Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Reformed Design Law in Ukraine: What is Right with EU Trade Agreements?

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Competition and Intellectual Property Law in Ukraine

Part of the book series: MPI Studies on Intellectual Property and Competition Law ((MSIP,volume 31))

Abstract

This chapter will examine the recent legal reform of Ukrainian design law against the background of the discussion concerning the adverse effect of European Union law on third countries’ legal order, which is being particularly pursued in European scholarly circles. The author will trace the positive impact of the EU norms on Ukrainian design legislation. This positive impact is namely achieved through the introduction of new registrability requirements modelled on the EU system. The author will further examine how Ukrainian policy-makers fill legal gaps in the definitions and interpretation of those notions that are not covered in the EU–Ukraine Association Agreement, namely those that are not included in the letter of the law but have been developed within ECJ judicial practice (e.g. freedom of the designer, informed user). Lastly, the author will discuss the practicalities and difficulties of the export of norms from the EU to third countries, particularly complicated in areas where there is a gap between codified norms and the actual judicial practice of the ECJ.

This Chapter, written between April and October 2021, looks at EU trade agreements through the prism of the EU–Ukraine Association Agreement (AA). Negotiated along with EU–Georgia and EU–Moldova AAs in early 2010s, the EU–Ukraine AA extensively regulated trade relationships with Ukraine, a non-candidate country. On 23 June 2022, the European Council decided to grant the status of candidate country to Ukraine and to the Republic of Moldova. While a new chapter in EU–Ukraine policy is about to open, this Chapter’s conclusions are relevant both for Ukraine, and for other third countries, with whom the EU has a privileged relationship.

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)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 189.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 249.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 249.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    European Commission, ‘Strategy for the Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights in Third Countries’ 2005/C 129/03; European Commission, ‘Global Europe: Competing in the World—A Contribution to the EU’s Growth and Jobs Strategy’ (Communication) COM(2006) 567 final.

  2. 2.

    2005/C 129/03, 5–6.

  3. 3.

    European Commission, ‘Trade, Growth and Intellectual Property—Strategy for the Protection and Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights in Third Countries’ (Communication) COM(2014) 389 final, para 3.5.

  4. 4.

    COM(2006) 567 final, para 4.2.

  5. 5.

    E.g. the US or Canada.

  6. 6.

    See 2005/C 129/03, 5–6 regarding civil and border enforcement. Regarding geographical indications, Dev S Gangjee, ‘Generecide: The Death of a Geographical Indication?’ in Dev S Gangjee (ed) Research Handbook on Intellectual Property and Geographical Indications (Edward Elgar Publishing 2016) 508(516) quotes a policy document by DG Agri, which stipulates that “a satisfactory GI Chapter is a ‘must have’ for the EU [new generation agreements]”.

  7. 7.

    For instance, Trade Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and Colombia and Peru, of the other part and the accession of Ecuador, art 223 regulates the resale right for the benefit of the author of an original work of art.

  8. 8.

    See Agreement between the European Union and Japan for Economic Partnership (EU–Japan Economic Partnership Agreement), arts 14.36–14.37; EU–Vietnam Trade Agreement, art 12.41.

  9. 9.

    Leading publications on the matter include contributions to Josef Drexl et al. (eds), EU Bilateral Trade Agreements and Intellectual Property: For Better or Worse? (Springer 2014); Anselm Kamperman Sanders, ‘The EU and Its IP Policies’ in Pedro Roffe and Xavier Seuba (eds), The ACTA and the Plurilateral Enforcement Agenda (Cambridge University Press 2014) 259; Thomas Jaeger, ‘The EU Approach to IP Protection in Partnership Agreements’ in Christoph Antons and Reto M Hilty (eds), Intellectual Property and Free Trade Agreements in the Asia–Pacific Region (Springer 2015) 171(171–210); Anke Moerland, ‘Do Developing Countries Have a Say? Bilateral and Regional Intellectual Property Negotiations with the EU’ (2017) 48 International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law 760(760–783); Xavier Seuba and Elena Dan, ‘The European Foreign Policy for Intellectual Property Enforcement’ in Josef Drexl and Anselm Kamperman Sanders (eds), The Innovation Society and Intellectual Property (Edward Elgar Publishing 2019) 160(160–187).

  10. 10.

    Henning Grosse Ruse-Khan, ‘Principles for Intellectual Property Provisions in Bilateral and Regional Agreements’ (2013) 44 International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law 878(882); Xavier Seuba, ‘The Relevance of the Principles for Intellectual Property Provisions in Bilateral and Regional Agreements vis-à-vis European Preferential Trade Agreements’ (2013) 44 International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law 943(944); Souheir Nadde-Phlix, ‘IP Protection in EU Free Trade Agreements vis-à-vis IP Negotiations in the WTO’ in Josef Drexl et al. (eds), EU Bilateral Trade Agreements and Intellectual Property: For Better or Worse? (Springer 2014) 133(136); Xavier Seuba, The Global Regime for the Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights (Cambridge University Press 2017) 170.

  11. 11.

    Pedro Roffe, ‘Intellectual Property Chapters in Free Trade Agreements: Their Significance and Systemic Implications’ in Josef Drexl et al. (eds), EU Bilateral Trade Agreements and Intellectual Property: For Better or Worse? (Springer 2014) 17(23); Carlos M Correa, ‘High Costs, Negligible Benefits from Intellectual Property Provisions in FTAs’ (2013) 44 International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law 902(902); Moerland, ‘Do Developing Countries Have a Say?’ (n 9) 760(763).

