapore); Chapters 23 and 24 (Brazil); designers from diverse cultural backgrounds in Chapter 21 (US) and Chapter 25 (Australia) and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander designers in Chapter 25 (Australia).
77.
This varied across countries. For example, in the early nineteenth century, design and production was often undertaken by different people in England, whereas a French designer combined both roles: Chapter 10 (UK).
78.
Chapter 9 (UK); Chapter 11 (Germany); Chapter 13 (France); Chapter 15 (Italy); Chapter 17 (Scandinavia).
79.
Chapter 21 (US).
80.
See Chapter 11 (Germany).
81.
See Chapter 1 (Japan); Chapter 11 (Germany).
82.
See the discussion of the ‘Mingei’ philosophy of Sōetsu Yanagi in Chapter 1 (Japan). Professor Almir Mirabeau da Fonseca Neto notes that design history often gives ‘more importance to a chair designed by a renowned architect than to packaging designed by an anonymous printer’ and questions how the importance of design is to measured: ‘can’t a poster designed by an anonymous person impact society as much as a project by a renowned architect?’: Chapter 23 (Brazil).
83.
Chapter 11 (Germany).
84.
See, e.g., Chapter 1 (Japan); Chapter 5 (China); Chapter 7 (Singapore) and Chapter 19 (Russia).
85.
See, e.g., Chapter 17 (Scandinavia) and Chapter 26 (Australia).
86.
See Chapters 9 and 10 (UK).
87.
See Chapter 14 (France); Chapter 10 (UK); Chapter 6 (China). See, also, the role of manufacturer in the development of US design laws in Chapter 22 (US).
88.
See, e.g., Chapter 14 (France) and Chapter 4 (South Korea).
89.
See, e.g., the discussion of Amp Inc v Utilux Pty Ltd [1971] FSR 572, [1972] RPC 103 (HL) in Chapter 10 (UK).
90.
See, e.g., EU Design Directive, Art. 5.
91.
See Chapter 2 (Japan).
92.
See Chapter 1 (Japan) and, e.g., Chapter 17 (Scandinavia) and Chapter 25 (Australia).
93.
See Chapter 11 (Germany) and, e.g., Chapter 1 (Japan) and Chapter 9 (UK).
94.
See Chapter 17 (Scandinavia) and, e.g., Chapter 21 (US).
95.
See Chapter 15 (Italy) and, e.g., Chapter 9 (UK).
96.
See Chapter 9 (UK) and, e.g., Chapter 21 (US) and Chapter 25 (Australia).
97.
See Chapter 13 (France) and, e.g., Chapter 21 (US) and Chapter 25 (Australia).
98.
See Chapter 1 (Japan).
99.
For example, the influence of Japanese aesthetics on Scandinavian design, see Chapter 17 (Scandinavia).
100.
See, e.g., Chapters 5 and 6 (China); Chapter 3 (South Korea) and Chapter 25 (Australia).
101.
See, e.g., Chapter 9 (UK); Chapter 13 (France); Chapter 17 (Scandinavia); Chapter 25 (Australia).
102.
See, e.g., Chapter 1 (Japan); Chapter 13 (France); Chapter 25 (Australia).
103.
See Chapter 21 (US) and Chapter 25 (Australia).
104.
Chapter 25 (Australia).
105.
Chapter 23 (Brazil).
106.
See Chapter 1 (Japan) and Chapter 3 (South Korea).
107.
See Chapter 3 (South Korea) and Chapter 8 (Singapore). See also Chapter 19 (Russia).
108.
Design education is a particular focus in Chapter 5 (China); Chapter 8 (Singapore) and Chapter 23 (Brazil).
109.
See Chapter 1 (Japan).
110.
Chapter 3 (South Korea).
111.
See, e.g., the work of Tang Chongxi (Chapter 5 (China)); the German designers Richard Sapper, Hartmut Esslinger, Erik Spiekermann and Günter Horntrich (Chapter 11 (Germany)); various Italian designers (Chapter 15 (Italy)) and Marc Newson (Chapter 25 (Australia)).
112.
See, e.g., Chapter 3 (South Korea); Chapter 15 (Italy) and Chapter 17 (Scandinavia).
113.
Huppatz (2015), p. 195. The history of some of these organisations also highlights the limits of Western modernist approaches to design and ‘diffusionist’ models of cross-cultural exchange—‘which assumes that the west continuously modernizes and innovates, in opposition with a ‘periphery’ perpetually condemned to catch up due to some primordial environmental, cultural or technological differences’—particularly in relation to industrial design and development. See, e.g., Messell (2019), p. 89. See also Chapter 23 (Brazil).
114.
Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property, 20 Mar 1883 (revised 14 July 1967), 828 U.N.T.S. 305 (Paris Convention); Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, 15 Apr 1994, Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, Annex 1C, 1869 U.N.T.S. 299, 33 I.L.M. 1197 (TRIPS Agreement).
115.
TRIPS Agreement, Art. 26(2).
116.
The Hague Agreement concerning the International Deposit of Industrial Designs, 6 Nov 1925 (revised 2 July 1999), 2279 U.N.T.S. 3 (Hague Agreement).
117.
Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, 9 Sept 1886 (revised 24 July 1971), 828 U.N.T.S. 221 (Berne Convention).
118.
See Chapter 2 (Japan).
119.
In particular, Japan referred to English law. See Chapter 2 (Japan).
120.
See Chapter 4 (South Korea).
121.
See Chapter 8 (Singapore) and Chapter 26 (Australia).
122.
See Chapter 22 (US).
123.
See Chapter 24 (Brazil).
124.
See Chapters 9 and 10 (UK).
125.
However, the English and French laws at that time did not have a very similar system.
126.
See Derclaye (2018).
127.
See Chapter 12 (Germany); Chapter 20 (Russia).
128.
See e.g., Chapter 10 (UK); Chapter 12 (Germany); Chapter 14 (France); Chapter 16 (Italy); Chapter 18 (Nordic countries).
129.
EU Design Directive; COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 6/2002 of 12 December 2001 on Community designs, [2002] OJ L 3, 1-24 (EU Design Regulation).
130.
See Chapter 12 (Germany); Chapter 16 (Italy); Chapter 18 (Nordic countries).
131.
See, e.g., Chapter 26 (Australia).
132.
See Chapter 14 (France).
133.
See, e.g., Chapter 6 (China) and Chapter 26 (Australia).
134.
See, e.g., Chapters 25 and 26 (Australia). This has also been an issue in Japan.
135.
For example, the legal amendments to prevent the export of imitated designs in response to overseas criticism, see discussion of the Japanese Export Product Design Act of 1959 in Chapter 2 (Japan). See also Chapter 1 (Japan); Chapter 3 (South Korea); Chapters 5 and 6 (China); Chapter 8 (Singapore); Chapter 17 (Scandinavia).
