TRIPS plus 20 pp 561-579 | Cite as

How Public Is the Public Domain? The Perpetual Protection of Inventions, Designs and Works by Trademarks

  • Kaya KöklüEmail author
  • Sylvie Nérisson
Part of the MPI Studies on Intellectual Property and Competition Law book series (MSIP, volume 25)


There are plenty of trademarks consisting of product shapes that effectively deter competition, although the original work or the invention giving the shape to the product (and to the trademark) is already in the public domain and should be free to be used by anyone.

Trademark laws typically contain provisions declaring certain kinds of trademarks not protectable on the basis of absolute grounds for refusal. However, the legal practice reveals that these mechanisms within the trademark laws are not sufficient to safeguard the public domain. Companies frequently try to deter free competition by registering trademarks consisting of the shape of a product after they lose the exclusivity in the patent, industrial design or work that gave its value to the product and meanwhile belongs to the public domain. This problem occurs in particular in relation to popular inventions, but also to designs or characters of works that are of high commercial value. Not only in developing countries, courts seem to hesitate assessing an invention, design or work to be part of the public domain if the popularity and value of the product are significant.

The most appropriate approach to solve this problem is to introduce an international mandatory regulation that overarches all intellectual property rights and explicitly safeguards the public domain. Such general principle in international law should particularly ensure that the free use of inventions, designs or works is not affected by trademarks once the underlying intellectual property right expires.


Intellectual Property Public Domain Copyright Protection Intellectual Property Protection Registered Trademark 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. AFP (2014), “Le Petit Prince”: 70 ans, un destin en or et pas une ride, L’OBS Culture of 11 April 2013, available at: (accessed 28 May 2015)
  2. Ahrens, H.-J. & McGuire, M.-R. (2011), Modellgesetz für Geistiges Eigentum, Normtext, Munich: SellierGoogle Scholar
  3. Benabou, V.-L. & Dusollier, S. (2007), Draw Me a Public Domain, in P. Torremans (Ed.), Copyright Law: A Handbook of Contemporary Research, pp. 161–184, Cheltenham (UK)/Northampton (USA): Edward Elgar PublishingGoogle Scholar
  4. Bischoffshausen, A. (2013), Die ökonomische Rechtfertigung der urheberrechtlichen Schutzfrist, Baden-Baden: NomosGoogle Scholar
  5. Boyle, J. (2008), The Public Domain, New Haven/London: Yale University Press, also available at: (accessed 28 May 2015)Google Scholar
  6. Carter, S. (2014), Protecting The Little Prince in the Public Domain, Quill & Quire of 26 April 2014, available at: (accessed 28 May 2015)
  7. de la Durantaye, K. (2012), Der Kampf um die Public Domain, GRUR Int. 2012, 989, Munich: C.H. BeckGoogle Scholar
  8. Dinwoodie, G.B. & Dreyfuss, R.C. (2006), Patenting Science: Protecting the Domain of Accessible Knowledge, in L. Guibault & B. Hugenholtz (Eds.), The Future of the Public Domain, pp. 191–221, Alphen aan den Rijn: Kluwer Law InternationalGoogle Scholar
  9. Dreier, T. (2001), Balancing Proprietary and Public Domain Interests: Inside or Outside of Proprietary Rights, in R. Dreyfuss et al. (Eds.), Expanding Boundaries of Intellectual Property, pp. 295–316, Oxford: OUPGoogle Scholar
  10. Dusollier, S. (2010), Scoping Study on Copyright and Related Rights and the Public Domain, WIPO study CDIP/4/3/REV./STUDY/INF/1, available at (accessed 28 May 2015)
  11. Economides, N.S. (1988), The Economics of Trademarks, 78 TMR 1988, 523, New York, NY: INTAGoogle Scholar
  12. Fezer, K.-H. (2009), Markenrecht, Munich: C.H. BeckGoogle Scholar
  13. Grosse Ruse-Khan, H. & Kur, A. (2008), Enough is Enough -The Notion of Binding Ceilings in International Intellectual Property Protection, Max Planck Institute for Intellectual Property, Competition & Tax Law Research Paper Series No. 09-01, available at SSRN: or (accessed 28 May 2015)
  14. Hilty, R.M. & Nérisson, S. (2012), Overview, in R.M. Hilty & S. Nérisson (Eds.), Balancing Copyright, a Survey of National Approaches, pp. 1–77, Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer. Also Max Planck Institute for Intellectual Property & Competition Law Research Paper No. 12-05, available at SSRN: (accessed 28 May 2015)
  15. Hilty, R.M. (2007), Sündenbock Urheberrecht?, in A. Ohly & D. Klippel (Eds.), Geistiges Eigentum und Gemeinfreiheit, pp. 107–145, Tübingen: Mohr SiebeckGoogle Scholar
  16. Ingerl, R. & Rohnke, C. (2010), Markengesetz, Munich: C.H. BeckGoogle Scholar
  17. Kur, A. (2009), Cumulation of Rights with Regard to Three dimensional Shapes – Two Exemplary Case Studies, in A. Cruquenaire & S. Dusollier (Eds.), Le Cumul des Droits Intellectuels, pp. 155–175, Brussels: LarcierGoogle Scholar
  18. Kur, A. (2014), Trademarks Function, Don’t They? CJEU Jurisprudence and Unfair Competition Principles, Max Planck Institute for Innovation & Competition Research Paper No. 14-05, available at SSRN: (accessed 28 May 2015)
  19. Landes, W.M. & Posner, R.A. (1988), The Economics of Trademark Law, 78 TMR 1988, 267, New York, NY: INTAGoogle Scholar
  20. Lange, D. (1981), Recognizing the Public Domain, 44 Law & Contemp. Probs. 1981, 147, Durham: Duke University School of LawGoogle Scholar
  21. Peukert, A. (2012), Die Gemeinfreiheit: Begriff, Funktion, Dogmatik, Tübingen: Mohr SiebeckGoogle Scholar
  22. Posner, R.A. (2005), Intellectual Property: The Law and Economics Approach, 19 J. Econ. Persp. 2005, 57, Nashville, TN: American Economic AssociationGoogle Scholar
  23. Prolongeau, H. (2010), Le Petit Prince se lance dans les Affaires, Le Point of 23 November 2010, available at: (accessed 28 May 2015)
  24. Roubier, P. (1954), Le Droit de la Propriété Industrielle, Paris: SireyGoogle Scholar
  25. Samuelson, P. (2006), Enriching Discourse on Public Domain, 55 Duke L.J. 2006, 111, Durham: Duke University School of LawGoogle Scholar
  26. Senftleben, M. (2013), Adapting EU Trademark Law to New Technologies - Back to Basics?, in C. Geiger (Ed.), Constructing European Intellectual Property: Achievements And New Perspectives, pp. 137–176, Cheltenham (UK)/Northampton (USA): Edward Elgar Publishing, available at SSRN: (accessed 28 May 2015)
  27. Senftleben, M. (2013), Public Domain Preservation in EU Trademark Law – A Model for Other Regions?, in 103 TMR 2013, 778, New York, NY: INTA, available at SSRN: (accessed 28 May 2015)
  28. Senftleben, M. (2013), Trademark Law and the Public Domain, in D. Beldiman (Ed.), Access to Information and Knowledge, pp. 112–138, Cheltenham (UK)/Northampton (USA): Edward Elgar PublishingGoogle Scholar
  29. Stallman, R. (2010), Misinterpreting Copyright – A Series of Errors, Free Software, Free Society – Selected Essays of Richard M. Stallman. Boston: Free Software Foundation, available at (accessed 28 May 2015)
  30. van Overmeire, V. (2009), Inschrijving als merk van een in het openbaar domein gevallen werk, in A. Cruquenaire & S. Dusollier (Eds.), Le cumul des droits intellectuels, pp. 177–204, Brussels: LarcierGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Max Planck Institute for Innovation and CompetitionMunichGermany

Personalised recommendations