  12. 12.

    Ruse-Khan, ‘Principles for Intellectual Property Provisions’ (n 10) 878(881); Moerland, ‘Do Developing Countries Have a Say?’ (n 9) 760(773–774).

  13. 13.

    Roffe, ‘Intellectual Property Chapters in Free Trade Agreements’ in Drexl et al. (n 11) 17(24–26); Seuba, ‘The Relevance of the Principles’ (n 10) 122–126 and 192–193.

  14. 14.

    Grosse Ruse-Khan, ‘Principles for Intellectual Property Provisions’ (n 10) 878(878–883).

  15. 15.

    Seuba and Dan, ‘The European foreign Policy for Intellectual Property Enforcement’ in Drexl and Kamperman Sanders (n 9) 160(160–187).

  16. 16.

    European Commission, ‘Wider Europe—Neighbourhood: A New Framework for Relations with our Eastern and Southern Neighbours’ (Communication) COM(2003) 104 final. For a legal and policy background to the ENP, see contributions to Dieter Mahncke and Sieglinde Gstöhl (eds), Europe's Near Abroad: Promises and Prospects of the EU's Neighbourhood Policy (P.I.E. Peter Lang 2008); Roman Petrov and Peter Van Esluwege (eds), Legislative Approximation and Application of EU Law in the Eastern Neighbourhood of the European Union (Routledge 2014); Sieglinde Gstöhl (eds), The European Neighbourhood Policy in a Comparative Perspective: Models, challenges, lessons (Routledge 2016); Tobias Schumacher et al. (eds), The Routledge Handbook on the European Neighbourhood Policy (Routledge 2018); Stefan Lorenzmeier et al. (eds), EU External Relations Law: Shared Competences and Shared Values in Agreements Between the EU and its Eastern Neighbourhood (Springer 2021).

  17. 17.

    Algeria, Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Libya, Morocco, Palestine, Syria, and Tunisia.

  18. 18.

    Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova, and Ukraine.

  19. 19.

    Together with preferential treatment for trade. COM (2003) 104 final, para 2.

  20. 20.

    EU–Ukraine AA, art 1, also the “progressive approximation” of Ukrainian legislation to that of the EU as one of the Agreement’s main objectives.

  21. 21.

    See also Yuriy Kapitsa, ‘Association Agreements and Problems Approximating Intellectual Property Legislation of Third Countries with the EU Acquis: The Case of Ukraine’ in this Volume.

  22. 22.

    See Olena Kadetova, EU–Ukraine Association Agreement in the System of Sources of Intellectual Property Law (Yurinkom Inter 2019) 110–143; Olena Kadetova, ‘To the Questionnaire of Characteristics and Ways of Development of Legislation in the Field of Intellectual Property in Ukraine’ (2018) 1 Theory and Practice of Intellectual Property 88(88–97); Volodymyr Kryvolapchuk, Svitlana Ful, ‘Legal Protection of Geographical Indications in the Context of the Association Agreement between Ukraine and the EU’ (2018) 3 Theory and Practice of Intellectual Property 51(51–59); Yuriy Dehtiarenko, ‘Current and Problem Issues of Ukrainian Legislation in the Field of Protection of a Variety of Plants in the Context of the Agreement on Association with the EU’ (2018) 5 Theory and Practice of Intellectual Property 75(75–82). See also Yuriy Kapitsa, European Union Intellectual Property Law: Formation, Institutes, Directions of Development (Akademperiodyka, 2nd ed. 2020) 465–466, discussing how the EU–Ukraine Association Agreement fails to provide a mechanism for updating Ukraine’s obligations where new IP acquis acts are adopted in the EU. See also, in this volume, Roman Petrov, ‘The EU–Ukraine Association Agreement as a General Framework of Contemporary EU–Ukraine Relations’ and Yuriy Kapitsa, ‘Association Agreements and Problems Approximating Intellectual Property Legislation of Third Countries with the EU Acquis: The Case of Ukraine’ in this Volume.

  23. 23.

    Yuriy Kapitsa, ‘Reform of National Legislation for the Protection of Intellectual Property under the Association Agreement between Ukraine and the European Union’ (2016) 11 Law of Ukraine 118 (118–123).

  24. 24.

    Decree of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine on the approval of the conceptual foundation for reforming the state system of intellectual property protection of Ukraine 2016, 402-p. Implementation of the EU–Ukraine Association Agreement is referred to as one of the reform’s main priorities.

  25. 25.

    One example to illustrate this statement is the Ukrainian Draft Law on Copyright and Related Rights 2021, 5552, art 60. Article 60 implements norms on the use of protected content by online content-sharing service providers, regulated in Parliament and Council Directive 2019/790/EU of 17 April 2019 on copyright and related rights in the Digital Single Market (2019) OJ L130/92 (DSM Directive), art 17. Despite not being bound to it by bilateral obligations, Ukraine plans to implement it voluntarily. At the same time, at the time of writing most EU Member States have not yet implemented the DSM Directive.

  26. 26.

    See the analysis in Natalia Kapyrina, ‘Design Rights in EU PTAs: Where Does Such Internalization Lead?’ (2019) 53(4) Journal of World Trade 647 (647–677).

  27. 27.

    “Patent trolling” is used to refer to situations of abusive registrations, where commonly known objects (e.g. clothes hangers or matches) are registered as designs and then used to block importations of such goods at the Ukrainian border. See Oleksandr Chernadchuk, ‘Patent Trolling as a Type of Infringement of Intellectual Property Rights’ (2019) 41(2) Scientific Journal of the International Humanitarian University 38 (38–41).

  28. 28.

    Council Regulation (EC) 6/2002 of 12 December 2001 on Community Designs (2001) OJ L3/1 (Design Regulation); Parliament and Council Directive 98/71/EC of 13 October 1998 on the legal protection of designs (1998) OJ L289/28 (Design Directive) includes provisions similar to those of the Design Regulation. The Design Directive is not chosen as the point of reference because it does not include norms on unregistered designs, unlike the EU–Ukraine Association Agreement.

  29. 29.

    Kapyrina, ‘Design Rights in EU PTAs’ (n 26) 647 (657).

  30. 30.

    See EU–Armenia CEPA, art 242(1); EU–Georgia AA art 181(1); EU–Moldova AA art 308(1).

  31. 31.

    EU–Ukraine AA, art 213(2).

  32. 32.

    EU–Ukraine AA, art 217(3–4).

  33. 33.

    Graeme B Dinwoodie and Jens Schovsbo, ‘Design Protection for Products That are “Dictated by Function”’ in Anette Kur et al. (eds), The EU Design Approach: A Global Appraisal (Edward Elgar Publishing 2018) 142 (142, 153–154); Uma Suthersanen, ‘Excluding Designs (and Shape Marks): Where Is the EU Court of Justice Going?’ (2019) 50 International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law 157 (157–160).

  34. 34.

    Kapyrina, ‘Design Rights in EU PTAs’ (n 26) 647 (662).

  35. 35.

    Dinwoodie and Schovsbo, ‘Design Protection for Products That are “Dictated by Function”’ in Kur et al. (n 33) 142 (145, 154).

  36. 36.

    EU–Ukraine AA, art 309.

  37. 37.

    EU–Ukraine AA, art 243.

  38. 38.

    EU–Ukraine AA, art 214(1).

  39. 39.

    EU–Ukraine AA, art 215.

  40. 40.

    EU–Ukraine AA, art 217(1).

  41. 41.

    EU–Ukraine AA, art 217(5).

  42. 42.

    This is, for instance, the case of Chapter 5 “Customs and Trade Facilitation” and Chapter 6 “Establishment, Trade in Services and Electronic Commerce” of Title IV, EU–Ukraine AA.

  43. 43.

    In fact, the decision to include only certain provisions of relevant IP acquis rather than a legal act as a whole may well be the EU’s response to the criticism, explained above, that the EU adopts a “one-size-fits-all” approach to all third countries, disregarding their level of development and the appropriateness of the suggested legal framework.

  44. 44.

    Josef Drexl, ‘Counterfeiting and the Spare Parts Issue’ in Christophe Geiger (ed), Criminal Enforcement of Intellectual Property—A Handbook of Contemporary Research (Edward Elgar 2012) 369(369, 378–380).

  45. 45.

    ECJ Joined Cases C-397/16 and C-435/16 Acacia (2017) EU:C:2017:992, para 50. See also Dana Beldiman et al., ‘Spare Parts and Design Protection—Different Approaches to a Common Problem: Recent Developments from the EU and US Perspective’ (2020) 69(7) GRUR International 673(678/680); EGC T-525/13 H&M Hennes & Mauritz v. OHMI—Yves Saint Laurent (Sacs à main) (2015) EU:T:2015:617, para 21.

  46. 46.

    Annette Kur et al., ‘The EU Design Approach—a Global Appraisal’ in Annette Kur et al. (eds), The EU Design Approach: A Global Appraisal (Edward Elgar 2018) 251 (268).

  47. 47.

    Council Decision 2014/295/EU of 17 March 2014 on the signing, on behalf of the European Union, and provisional application of the Association Agreement between the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community and their Member States, of the one part, and Ukraine, of the other part, as regards the Preamble, art 1, and Titles I, II and VII thereof (2014) OJ L161/1 (Council Decision on EU–Ukraine AA); Guillaume Van der Loo, The EU-Ukraine Association Agreement and Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Agreement: A New Legal Instrument for EU Integration Without Membership (Brill 2016) 196–197. Council Decision on EU–Ukraine AA, art 5 precludes the agreement’s direct effect in the EU itself. However, Van der Loo maintains that a unilateral Council Decision may not be interpreted as precluding the direct effect of provisions of a bilateral agreement, as consent to such preclusion was not given by both Parties.

  48. 48.

    Dinwoodie and Schovsbo, ‘Design Approach for Products That are “Dictated by Function”’ in Kur et al. (n 33) 142 (154–155). Kur and Levin disagree with this theory, stating that a similar approach is also found in German judicial practice. See Annette Kur and Marianne Levin, ‘The Design Approach Revisited: Background and Meaning’ in Annette Kur et al. (eds), The EU Design Approach: A Global Appraisal (Edward Elgar Publishing 2018) 1 (12).

  49. 49.

    EGC T-515/19 Lego/EUIPO—Delta Sport Handelskontor (2021) EU:T:2021:155, para 33.

  50. 50.

    Oliver Ruhl and Jan Tolkmitt, Gemeinschaftsgeschmacksmuster (Carl Heymanns Verlag 2019) art 8, para 73.

  51. 51.

    Dinwoodie and Schovsbo, ‘Design Approach for Products That are “Dictated by Function”’ in Kur et al. (n 33) 142 (154).

  52. 52.

    See EU–Armenia CEPA, art 242(3); EU–Georgia AA, art 181(3); EU–Moldova AA, art 308(3).

  53. 53.

    EGC T-525/13 H&M Hennes & Mauritz v OHMI—Yves Saint Laurent (Sacs à main) (2015) EU:T:2015:617, para 21.

  54. 54.

    ECJ C-395/16 DOCERAM (2018) EU:C:2018:172, Opinion of Advocate General Saugmandsgaard, paras 25–27. Before the adoption of the Design Directive, certain EU MS (e.g. UK) did require designs to have ornamental or aesthetic value. A design feature was considered functional if it did not have ornamental or aesthetic value. This approach lies at the base of the causative theory in the examination of functional features. See also Lavinia Brancusi, ‘Designs Dictated by their Technical Function’ in Gordian Hasselblatt (ed), Community Design Regulation (Hart Publishing 2015) 125 (138–139).

  55. 55.

    Under EU–Ukraine AA, art 6 to Annex XVII to Chapter 6 “Establishment, Trade in Services and Electronic Commerce”, where relevant provisions of Chapter 6 are identical in substance to corresponding rules of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and to acts adopted pursuant thereto (e.g. Directive 2000/31/EC), “those provisions shall, in their implementation and application, be interpreted in conformity with the relevant rulings of the Court of Justice of the European Union”.

  56. 56.

    Under EU–Ukraine AA, art 153, “due account shall be taken of the corresponding case law of the European Court of Justice” during the legislative approximation in the area of public procurement.

  57. 57.

    Under EU–Ukraine AA, art 264, “the relevant jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Union” shall be used as a source interpretation for norms on state aid.

  58. 58.

    Marianne Levin, ‘The harmonising decisions from Luxembourg’ in Annette Kur et al. (eds), The EU Design Approach: A Global Appraisal (Edward Elgar Publishing 2018) 49; Alain Strowel and Kim Hee-Eun, ‘The Balancing Impact of General EU Law on European Intellectual Property Jurisprudence’ in Ansgar Ohly and Justine Pila (eds), The Europeanization of Intellectual Property Law: Towards a European Legal Methodology (Oxford University Press 2013) 121; Vincent Cassiers and Alain Strowel, ‘Intellectual Property Law Made by the Court of Justice of the European Union’ in Christophe Geiger et al. (eds), Intellectual Property and the Judiciary (Edward Elgar Publishing 2019) 175. On the ECJ’s judicial activism in copyright cases, see also Eleonora Rosati, Copyright and the Court of Justice of the European Union (Oxford University Press 2019).

  59. 59.

    Levin, ‘The harmonising decisions from Luxembourg’ in Kur et al. (n 58) 49 (50).

  60. 60.

    Cassiers and Strowel, ‘Intellectual Property Law Made by the Court of Justice of the European Union’ in Geiger et al. (n 58) 175 (178, 197).

  61. 61.

    Design Regulation, art 6.

  62. 62.

    Design Regulation, art 8(1).

  63. 63.

    ECJ C-281/10 P PepsiCo v. Grupo Promer Mon Graphic (2011) EU:C:2011:679.

  64. 64.

    Ibid para 53.

  65. 65.

    On the application of this concept in national EU MS case law, see Estelle Derclaye, ‘EU Design Law: Transitioning Towards Coherence? Fifteen Years of National Case Law’ in Niklas Bruun et al. (eds), Transition and Coherence in Intellectual Property Law (Cambridge University Press 2021) 56.

  66. 66.

    ECJ C-395/16 DOCERAM (2018) EU:C:2018:172.

  67. 67.

    For explanations on both theories, ECJ C-395/16 DOCERAM (2018) EU:C:2018:172, Opinion of Advocate General Saugmandsgaard, paras 19–22. See also the analysis in Tobias Endrich, ‘Pinning Down Functionality in EU Design Law—A Comment on the CJEU’s DOCERAM Judgment (C-395/16)’ 14(2) Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice (2019) 156 (156–167); Suthersanen, ‘Excluding Designs (and Shape Marks)’ (n 33) 157 (157–160); Uma Suthersanen and Marc D Mimler, ‘An Autonomous EU Functionality Doctrine for Shape Exclusions’ 69(6) GRUR International (2020) 567 (567–577).

  68. 68.

    ECJ C-395/16 DOCERAM (2018) EU:C:2018:172, para 32.

  69. 69.

    Ibid.

  70. 70.

    Ibid para 37.

  71. 71.

    ECJ Joined Cases C-361/15 P and C-405/15 P Easy Sanitary Solutions v. Group Nivelles and EUIPO (2017) EU:C:2017:720.

  72. 72.

    ECJ C-479/12 H. Gautzsch Grosshandel (2014) EU:C:2014:75.

  73. 73.

    At the moment of writing, a preliminary reference is pending before the ECJ as to whether, in order to be protected as an unregistered Community design, the appearance of a part of the product must be made available separately from the whole product, or whether the making available of the design of that product in its entirety is sufficient. See also ECJ C-123/20 Ferrari SpA v. Mansory Design & Holding GmbH, WH, Opinion of Advocate General Saugmandsgaard.

  74. 74.

    Ukrainian Law on Amendments to Certain Legislative Acts of Ukraine to Raise Protection and Enforcement of Trade marks and Designs and to Fight Patent Trolling 2020, 815-IX.

  75. 75.

    Ukrainian Law on Protection of Rights to Designs 1994, 3770-XII (“Design Law”).

  76. 76.

    The legal database “Unified State Register of Judicial Decisions” allows search by applicable legal norms, including those from the 2020 Design law.

  77. 77.

    Industrial Designs (2020) https://ukrpatent.org/uk/articles/ap-industrial-design accessed 13 September 2021.

  78. 78.

    Marketa Trimble, ‘Unjustly Vilified TRIPS-Plus?: Intellectual Property Law in Free Trade Agreements’ American University Law Review 1 (22).

  79. 79.

    Henning Grosse Ruse-Khan, ‘From TRIPS to FTAs and Back: Re-Conceptualising the Role of a Multilateral IP Framework in a TRIPS-plus work’ in Fabian Amtenbrink, Denise Prévost and Ramses A Wessel (eds), Netherlands Yearbook of International Law 2017 (Springer 2018) 57(64); Roffe, ‘Intellectual Property Chapters in Free Trade Agreements’ in Drexl et al. (n 11) 17(22); Moerland, ‘Do Developing Countries Have a Say?’ (n 9) 760 (765).

  80. 80.

    Trimble, ‘Unjustly Vilified TRIPS-Plus?’ (n 78) 1 (23).

  81. 81.

    Grosse Ruse-Khan, ‘Principles for Intellectual Property Provisions’ (n 10) 878 (879–880).

  82. 82.

    The need for a balanced approach to IP provisions in trade agreements is also recognised in the European Commission’s policy documents. See COM (2014) 389 final, para 2.2.

  83. 83.

    The 2020 Law also introduced other amendments, such as administrative invalidity proceedings for designs, which are not discussed further because their introduction is not due to the implementation of the AA. Note, however, that the European Commission plans to introduce mandatory administrative proceedings for invalidating a national design right. See also European Commission, ‘Commission Staff Working Document—Evaluation of EU legislation on design protection’ SWD (2020) 264 final, 47–49.

  84. 84.

    The term “abusive” is used in inverted commas, as such registrations were completely legal as per the requirements of the Ukrainian Design Law prior to 2020.

  85. 85.

    Ukrainian designs, registered under No. 26706, No. 26707, No. 26708, No. 26709, No. 26710.

  86. 86.

    Ukrainian design, registered under No. 26905.

  87. 87.

    Ukrainian design, registered under No. 27154.

  88. 88.

    Ukrainian designs, registered under No. 28140, No. 28141, No. 28142, No. 28143, No. 28144. On the registration of a carbonizer under previous design law, see Ganna Yudina, ‘Concept of Industrial Design in Ukraine and EU’ (2014) 5 Theory and Practice of Intellectual Property 57 (61).

  89. 89.

    Chernadchuk, ‘Patent Trolling as a Type of Infringement of Intellectual Property Rights’ (n 27) 38 (38–41).

  90. 90.

    Under Recital 7 Design Regulation, the purpose of enhanced protection for designs is to encourage innovation and the development of new products and investment in their production.

  91. 91.

    Design Regulation, recital 10.

  92. 92.

    As an example, the database of Ukrainian designs includes carbonizers, motorcycle carburettors, carburettors for scooters, or internal combustion engine carburettors.

  93. 93.

    Kapyrina, ‘Design Rights in EU PTAs’ (n 26) 647 (662).

  94. 94.

    For features dictated solely by a technical function, Dinwoodie and Schovsbo, ‘Design Protection for Products that are “Dictated by Function”’ in Kur et al. (n 33) 142 (142). For must-fit features, Dinwoodie and Schovsbo, ‘Design Protection for Products that are “Dictated by Function”’ in Kur et al. (n 33) 142 (153); Kapyrina, ‘Design Rights in EU PTAs’ (n 26) 647 (662).

  95. 95.

    ECJ C-395/16 DOCERAM (2018) EU:C:2018:172, Opinion of Advocate General Saugmandsgaard, para 38.

  96. 96.

    Design Law, art 5(3).

  97. 97.

    See Sec. 2.2.1. See also Oliver Ruhl and Jan Tolkmitt, Gemeinschaftsgeschmacksmuster (Carl Heymanns Verlag 2019) art 8, para 73.

  98. 98.

    At the moment of writing, only one case in which Design Regulation, art 8(3) was applied has reached the General Court. See EGC T-515/19 Lego/EUIPO—Delta Sport Handelskontor (2021) EU:T:2021:155.

  99. 99.

    See also footnote 25.

  100. 100.

    Design law, art 5(1). Kapyrina finds that such provisions in EU trade agreements are favourable to the interests of developing countries. See Kapyrina, ‘Design Rights in EU PTAs’ (n 26) 647 (669).

  101. 101.

    Design Law, art 5(4).

  102. 102.

    Design Law, art 5(2).

  103. 103.

    See Kapyrina, ‘Design Rights in EU PTAs’ (n 26) 647 (666).

  104. 104.

    Kur and Levin, ‘The Design Approach Revisited’ in Kur et al. (n 48) 1 (20).

  105. 105.

    Ibid. Note that the automotive industry also relies on unregistered design rights in the EU. See ECJ C-123/20 Ferrari (2021) EU:C:2021:628, Opinion of Advocate General Saugmandsgaard.

  106. 106.

    See Sec. 2.2.2.

  107. 107.

    Ukrainian Draft Order of the Ministry of Economy of Ukraine on Approving Rules for Drafting and Submitting Applications for Designs and on Examination of Applications for Designs and for International Registration of Designs 2021.

  108. 108.

    “Informed user”, as defined under Guidelines, para 2.5, is modelled on ECJ C-281/10 P PepsiCo v. Grupo Promer Mon Graphic (2011) EU:C:2011:679, para 53. “Freedom of the designer”, as defined under Guidelines, para 2.6, is modelled on EGC T-9/07 Grupo Promer Mon Graphic v. OHMI- PepsiCo (2010) EU:T:2010:96, paras 67, 72.

  109. 109.

    Kapyrina, ‘Design Rights in EU PTAs’ (n 26) 647 (668).

  110. 110.

    Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, Order 80,783,425 (2019) 9901/636/18. For a broader perspective on the ECJ impact on Ukrainian judiciary see Roman Petrov, ‘The Impact of the Court of Justice of the European Union on the Legal System of Ukraine’ in Arie Reich and Hans-W Micklitz, The Impact of the European Court of Justice on Neighbouring Countries (OUP 2020) 189 (193–198).

  111. 111.

    Petchers’kij District Court of Kyiv, Order 93,843,068 (2020) 757/19365/19-ц; Northern Commercial Court of Appeal 82,158,234 (2019) 910/13209/18. Note that, in this same case, the Supreme Court did not rely on ECJ case law as a persuasive source of law. See Supreme Court 83,783,100 Order (2019) 910/13209/18.

  112. 112.

    For an alternative view, see Yuriy Kapitsa, ‘Association Agreements and Problems Approximating Intellectual Property Legislation of Third Countries with the EU Acquis: The Case of Ukraine’ in this Volume.

  113. 113.

    This unlike the Republic of Moldova, which, due to close linguistic ties with Romania, can access all the relevant jurisprudence translated into Romanian. See Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Moldova on the Application of Certain Provisions of Copyright and Related Rights Law, No. 1, from April 25, 2016, which requires Moldovan courts to apply ECJ case-law to interpret communication to the public, exceptions and limitation to copyright law. See also Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Moldova on the application of certain provisions of trade mark law, No. 1, from February 6, 2017, which required Moldovan courts to apply ECJ case-law to interpret the distinctiveness of slogans, similarity of marks, scope of trade mark rights, exhaustion of trade marks.

  114. 114.

    98/149/EC, ECSC, Euratom: Council and Commission Decision of 26 January 1998 on the conclusion of the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and Ukraine, of the other part, OJ L49, 19.2.1998, 1–2. See also Yuriy Kapitsa, ‘Association Agreements and Problems Approximating Intellectual Property Legislation of Third Countries with the EU Acquis: The Case of Ukraine’ in this Volume.

References

  • Dana Beldiman, Constantin Blanke-Rosser and Anna Tischner, ‘Spare Parts and Design Protection – Different Approaches to a Common Problem. Recent Developments from the EU and US Perspective’ (2020) 69(7) GRUR International 673

    Google Scholar 

  • Lavinia Brancusi, ‘Designs Dictated by their Rechnical Function’ in Gordian Hasselblatt (ed), Community Design Regulation (Hart Publishing 1st edn. 2015) 125

    Google Scholar 

  • Vincent Cassiers and Alain Strowel, ‘Intellectual Property Law made by the Court of Justice of the European Union’ in Christophe Geiger, Craig Allen Nard and Xavier Seuba (eds), Intellectual Property and the Judiciary (Edward Elgar Publishing 2019) 175

    Google Scholar 

  • Carlos M Correa, ‘High Costs, Negligible Benefits from Intellectual Property Provisions in FTAs’ (2013) 44 International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law 902

    Google Scholar 

  • Oleksandr Chernadchuk, ‘Patent Trolling as a Type of Infringement of Intellectual Property Rights’ (2019) 41(2) Scientific Journal of the International Humanitarian University 38 [Oлeкcaндp Чepнaдчyк, ‘Пaтeнтний Tpoлiнг як Bид Пopyшeння Пpaв нa Oб’єкти Iнтeлeктyaльнoї Bлacнocтi’ (2019) 41(2) Hayкoвий Bicник Miжнapoднoгo Гyмaнiтapнoгo Унiвepcитeтy 38]

    Google Scholar 

  • Yuriy Dehtiarenko, ‘Current and Problem Issues of Ukrainian Legislation in the Field of Protection of a Variety of Plants in the Context of the Agreement on Association with the EU’ (2018) 5 Theory and Practice of Intellectual Property 75 [Юpiй Дeгтяpeнкo, ‘Aктyaльнi тa Пpoблeмнi Питaння Зaкoнoдaвcтвa Укpaїни y Cфepi Oxopoни Copтiв Pocлин y Cпiввiднoшeннi з Угoдoю пpo Acoцiaцiю з ЄC’ (2018) 5 Teopiя i Пpaктикa Iнтeлeктyaльнoї Bлacнocтi 75]

    Google Scholar 

  • Estelle Derclaye, ‘EU Design Law: Transitioning Towards Coherence? Fifteen Years of National Case Law’ in Niklas Bruun, Graeme B. Dinwoodie, Marianne Levin and Anshar Ohly (eds), Transition and Coherence in Intellectual Property Law (Cambridge University Press 2021) 56

    Google Scholar 

  • Graeme Dinwoodie and Jens Schovsbo, ‘Design Protection for Products That are “Dictated by Function”’ in Anette Kur, Marianne Levin and Jens Schovsbo (eds), The EU Design Approach: A Global Appraisal (Edward Elgar Publishing 2018) 142

    Google Scholar 

  • Josef Drexl, Henning Grosse Ruse-Khan and Souheir Nadde-Phlix (eds), EU Bilateral Trade Agreements and Intellectual Property: For Better or Worse? (Springer 2014)

    Google Scholar 

  • Josef Drexl, ‘Counterfeiting and the Spare Parts Issue’ in Christophe Geiger (ed), Criminal Enforcement of Intellectual Property - A Handbook of Contemporary Research (Edward Elgar 2012) 369

    Google Scholar 

  • Tobias Endrich, ‘Pinning Down Functionality in EU Design Law – A Comment on the CJEU’s DOCERAM Judgment (C-395/16)’ 14(2) Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice (2019) 156

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission, ‘Commission Staff Working Document – Evaluation of EU legislation on design protection’ SWD(2020) 264 final

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission, ‘Trade, Growth and Intellectual Property – Strategy for the Protection and Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights in Third Countries’ (Communication) COM(2014) 389 final

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission, ‘Global Europe: Competing in the World - A Contribution to the EU’s Growth and Jobs Strategy’ (Communication) COM(2006) 567 final

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission, ‘Strategy for the Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights in Third Countries’ 2005/C 129/03

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission, ‘Wider Europe – Neighbourhood: A New Framework for Relations with our Eastern and Southern Neighbours’ (Communication) COM(2003) 104 final

    Google Scholar 

  • Dev S Gangjee, ‘Generecide: The Death of a Geographical Indication?’ in Dev S Gangjee (ed) Research Handbook on Intellectual Property and Geographical Indications (Edward Elgar Publishing 2016) 508

    Google Scholar 

  • Henning Grosse Ruse-Khan, ‘From TRIPS to FTAs and Back: Re-Conceptualising the Role of a Multilateral IP Framework in a TRIPS-plus work’ in Fabian Amtenbrink, Denise Prévost, Ramses A. Wessel (eds), Netherlands Yearbook of International Law 2017 (Springer 2018) 57

    Google Scholar 

  • Henning Grosse Ruse-Khan, ‘Principles for Intellectual Property Provisions in Bilateral and Regional Agreements’ (2013) 44 International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law 878

    Google Scholar 

  • Sieglinde Gstöhl (ed) The European Neighbourhood Policy in a Comparative Perspective: Models, challenges, lessons (Routledge 2016)

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomas Jaeger, ‘The EU Approach to IP Protection in Partnership Agreements’ in Christoph Antons and Reto M Hilty (eds), Intellectual Property and Free Trade Agreements in the Asia-Pacific Region (Springer 2015) 171

    Google Scholar 

  • Olena Kadetova, EU/Ukraine Association Agreement in the System of Sources of Intellectual Property Law (Yurinkom Inter 2019) [Oлeнa Кaдєтoвa, Угoдa пpo Acoцiaцiю Укpaїни з Євpoпeйcьким Coюзoм в Cиcтeмi Джepeл Пpaвa Iнтeлeктyaльнoї Bлacнocтi (Юpiнкoм Iнтep 2019)]

    Google Scholar 

  • Olena Kadetova, ‘To the Questionnaire of Characteristics and Ways of dDvelopment of Legislation in the Field of Sntellectual Property in Ukraine’ (2018) 1 Theory and Practice of Intellectual Property 88 [Oлeнa Кaдєтoвa, ‘Дo Питaння пpo Xapaктepиcтикy тa Шляxи Poзвиткy Зaкoнoдaвcтвy y Cфepi Iнтeлeктyaльнoї Bлacнocтi в Укpaїнi’ (2018) 1 Teopiя i Пpaктикa Iнтeлeктyaльнoї Bлacнocтi 38]

    Google Scholar 

  • Anselm Kamperman Sanders, ‘The EU and Its IP Policies’ in Pedro Roffe and Xavier Seuba (eds), The ACTA and the Plurilateral Enforcement Agenda (Cambridge University Press 2014) 259

    Google Scholar 

  • Yuriy Kapitsa, European Union Intellectual Property Law: Formation, Institutes, Directions of Development (Akademperiodyka 2nd edn. 2020) [Юpiй Кaпiцa, Пpaвo Iнтeлeктyaльнoї Bлacнocтi Євpoпeйcькoгo Coюзy: Фopмyвaння, iнcтитyти, Haпpями Poзвиткy (Aкaдeмпepioдикa 2 вид. 2020)]

    Google Scholar 

  • Yuriy Kapitsa, ‘Reform of National Legislation for the Protection of Intellectual Property under the Association Agreement between Ukraine and the European Union’ (2016) 11 Law of Ukraine 118 [Юpiй Кaпiцa, ‘Peфopмyвaння Haцioнaльнoгo Зaкoнoдaвcтвa з Oxopoни Iнтeлeктyaльнoї Bлacнocтi Biдпoвiднo дo Угoди пpo Acoцiaцiю мiж Укpaїнoю тa Євpoпeйcьким Coюзoм’ (2016) 11 Пpaвo Укpaїни 118]

    Google Scholar 

  • Natalia Kapyrina, ‘Design Rights in EU PTAs: Where Does Such Internalization Lead?’ (2019) 53(4) Journal of World Trade 647