136.
See, e.g., Chapter 2 (Japan).
137.
See, e.g., Chapter 22 (US) and Chapter 6 (China). See, also, formerly in Brazil (Chapter 24 (Brazil)).
138.
See Chapter 14 (France).
139.
See Chapter 2 (Japan).
140.
See Chapter 10 (UK). However, it has not been adopted in Singapore (Chapter 8 (Singapore)).
141.
See Chapter 10 (UK); Chapter 14 (France).
142.
See Chapter 4 (South Korea).
143.
See Chapter 2 (Japan). See also Chapter 26 (Australia).
144.
See Chapter 2 (Japan). This continues to be the case in Australia (see Chapter 26 (Australia)).
145.
See, e.g., 1787 Calico Printer’s Act in UK (Chapter 10 (UK)). See also Chapter 12 (Germany).
146.
See, e.g., Chapter 14 (France). The Ordonnance of 1711 concerned the abus de confiance (breach of trust) of a competitor, which meant that it was, in fact, a relatively exclusive right, and the enforcement of the right was limited to competitors who imitated fabrics, etc.
147.
See Chapter 20 (Russia).
148.
Many jurisdictions provide for prior-user rights to balance the effect of such absolute protection. See e.g. Chapter 12 (Germany).
149.
See Chapter 2 (Japan); Chapter 22 (US).
150.
See Chapter 2 (Japan); Chapter 10 (UK); and the EU Design Regulation, Art. 11, Recital 21.
151.
Some countries such as Germany introduced Utility Model protection to bridge the gap between design subject matter and patentable subject matter.
152.
See, e.g., Chapter 10 (UK). Japan did not introduce such a functionality exclusion until 1998: see Chapter 2 (Japan). See also Chapter 20 (Russia).
153.
See, e.g., Chapter 20 (Russia).
154.
See, e.g., Chapter 10 (UK) and Chapter 26 (Australia). Before 1998, in Japan, ‘aesthetic impression’ was used to exclude the registration of functional designs: Ishōhō [Design Act], Act No. 125 of 13 Apr 1959, Art. 2(1). The introduction of a new Art. 5(3) in 1998 that expressly excludes the registration of functional designs has meant that is no longer necessary to interpret 'aesthetic impression' in Art. 2(1) as excluding designs based solely on function.
155.
See, e.g., Chapter 2 (Japan); Chapter 4 (South Korea) (excluding some designs).
156.
See, e.g., Chapter 6 (China); Chapter 8 (Singapore); Chapter 24 (Brazil) and the EU. There was a time when Germany and Russia did not conduct any examination (Chapter 12 (Germany); Chapter 20 (Russia)).
157.
See Chapter 2 (Japan); Chapter 22 (US).
158.
See, e.g., Chapter 4 (South Korea).
159.
See Chapter 14 (France).
160.
There is sometimes a measure to provide for compensation until the design is registered (see, e.g., Chapter 4 (South Korea); Chapter 20 (Russia)).
161.
See, e.g., Chapter 26 (Australia).
162.
See Chapter 2 (Japan); Chapter 22 (US).
163.
See ‘Modernism, Technology, Mass Production and Substantive Protection Requirements’ above.
164.
See Chapter 14 (France).
165.
See Chapter 2 (Japan); Chapter 10 (UK).
166.
See, e.g., Chapter 2 (Japan); Chapter 4 (South Korea); Chapter 6 (China); Chapter 8 (Singapore); Chapter 20 (Russia); Chapter 22 (US); Chapter 24 (Brazil); Chapter 26 (Australia).
167.
EU Design Regulation. This is based on a ‘Design Approach’. See Kur et al (2018).
168.
Even in Germany, where design law was understood to be similar to copyright law, the 1876 Design Act required novelty and originality (see Chapter 12 (Germany)).
169.
See Chapter 14 (France).
170.
See Chapter 2 (Japan).
171.
See Chapter 2 (Japan); Chapter 14 (France).
172.
See, e.g., Chapter 2 (Japan); Chapter 4 (South Korea); Chapter 12 (Germany); Chapter 14 (France); Chapter 24 (Brazil); Chapter 26 (Australia); EU Design Regulation. Under Art. 11 of the Hague Agreement, international publication may be delayed for 30 months from the filing date. The UK did have a secret design system (see Chapter 10 (UK)), but now registration (and therefore publication) can be deferred by up to 12 months from the filing date of the application. Therefore, it is a system that extends the period of secrecy by delaying registration. Australia is in the process of implementing a similar system. However, the period is only 6 months (see Chapter 26 (Australia)).
173.
See, e.g., Chapter 6 (China); Chapter 20 (Russia); Chapter 22 (US). However, it appears that in China it is possible to delay publication for up to three years from the filing date by requesting a delay in the examination. In Russia, it is possible to delay publication by deliberately triggering some action by the patent office, such as deliberately not fulfilling a formality requirement (a system of secrecy used to exist); and in the US, it is possible to delay publication of a gazette by suspending examination procedures.
174.
Derclaye (2018).
175.
See Chapter 14 (France) discussing the lobbying efforts for a revision of the Act of 1902. Unlike in other cases, requesting copyright protection was not motivated by a desire to obtain longer protection, as the 1806 Act allowed for permanent protection of designs.
176.
See Chapter 17 (Scandinavia) and Chapter 18 (Nordic countries).
177.
This was due to the enactment of Law No. 48 of 1970 on the protection of ‘a work of artistic craftsmanship’.
178.
See Chapter 2 (Japan).
179.
See also Bently (2018), pp. 188–189.
180.
See Chapter 21 (US).
181.
See, e.g., discussion in Chapter 5 (China) on inclusive design and environmental design.
182.
See, e.g., Chapter 11 (Germany) and Chapter 21 (US).
183.
See, e.g., discussion in Chapter 5 (China) and Chapter 21 (US).
184.
See, e.g., discussion in Chapter 3 (South Korea) on the search for a truly ‘Korean design’ and Chapter 5 (China) on the need for design with Chinese characteristics.
185.
See, e.g., Chapter 6 (China); Chapter 22 (US) and Chapter 26 (Australia).

References

Alexander I (2020) The Challenges of Intellectual Property Legal History Research. In: Austin GW, Christie AF, Kenyon AT, Richardson M (eds) Across Intellectual Property: Essays in Honour of Sam Ricketson, Kindle edn. Cambridge University Press, New York
Google Scholar
Bently L (2018) The Copyright/Design Conflict in the United Kingdom. In: Derclaye E (ed) The Copyright/Design Interface: Past, Present and Future. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 171–225
Chapter Google Scholar
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) The Copyright/Design Interface in Italy. In Derclaye (ed) The Copyright/Design Interface: Past, Present and Future. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 268–296
Google Scholar
Hall J (2021) Woman Made: Great Women Designers. Phaidon, London and New York City
Google Scholar
Huppatz DJ (2015) Globalizing Design History and Global Design History. J Des Hist 28(2):182–202
Google Scholar
Kur A, Levin M, Schovsbo J (eds) (2018) The EU Design Approach. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton
Google Scholar
Messell T (2019) Globalization and Design Institutionalization: ICSID’s XIth Congress and the Formation of ALADI, 1979. J Des Hist 32(1):88–104
Google Scholar
Moran Uncle C, Harrington Uncle G, Sheehan NW (2018) On Country Learning. Des Cult 10(1):73
Google Scholar
Pascoe B (2014) Dark Emu, Black Seeds: Agriculture or Accident. Magabala Books, Broome
Google Scholar
Sherman B, Bently L (2002 [1999]) The Making of Modern Intellectual Property Law: The British Experience, 1760–1911. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Google Scholar

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Research Center for the Legal System of Intellectual Property, Waseda University, Tokyo, Japan
Jonathan Dobinson
Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan
Tsukasa Aso
School of Law, Waseda University, Tokyo, Japan
Christoph Rademacher

Authors

Jonathan Dobinson
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
Tsukasa Aso
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
Christoph Rademacher
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tsukasa Aso .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Faculty of Design, Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan
Tsukasa Aso
School of Law, Waseda University, Tokyo, Japan
Christoph Rademacher
Research Center for the Legal System of Intellectual Property, Waseda University, Tokyo, Japan
Jonathan Dobinson

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Dobinson, J., Aso, T., Rademacher, C. (2022). History of Design and Design Law: Connections, Influences and Observations. 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_27

Download citation

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-8782-2_27
Published: 23 April 2022
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)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics