WHEN IS A DESIGN NOT A DESIGN?


The IPKat has come across this charming Practice Notice from OHIM defining just what can and cannot be protected as a Community design. In most instances, the guiding principle is whether the type of feature in question constitutes the appearance of a product, though in some cases it is whether the feature constitutes a finished product or a indeed whether it will be seen as a product at all. The features discussed in the Practice Notice are:

*colour per se – not a design (though colour can be an element of a design)
*fragrances – not a design because not part of the appearance of a product
*mere words in plain black script – not a design
*words in fancy script/combined with a figurative element – can be a design
*music and sounds – not a design
*musical notation – can be a design if applied for for e.g. other printed matter
*living plants – not a design because living (as opposed to artificial plants) aren’t seen as products
*blueprints/architectural plans/interior or landscape designs – not a design for the building/landscape etc. in which the design is intended to be incorporated because CDs must consist of finished products but plans can be designs for themselves
* photographs can be a design.

Colour per se – not capable of being protected as a CD

The IPKat says that it’s interesting that what’s hard to protect as a CTM is also hard to protect as a Community design. Merpel says that she highly recommends the pictures of accepted and rejected CD applicants in the Practice Note.

Good design here and here
WHEN IS A DESIGN NOT A DESIGN? WHEN IS A DESIGN NOT A DESIGN? Reviewed by Anonymous on Sunday, June 05, 2005 Rating: 5

No comments:

All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.

It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.

Learn more here: http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/p/want-to-complain.html

Powered by Blogger.