    Google Scholar 

  • Volodymyr Kryvolapchuk and Svitlana Ful, ‘Legal Protection of Geographical Sndications in the Context of the Association Agreement Between Ukraine and the EU’ (2018) 3 Theory and Practice of Intellectual Property 51 [Boлoдимиp Кpивoлaпчyк тa Cвiтлaнa Филь, ‘Пpaвoвa Oxopoнa Гeoгpaфiчниx Зaзнaчeнь y Кoнтeкcтi Угoди пpo Acoцiaцiю мiж Укpaїнoю тa ЄC’ (2018) 3 Teopiя i Пpaктикa Iнтeлeктyaльнoї Bлacнocтi 51]

    Google Scholar 

  • Annette Kur, Marianne Levin and Jens Schovsbo, ‘The EU Design Approach – a Global Appraisal’ in Annette Kur (ed), The EU Design Approach: A Global Appraisal (Edward Elgar 2018) 251

    Google Scholar 

  • Marianne Levin, ‘The Harmonising Decisions from Luxembourg’ in Annette Kur, Marianne Levin and Jens Schovsbo (eds), The EU Design Approach: A Global Appraisal (Edward Elgar Publishing 2018) 49

    Google Scholar 

  • Stefan Lorenzmeier, Roman Petrov and Christoph Vedder (eds), EU External Relations Law: Shared Competences and Shared Values in Agreements Between the EU and its Eastern Neighbourhood (Springer 2021)

    Google Scholar 

  • Dieter Mahncke and Sieglinde Gstöhl (eds), Europe's Near Abroad: Promises and Prospects of the EU's Neighbourhood Policy (P.I.E. Peter Lang 2008)

    Google Scholar 

  • Anke Moerland, ‘Do Developing Countries Have a Say? Bilateral and Regional Intellectual Property Negotiations with the EU’ (2017) 48 International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law 760

    Google Scholar 

  • Souheir Nadde-Phlix, ‘IP Protection in EU Free Trade Agreements vis-à-vis IP Negotiations in the WTO’ in Josef Drexl, Henning Grosse Ruse-Khan and Souheir Nadde-Phlix (eds), EU Bilateral Trade Agreements and Intellectual Property: For Better or Worse? (Springer 2014) 133

    Google Scholar 

  • Roman Petrov, ‘The Impact of Court of Justice of the European Union on the Legal System of Ukraine’ in Arie Reich and Hans-W. Micklitz (eds), The Impact of the European Court of Justice on Neighbouring Countries (OUP 2020) 189

    Google Scholar 

  • Roman Petrov and Peter Van Esluwege (eds), Legislative Approximation and Application of EU Law in the Eastern Neighbourhood of the European Union (Routledge 2014)

    Google Scholar 

  • Pedro Roffe, ‘Intellectual Property Chapters in Free Trade Agreements: Their Significance and Systemic Implications’ in Josef Drexl, Henning Grosse Ruse-Khan and Souheir Nadde-Phlix (eds), EU Bilateral Trade Agreements and Intellectual Property: For Better or Worse? (Springer 2014) 17

    Google Scholar 

  • Eleonora Rosati, Copyright and the Court of Justice of the European Union (Oxford University Presiy 2019)

    Google Scholar 

  • Oliver Ruhl and Jan Tolkmitt, Gemeinschaftsgeschmacksmuster (Carl Heymanns Verlag 2019)

    Google Scholar 

  • Tobias Schumacher, Andreas Marchetti and Thomas Demmelhuber (eds), The Routledge Handbook on the European Neighbourhood Policy (Routledge 2018)

    Google Scholar 

  • Xavier Seuba and Elena Dan, ‘The European Foreign Policy for Intellectual Property Enforcement’ in Josef Drexl and Anselm Kamperman Sanders (eds), The Innovation Society and Intellectual Property (Edward Elgar Publishing 2019) 160

    Google Scholar 

  • Xavier Seuba, The Global Regime for the Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights (Cambridge University Press 2017)

    Google Scholar 

  • Xavier Seuba, ‘The Relevance of the Principles for Intellectual Property Provisions in Bilateral and Regional Agreements vis-à-vis European Preferential Trade Agreements’ (2013) 44 International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law 943

    Google Scholar 

  • Alain Strowel and Kim Hee-Eun, ‘The Balancing Impact of General EU Law on European Intellectual Property Jurisprudence’ in Ansgar Ohly and Justine Pila (eds), The Europeanization of Intellectual Property Law: Towards a European Legal Methodology (Oxford University Press 2013) 121

    Google Scholar 

  • Uma Suthersanen, ‘Excluding Designs (and Shape Marks): Where Is the EU Court of Justice Going?’ (2019) 50 International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law 157

    Google Scholar 

  • Uma Suthersanen and Marc D Mimler, ‘An Autonomous EU Functionality Doctrine for Shape Exclusions’ 69(6) GRUR International (2020) 567

    Google Scholar 

  • Marketa Trimble, ‘Unjustly Vilified TRIPS-Plus?: Intellectual Property Law in Free Trade Agreements’ (Forthcoming) American University Law Review 1

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Global Innovation Law and Policy, University of Alicante, Alicante, Spain

    Anastasiia Kyrylenko

Authors
  1. Anastasiia Kyrylenko
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anastasiia Kyrylenko .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Max-Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition, Munich, Germany

    Heiko Richter

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Kyrylenko, A. (2023). The Reformed Design Law in Ukraine: What is Right with EU Trade Agreements?. In: Richter, H. (eds) Competition and Intellectual Property Law in Ukraine. MPI Studies on Intellectual Property and Competition Law, vol 31. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-66101-7_18

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-66101-7_18

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-662-66100-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-662-66101-7

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation