Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Limitations in the Field of Designs

  • Article
  • Published:
IIC - International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

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

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Geiger (2009); Dreier (2010); Geiger et al. (2015).

  2. Levin (1984); Eichmann and Kur (2016).

  3. Recently, several economic studies have focused on the impact of design on innovation: Galindo-Rueda and Millot (2015); Europe Economics (2015).

  4. The 2016 Hague Yearly Review states: “For the first time, designs relating to recording and communication equipment (Class 14) accounted for the largest share (10.8%) of total registrations in 2015. This was followed by designs relating to clocks and watches (Class 10), and means of transport (Class 12), with shares of 9.0 and 7.4%, respectively” (p. 5).

  5. See for example, Kur (2008a), p. 613.

  6. Kur (1993).

  7. Directive 98/71/CE of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 1998 on the legal protection of designs, OJEC 28.10.1998, L 289/28-33; and Regulation (EC) No. 6/2002 of 12 December 2001 on Community designs, OJEC, 5.1.2002 L 3/1-24. These two documents will be referred to hereinafter as Dir. and Reg.

  8. The Hague Agreement Concerning the International Deposit of Industrial Designs, 1925, as revised. Whereas the USA, Japan and the Republic of Korea have acceded to the Geneva Act of the Hague Agreement in 2014 and 2015, Canada, Russia and China have engaged in national reforms with this same aim. See Bisson (2015).

  9. See Gurry (2016).

  10. Geiger (2004); Schovsbo and Ramsey (2013).

  11. On the problem of functionality in designs, see e.g. Fischman Afori (2010); see also the referral in C-395/16, Doceram GmbH v. CeramTec GmbH, and the Opinion of Advocate General Saugmandsgaard Øe delivered on 19 October 2017.

  12. Those “pools of inland water within the island” of exclusivity in “the ocean of freedoms”: Kur (2011), p. 211, fn 16. Very often they are referred to as “exceptions and limitations”, the EU legislation calling these elements just “limitations”. We shall abide with the EU legislation, the discussion on the right labelling beyond the scope of this paper. See however, Kur (2011), pp. 210–211; Geiger (2014), p. 877 and literature referred.

  13. Such “hybridity” has been notably conceptualised by Reichman (1994). Suthersanen (2004), p. 57, refers to the “multi-faceted nature of the subject matter”.

  14. See however McCutcheon (2015); Kurz (2014); Mouron (2013); Klawitter (2012); Gerdau De Borja (2008).

  15. Legal Review on Industrial Design Protection in Europe (2016).

  16. Whereas the registered design protects against any design that does not produce a different overall impression on the informed user, the unregistered design protects only against such designs if copying is proven. This difference is hence present at the enforcement stage as an additional proof of copying is required.

  17. Reg. Art. 19.1.

  18. Reg. Art. 10, same for national registered designs Dir. Art. 9.

  19. Reg. Art. 10 and Dir. Art. 9 Dir., plus Reg. Art. 36.6. This last very important point has caused debate, see Hartwig (2016). For the purposes of space and time we will not directly address this issue in the present paper, but we will keep it in mind.

  20. Reg. Art. 19.1 and 19.2, same for national titles Dir. Art. 12.

  21. This distinction is inspired by German copyright law, Sec. 15, that distinguishes material forms of exploitation (“[…] sein Werk in körperlicher Form zu verwerten […]” (§ 1.)) and immaterial ones (“[…] sein Werk unkörperlicher Form öffentlich wiederzugeben […]” (§ 2.)).

  22. For a critique, Bently and Sherman (2014), p. 755: “The better view is that it should be limited in this way [‘“use” is limited to activities of the same sort as those listed’], especially given that the definition of design is broad enough to encompass subject-matter previously the preserve of copyright and trade mark law. […] Recital 21 of the Regulation states that right ‘should also extend to trade in products embodying infringing designs’, and supports a view that the meaning of ‘use’ is to be confined to ‘trade in products [fn omitted]. On this basis, ‘use’ would not cover broadcasting.” See also for a critique of embodied protection in the USA: Burstein 2016.

  23. ECJ, 238/87, “AB Volvo & Erik Veng”, 5 October 1988, pt. 8, [emphasis added]; similarly in the case 53/87, “CICRA et al. v. Renault”, 5 October 1988, pt. 11: “It should then be noted that the authority of a proprietor of a protective right in respect of an ornamental model to oppose the manufacture by third parties, for the purposes of sale on the internal market or export, of products incorporating the design or to prevent the import of such products manufactured without its consent in other Member States constitutes the substance of his exclusive right.”.

  24. ECJ, C-23/99, 26 September 2000, Commission c/France, ECLI:EU:C:2000:500, Sec. 42, emphasis added; see Passa (2011).

  25. Reg. Art. 20.1(a); Dir. 13.1(a).

  26. Reg. Art. 20.1(b); Dir. Art. 13.1(b).

  27. Reg. Art. 20.1.c); Dir. Art. 13.1(c).

  28. Reg. Art. 20.1(c) in fine; Dir. Art. 13.1 c) in fine.

  29. Reg. Art. 20.2, Dir. Art. 13.2.

  30. This exception in the Paris Convention concerns only patents, responding to the needs not to impede freedom of transport in the course of international trade (see Bodenhausen (1968), pp. 82–84). We shall not address this in detail in this paper, see however Mikalsen (2016).

  31. Beier et al. (1991).

  32. Beier, Haertel, Levin and Kur (1991).

  33. Green Paper on the Legal Protection of Industrial Design (1990); this Proposal was drawing on the first MPI proposal. See Gotzen (1992). The inclusion of “using a product” into the content of rights could, however, be interpreted as also granting rights on immaterial exploitation.

  34. Kurz (2014), p. 6; Eichman, von Falckenstein and Kühne (2015), para. 40, marginal number 5.

  35. Illustro, avi, atus: illuminate, light up; give glory; embellish; make clear, elucidate; enlighten”. (Latin-English dictionary, by W. Whitaker (2010)). In the German, English, Spanish and Italian, Czech, Danish, Croatian, Latvian, Maltese, Polish, Slovak, Slovene, Swedish versions “cito” is preferred (Zitierung, citation, cita, citazione, citací, citatøjemed, citiranja, citēšanas, ċitazzjonijiet, cytowania, citácií, citiranja, citera).

  36. Cito, avi, atus: “urge on, encourage; promote, excite; summon; set in motion; move; cite” (Latin-English dictionary, by W. Whitaker (2010)). In the Francophone and Dutch versions “illustro” is used (illustration, illustratie).

  37. Further diversity is exemplified by other versions, some translating this as “citation” (e.g. in the Finnish and Hungarian), some having a different meaning, such as “demonstration” in Bulgarian (демонстрационна), or “reference” in Portuguese (referência), or “bibliographical” in Romanian (bibliografice).

  38. Art. 513-6(c) CPI: “si ces actes mentionnent l'enregistrement et le nom du titulaire des droits”.

  39. Green Paper on the Legal Protection of Industrial Design (1990), para. 6.4.7.1, referring to Art. 27 of the Agreement Relating to Community Patents, Luxembourg 15 December 1989, 89/695/EEC, OJ L 401, 30/12/1989, pp. 1–27.

  40. Ohlgart (1996), p. 143: it “seems to be rooted in copyright law”.

  41. In some legislations, however, the right to paternity exists as a mimicry of the patent law; see for example, the “pravo avtorstva” in Art. 1356 of the Russian Civil Code.

  42. On this provision, see Ginsburg and Ricketson (2006), p. 783 et seq.

  43. German Federal Supreme Court, decision from 7 April 2011, I ZR 56/09 – ICE, para. 46; 2011 GRUR p. 1117; Bardhele Pagenberg IP Report 2011 V, p. 28.

  44. Gervais (2012), paras. 2.329–2.349; Kur (1996).

  45. Article 5quinquies of the Paris Convention requires “industrial designs” to “be protected in all countries of the Union”. Unsurprisingly, no reference to the content of rights is to be found there, but the immateriality, with no reference to any products, should be underlined.

  46. Kur (2008b).

  47. Some negotiators brought such proposals: see Anell draft, MTN.GNG/NG11/W/76, 23 July 1990, Sec. 4 Art. 6.A.1, as well as the US proposal: MTN.GNG/NG11/W/70, 11 May 1990 [also in UNCTAD-ICTSD (2005), p. 328]; see also Existence, Scope and Form of Generally Internationally accepted and applied standards/norms for the protection of intellectual property, Addendum, MTN.GNG/NG11/W/24/Add.1, pp. 7–8.

  48. WTO Panel report, 17 March 2000, WT/DS114/R (Canada – Patent Protection for Pharmaceutical Products); WTO Panel report, June 15, 2000, WT/DS160/R (USA – Sec. 110(5) of the US Copyright Act); WTO Panel report, 15 March 2005, WT/DS174/R (EC – Protection of Trademarks and Geographical Indications for Agricultural Products and Foodstuffs).

  49. Kur (2011).

  50. WT/DS114/R, Sec. 7.35, see on the interpretation of these “central” criteria and doctrinal debates: Kur (2011), pp. 229–232.

  51. Bogsch (1959), p. 5.

  52. Ibid., p. 6.

  53. BIRPI/WIPO (1970), pp. 46–48.

  54. Ibid., p. 47.

  55. Ibid., p. 46.

  56. See Art. 19 of the EU Regulation No. 6/2002.

  57. Art. 38 of the Japanese Design Act 1959.

  58. Art. 9.2 of the Swiss LDes 2001.

  59. The infringing acts for the purposes of Sec. 35 U.S.C. 271.a are: making, using, offering to sell, or selling without authority. NB: 35 U.S.C. 171.b authorises the application of the provisions related to utility patents to design patents, except when otherwise provided.

  60. Art. 3.16 Partie III de la Convention Benelux en matière de propriété intellectuelle (marques et dessins ou modèles), in force since 1 October 2013.

  61. NB: regarding the rights conferred to the owner of a community design, Art. L 515-1 of the French CPI refers directly to Art. 19 of Regulation No. 6/2002.

  62. Paris Court of Appeal, pôle 5, ch. 2, 27 November 2015, S.A.S. Piganiol c/S.A.S. Publicis Conseil et al., No. 13/21612, JurisData No. 2015-029315; Propr. Industr. No.2, févr. 2016, comm. 13, P.Greffe.

  63. Art. 9.1bis LDes states, however, that the owner can prohibit the importation, exportation and transit of industrially manufactured goods even for private purposes.

  64. From the relatively abundant literature, see e.g. Geiger (2006).

  65. Mikalsen (2016); however, for an explanation of Art. 5ter of the Paris Convention through the principle of territoriality, see Raynard et al. (2016), p. 346.

  66. Paris District Court, Ordonnance en référé, March 25 2008, v. “Louis Vuitton attaque une campagne sur le Darfour”, LeNouvelObs, 30 April 2008 (http://o.nouvelobs.com/high-tech/20080428.OBS1784/louis-vuitton-attaque-une-campagne-sur-le-darfour.html); The Hague District Court, 4 May 2011, Nadia Plesner Joensen c/Louis Vuitton Malletier SA, IER 2011/39 (obs. W. Sakulin), reversing the decision of 27 January 2011, Louis Vuitton Malletier SA c/Nadia Plesner Joensen), LJN:BP9616 KG RK 10-214; See Guibault (2011); Bently and Sherman (2014), p. 768; McCutcheon (2015).

  67. Paris Court of Appeal, pôle 5, ch. 2, 21 September 2012, SCPE c/SARL Jalons Éd. et SARL Cogenor; Mouron (2013); Dalloz 2013, 1924, obs. J.-Ch. Galloux.

  68. For an assessment of the issue of parody in the field of copyright, see Geiger et al. (2015).

  69. Kur (2011), p. 612, referring to the BMW/Bloc case decided by the Dutch Supreme Court, 2 February, 1998.

  70. German Federal Supreme Court decision of 7 April 2011, I ZR 56/09 – ICE.

  71. Paris Court of Appeal, pôle 5, ch. 2, 27 November 2015, S.A.S. Piganiol c/S.A.S. Publicis Conseil et al.

  72. ECJ, 27 September 2017, joint cases C-24/16 and C-25/16, Nintendo Co. Ltd/BigBen Interactive GmbH, Big Ben Interactive SA, paras 68–86. For the headnotes to this decision, see this issue of IIC at doi:10.1007/s40319-017-0659-x.

  73. Eastern High Court, 29 January 2016, Sangenic International Limited v. Lamico ApS, B-214515; confirming the decision of the Danish Maritime and Commercial Court, 10 September 2015, A-11-15. See Valentin (2015). The author is grateful to Mr. A. Valentin for sharing this information.

  74. Düsseldorf District Court, 26 September 2013, 14c O 143/11 U, paras. 180–197.

  75. Düsseldorf District Court, 26 September 2013, 14c O 251/10 U, paras. 191–207; see C. Kurz, op. cit.

  76. ECJ, 27 September 2017, joint cases C-24/16 and C-25/16, Nintendo Co. Ltd v. BigBen Interactive GmbH, Big Ben Interactive SA, paras. 68–86; the question was lodged on 18 January 2016.

  77. See ECJ, Grand Chamber, 4 October 2011, joined cases C-403/08 and C-429/08, Football Association Premier League et a. v. QC Leisure et a. and Karen Murphy v. Media Protection Services Ltd, paras. 162–163; ECJ, 1 December 2011, C-145/10, Painer, paras. 109 and 133; ECJ, Grand Chamber, 3 September 2014, C-201/13, Johan Deckmyn, Vrijheidsfonds VZW, Helena Vandersteen et al., paras. 22–23.

  78. Referring to ECJ, 17 March 2005, Gillette Company and Gillette Group Finland, C-228/03.

  79. Kur (1993), p. 377.

  80. Bürdek (2005), p. 293 et seq.

  81. Albeit with the exclusion of visual features of a product that are solely dictated by its technical function.

  82. Catala (1983), passim.

  83. See Bürdek (2005); Hara (2011); Vial (2015).

  84. For instance, on possible definitions of a design, see Raahauge (2015).

  85. Derclaye and Taylor (2015a, b).

  86. Directive 2009/125/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 establishing a framework for the setting of eco-design requirements for energy-related products, OJEU 31.10.2009, L 285/10.

  87. Referring to the distinctive character of a trademark as a gatekeeper within the trademark legislation, Senftleben (2015), p. 359.

  88. Bently and Sherman (2014), p. 761.

  89. For a critique of the distinctivity test as internal gatekeeper in trademarks, see Senftleben (2015), pp. 372–373.

  90. After Dior/Evora, where the ECJ applied the exhaustion principle to the copyright reproduction right, in order to be consistent with such limit applied to a trademark right in the same case, it would be rather peculiar if such reproduction rights in the field of designs would not also be subject to exhaustion (ECJ, C-337/95, 4 November 1997, Dior/Evora, Rec. CJCE I, p. 6034). See Kur (2001), p. 610.

  91. Klawitter (2012); and Kurz (2014).

  92. See the Legal Review on Industrial Design Protection in Europe (2016). Exceptions and limitations to design rights are not a key priority as identified by this review.

  93. Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the European Union trade mark (OJ L 078 24.3.2009, p. 1), amended by the Regulation (EU) 2015/2424 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2015, OJ L 341, 24.12.2015, p. 21. Art. 12.1.c) reads as follows: “An EU trade mark shall not entitle the proprietor to prohibit a third party from using, in the course of trade […]: the EU trade mark for the purpose of identifying or referring to goods or services as those of the proprietor of that trade mark, in particular, where the use of that trade mark is necessary to indicate the intended purpose of a product or service, in particular as accessories or spare parts”.

  94. Such change was proposed in 2011 in “IP in Transition – Proposals for Amendment of TRIPS”. Amendments to Art. 26.2 would include a limitation to acts of reproduction “in order to provide information in connection with sales of goods or services that are legitimately commercialised on the market concerned”. See Kur and Levin 2011.

  95. For a detailed exploration with a specific focus on spare parts see Firth 2009.

  96. Stone (2016).

  97. This is underlined by the AG Yves Bot in his opinion in the joined cases C-24/16 and C-25/16, 1 March 2017, para. 75 and by the Court of justice in its decision in para. 76.

References

Journals

  • Beier FK, Haertel K, Levin M, Kur A (1991) Proposal of the Max Planck Institute for a European Design Law. IIC 22(4):441–594

  • Bogsch A (1959) Report adopted by the Study Group on the international protection of works of applied art, designs and models. Paris, Unesco House, 20–23 April 1959, SGD/VII (rev.)

  • Burstein S (2016) The patented design. Tenn Law Rev 83:161

    Google Scholar 

  • Catala P (1983) Ebauche d’une théorie juridique de l’information. Informatica e diritto, IX Annata IX(1):15–31

    Google Scholar 

  • Derclaye E, Taylor T (2015a) Happy IP: replacing the law and economics justification for intellectual property rights with a well-being approach. EIPR 37(4):197–209

    Google Scholar 

  • Derclaye E, Taylor T (2015b) Happy IP: aligning intellectual property rights with well-being. IPQ 1:1–14

    Google Scholar 

  • Dreier T (2010) Limitations: the centrepiece of copyright in distress—an introduction. JIPITEC 1:50

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischman Afori O (2010) The role of the non-functionality requirement in design law. Fordham Intell Prop Media Ent LJ 20:847

    Google Scholar 

  • Galindo-Rueda F, Millot V (2015) Measuring design and its role in innovation. OECD Science, Technology and Industry Working Papers 1. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5js7p6lj6zq6-en

  • Geiger C (2004) De la nature juridique des limites au droit d’auteur. Propr Intell 13:882

    Google Scholar 

  • Geiger C (2006) “Constitutionalising” intellectual property law? The influence of fundamental rights on intellectual property in the european union. IIC 37(4):371–406

    Google Scholar 

  • Geiger C (2009) Promoting creativity through copyright limitations: reflections on the concept of exclusivity in copyright law. Vand J Entertain Technol Law 12:515–548

    Google Scholar 

  • Geiger C, Griffiths J, Senftleben M, Bently L, Xalabarder R (2015) Limitations and Exceptions as Key Elements of the Legal Framework for Copyright in the European Union—Opinion of the European Copyright Society on the Judgment of the CJEU in Case C-201/13 Deckmyn. IIC 46(1):93–101

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gerdau De Borja A (2008) Exceptions to design rights: the potential impact of Article 26(2) TRIPS. EIPR 30(12):500–508

  • Guibault L (2011) The Netherlands: Darfurnica, Miffy and the right to parody. JIPITEC 3:236

    Google Scholar 

  • Hartwig H (2016) “What you see is what you get”—Erzeugnisangabe und Schutzumfang im Geschmacksmusterrecht. GRUR 882 et seq

  • Klawitter C (2012) Werbung mit fremden Bidern: Für eine geschmacksterspeczifische Auslegung des Zitatrechts bei der Abbildung geschützter Erzeugnisse Dritter GRUR-Prax 1

  • Kur A (1993) The Green Paper’s approach—what’s wrong with it? EIPR 15(10):374–378

    Google Scholar 

  • Kurz C (2014) Kann ein Geschmacksmuster beschreibend benutzt warden und wo kann man darüber streinte? KSzW. 1:3–9

    Google Scholar 

  • McCutcheon J (2015) Designs, Parody and artistic expression—a comparative perspective of Plesner v. University of Western Australia-Faculty of Law Research Paper, Louis Vuitton, p 15

    Google Scholar 

  • Mikalsen R (2016) The scope of the Paris Convention’s temporary presence exception from patent infringement for visiting foreign vessels. JIPLP 11(8):612–618

    Google Scholar 

  • Mouron P (2013) La parodie, nouvelle limite externe au droit des dessins et modèles?. RLDI 98:72–78

    Google Scholar 

  • Passa J (2011) La fonction du droit des dessins et modèles. RLDA 63:82–86

    Google Scholar 

  • Raahauge KM (2015) The design concept—anything, everything, something and nothing. Artifact 3(4):1.1–1.2. https://scholarworks.iu.edu/journals/index.php/artifact/

  • Reichman J (1994) Legal hybrids between the patent and copyright paradigms. Columbia Law Rev 94(8):2432–2558

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schovsbo J, Ramsey L (2013) Mechanisms for limiting trade mark rights to further competition and free speech. IIC 44:671–700

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stone D (2016) Trunki—how did things go so wrong? JIPLP 11(9):662–681

    Google Scholar 

  • Valentin A (2015) New ruling determines design rights’ scope of protection. http://en.horten.dk/News/2015/September/New-ruling-determines-design-rights-scope-of-protection. Accessed 14 July 2017

Books

  • Bently L, Sherman B (2014) Intellectual property law, 4th edn. OUP, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bodenhausen GHC (1968) Guide to the application of the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property. BIRPI, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  • Bürdek BE (2005) Design: history, theory and practice of product design. Birkhäuser, Basel

    Google Scholar 

  • Eichman/Von Falckenstein/Kühne (2015) Designgesetz, 5th edn. C.H. Beck, Munich

    Google Scholar 

  • Eichmann H, Kur A (eds) (2016) Designrecht, 2nd edn. Nomos, Baden Baden

    Google Scholar 

  • Gervais D (2012) The TRIPS Agreement, drafting history and analysis, 4th edn. Sweet & Maxwell, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Ginsburg J, Ricketson S (2006) International copyright and neighbouring rights, vol 1. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Gotzen F (ed) (1992) The Green Paper on the legal protection of industrial design. Story-Scentia, Kluwer, Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  • Hara K (2011) Designing design. Lars Müller Publishers, Baden

    Google Scholar 

  • Kur A, Levin M (eds) (2011) Intellectual property in a fair world trade system—proposals for reform of TRIPS. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham

    Google Scholar 

  • Levin M (1984) Formskydd. LiberFörlag, Stockholm

    Google Scholar 

  • Raynard J, Py E, Tréfigny P (2016) Droit de la propriété industrielle. LexisNexis, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • UNCTAD-ICTSD (2005) Resource book on TRIPS and development. Cambridge University Press, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Vial S (2015) Le design. Presses universitaires de France, Que sais-je? Paris

Book Chapters

  • Bisson G (2015) The Hague system today and tomorrow. In: De Werra J (ed) Design law. Schulthess, Genève, pp 18–39

    Google Scholar 

  • Firth A (2009) Repairs, interconnections, and consumer welfare in the field of design. In: Heath C, Kamperman Sanders A (eds) Spares, repairs and intellectual property rights. Kluwer Law International, Alphen aan den Rijn, pp 147–180

    Google Scholar 

  • Gurry F (2016) Developments in the international intellectual property system. In: Geiger C (ed) The intellectual property system in a time of change: European and international perspectives. LexisNexis, CEIPI no 64, Paris, pp 57–65

  • Kur A (1996) TRIPS and design protection. In: Beier FR, Schricker G (eds) From Gatt to TRIPS—the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, IIC Studies no 18. VCH, Weinheim, pp 141–159

    Google Scholar 

  • Kur A (2001) Exceptions to protection where copyright and trademarks overlap. In: Ginsburg J, Besek M (eds) Adjuncts and alternatives to copyright. ALAI-USA, New York, pp 594 et seq

  • Kur A (2008a) Cumulation of intellectual property rights pertaining to product shapes. In: Ghidini G, Genovesi LM (eds) Intellectual property and market power: ATRIP papers 2006–2007. Eudeba, Buenos Aires, pp 613–632

    Google Scholar 

  • Kur A (2008b) Limiting IP protection for competition policy reasons—a case study based on the EU spare-parts-design discussion. In: Drexl J (ed) Research handbook on intellectual property & competition law. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 313–345

    Google Scholar 

  • Kur A (2011) Limitations and exceptions under the three-step test—how much room to walk the middle ground. In: Kur A, Levin M (eds) Intellectual property rights in a fair world system, proposals for a reform of TRIPS. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 208–261

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Ohlgart D (1996) Commentary. In: Franzosi M (ed) European design protection: commentary to directive and regulation proposals. Kluwer Law International, Alphen aan den Rijn, pp 142–145

    Google Scholar 

  • Senftleben M (2011) Overprotection and protection overlaps in intellectual property law—the need for horizontal fair use defences. In: Kur A, Mizaras V (eds) The structure of intellectual property law: can one size fit all?. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 136–181

    Google Scholar 

  • Senftleben M (2015) Free signs and free use: how to offer room for freedom of expression within the trademark system. In: Geiger C (ed) Research handbook on human rights and intellectual property. Edward Elgar, Northampton, p 354 et seq

  • Suthersanen U (2004) Harmonising design law in a free trade area: jurisprudential lessons from the E.U. and the U.S. In: Antons C, Blakeney M, Heath C (eds) Intellectual property harmonisation within ASEAN and APEC. Kluwer, Aalphen an den Rijn, pp 57–91

    Google Scholar 

Case-law

  • District Court of the Hague, May 4, 2011, Nadia Plesner Joensen/Louis Vuitton Malletier SA, IER 2011/39 (obs. Sakulin W)

  • District Court Düsseldorf, 26.09.2013, 14c O 143/11 U

  • District Court Düsseldorf, 26.09.2013, 14c O 251/10 U

  • Eastern High Court (Demark), Jan. 29, 2016, Sangenic International Limited v. Lamico ApS, B-214515

  • ECJ, 238/87, AB Volvo & Erik Veng, 5 Oct. 1988

  • ECJ, 53/87, CICRA et al. v. Renault, 5 Oct. 1988

  • ECJ, C-23/99, Commission c/France, 26 Sept. 2000

  • ECJ, C–228/03, Gillette Company and Gillette Group Finland, 17 March 2005

  • ECJ, Grand Chamber, joined cases C-403/08 and C-429/08, Football Association Premier League et a. v. QC Leisure et a. and Karen Murphy v. Media Protection Services Ltd, 4 Oct. 2011

  • ECJ, C–145/10, Painer, 1 Dec. 2011

  • ECJ, Grand Chamber, C-201/13, Johan Deckmyn, Vrijheidsfonds VZW, Helena Vandersteen et a., 3 Sept. 2014

  • ECJ Opinion of the Advocate General, joined cases C-24/16 and C-25/16, Nintendo Co. Ltd/BigBen Interactive GmbH, Big Ben Interactive SA, 1 March 2017

  • ECJ, joined cases C-24/16 and C-25/16, Nintendo Co. Ltd/BigBen Interactive GmbH, Big Ben Interactive SA, 27 Sept. 2017

  • German Supreme Court, April 7, 2011—I ZR 56/09—ICE, GRUR 2011, 1117; Bardhele Pagenberg IP Report 2011 V, 28

  • Paris Court of Appeal, pôle 5, ch. 2, 27 Nov. 2015, S.A.S. Piganiol c/S.A.S. Publicis Conseil et al., no 13/21612, JurisData no 2015-029315; Propr. Industr. no 2, févr. 2016, comm. 13, Greffe P

  • Paris Court of Appeal, pôle 5, ch. 2, Sept. 21, 2012, SCPE/SARL Jalons Éd. et SARL Cogenor. D. 2013, 1924, obs. Galloux JC

  • Paris District Court, Ordonnance en référé, March 25 2008

  • WTO Panel report, March 17, 2000, WT/DS114/R (Canada—Patent Protection for Pharmaceutical Products)

  • WTO Panel report, June 15, 2000, WT/DS160/R (USA—Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act)

  • WTO Panel report, March 15, 2005, WT/DS174/R (EC—Protection of Trademarks and Geographical Indications for Agricultural Products and Foodstuffs)

Other

  • BIRPI/WIPO (1970) Model Law for Developing Countries on Industrial Designs. Geneva

  • Europe Economics (2015) The economic review of industrial design in Europe—final report, MARKT/2013/064//D2/ST/OP

  • 2016 Hague Yearly Review, International Registration of Industrial Designs, WIPO/PUB/930/2016, Economics and Statistics Series, WIPO, Geneva, 2017

  • Green Paper on the Legal Protection of Industrial Design (1990) Working document of the services of the Commission. III/F/5131/91-EN, June 1990

  • Legal Review on Industrial Design Protection in Europe (2016) MARKT2014/083/D. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Associated researcher at ILITIP, National Research University Higher School of Economics, Russian Federation, Moscow, Russia

    Natalia Kapyrina

  2. Doctoral candidate at CEIPI, University of Strasbourg, Strasbourg, France

    Natalia Kapyrina

Authors
  1. Natalia Kapyrina
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Natalia Kapyrina.

Additional information

This research was partially undertaken during the author’s stay at the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition (MPI), with a generous scholarship granted by the MPI. The author expresses gratitude to Professor Dr. Dr. h.c. Annette Kur and Professor Dr. Christophe Geiger for enlightening discussions. This paper was completed within the framework of the Basic Research Program at the National Research University Higher School of Economics (HSE) and supported within the framework of a subsidy by the Russian Academic Excellence Project ‘5-100’.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kapyrina, N. Limitations in the Field of Designs. IIC 49, 41–62 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40319-017-0660-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40319-017-0660-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation