• Our People
  • Global Presence
  • Regions
    • Asia
    • Europe
    • Americas
  • Offices
    • Canada
      • Ottawa
      • Toronto
    • China
      • Beijing
      • Hong Kong
    • Luxembourg
    • Malaysia
    • Singapore
    • UK
      • Aberdeen
      • Birmingham
      • Cambridge
      • Edinburgh
      • Glasgow
      • London
      • Manchester
      • Oxford
  • Client liaison
    • Japan
    • Korea
  • Expertise
  • Services
    • Patents
    • Brands & Trade Marks
    • Designs
    • Litigation & Dispute Resolution
    • Commercial IP & Contracts
    • Due Diligence
    • Freedom to Operate
    • EPO Patent Oppositions
    • European Patent Validations
    • Anti-counterfeiting
    • Open Source & Third Party Code
  • Sectors
    • Digital Transformation
      • 3D Printing
      • Artificial Intelligence
      • Blockchain
      • Data & Connectivity
      • Extended Reality
      • Industry 4.0
    • Energy & Environment
    • Life Sciences
    • Agritech
    • Medical Technologies
    • Chemistry
    • Transport
    • Entertainment & Creative Industries
    • Food & Drink
    • Fashion & Retail
    • Universities & Research Bodies
    • Start-ups & Spin-outs
      • Creating value for start-ups
      • The IP driven start-up
    • Financial Services
  • About Us
    • Working with us
    • Awards
    • Corporate & Social Responsibility
    • Diversity & Inclusion
    • Careers
  • Insights
    • Articles
    • News
    • Events
    • Resources
    • Unified Patent Court hub
    • Beyond Brexit: European trade mark hub
    • M&C Reacts
  • Contact Us
Marks & Clerk logo
Marks & Clerk logo
Contact Us
Language
English
Our People
Global Presence
Regions
  • Asia
  • Europe
  • Americas
Offices
  • Canada
    • Ottawa
    • Toronto
  • China
    • Beijing
    • Hong Kong
  • Luxembourg
  • Malaysia
  • Singapore
  • UK
    • Aberdeen
    • Birmingham
    • Cambridge
    • Edinburgh
    • Glasgow
    • London
    • Manchester
    • Oxford
Client liaison
  • Japan
  • Korea
Expertise
Services
  • Patents
  • Brands & Trade Marks
  • Designs
  • Litigation & Dispute Resolution
  • Commercial IP & Contracts
  • Due Diligence
  • Freedom to Operate
  • EPO Patent Oppositions
  • European Patent Validations
  • Anti-counterfeiting
  • Open Source & Third Party Code
Sectors
  • Digital Transformation
    • 3D Printing
    • Artificial Intelligence
    • Blockchain
    • Data & Connectivity
    • Extended Reality
    • Industry 4.0
  • Energy & Environment
  • Life Sciences
  • Agritech
  • Medical Technologies
  • Chemistry
  • Transport
  • Entertainment & Creative Industries
  • Food & Drink
  • Fashion & Retail
  • Universities & Research Bodies
  • Start-ups & Spin-outs
    • Creating value for start-ups
    • The IP driven start-up
  • Financial Services
About Us
  • Working with us
  • Awards
  • Corporate & Social Responsibility
  • Diversity & Inclusion
  • Careers
Insights
  • Articles
  • News
  • Events
  • Resources
  • Unified Patent Court hub
  • Beyond Brexit: European trade mark hub
  • M&C Reacts

Novelty and individual character in Community Designs

17 February 2014
Print
Share

CJEU increases scope for argument in Gautzsch v Münchener Boulevard Möbel

Community design law assesses the novelty and individual character of a design (and thus its eligibility for protection as a Community design, either registered or unregistered) by reference to prior designs.

However this test is not to be applied like a strict novelty or obviousness test in the law of patents. Prior designs are to be disregarded if in the normal course of business, they could not reasonably have become known to the circles specialised in the sector concerned, operating within the European Union (EU).

There have been a number of cases debating the appropriate definition of “relevant circles” for any specific technical field or market, but a new decision from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has focussed on two other questions:

  • Is it sufficient if images of the prior design were merely distributed to traders?
  • Is a disclosure inevitably one which could reasonably have become known to the circles specialised in the sector concerned where it has been made only to one undertaking in those specialised circles, albeit without any explicit or implicit conditions of confidentiality, or if that disclosure took place in a showroom of an undertaking in, for instance, China which lies outside the scope of “normal market analysis”?

In the case of H. Gautzsch Großhandel GmbH & Co. KG v Münchener Boulevard Möbel Joseph Duna GmbH (Case C 479/12), in a preliminary ruling on the interpretation of the Community Design Regulation, the CJEU has now answered these questions as follows (respectively):

  • It depends on the facts, but even the mere distribution of images of a design can amount to such disclosure – you do not have to have seen the “real thing”

Thus, internet disclosures, if found to have been seen by the relevant circles, brochures and the like are just as good as prior designs.

  • It depends on the facts, but even if disclosed without any explicit or implicit conditions of confidentiality, disclosure merely to one undertaking in that sector or only in the showrooms of an undertaking outside the EU, does not inevitably lead to a finding that the design may reasonably have become known to the circles specialised in the sector concerned, operating within the EU.

This second element in particular has the potential to increase uncertainty and the willingness to fight a case on novelty and individual character because it opens up a whole array of arguments on what would and would not, on the facts, amount to a disclosure which is sufficient to become known.

Even though the Community design law provides a 12 month “grace period” for disclosures of one’s own design before the opportunity to obtain registered protection is lost for that exact design, self-destruction remains a possibility through disclosure of similar designs by oneself, for example where a prototype is disclosed and the design is changed following test feedback. Accordingly the moral from this case is clear: only disclose prototypes under obligations of confidentiality; register designs before testing the market; be careful what pre-production photographs and other images are put into circulation by sales teams.

However, if accidents have happened, do not simply give up the fight as an owner: if leakage was limited, there is still a chance of salvaging the later design (and, equally, a risk of your own attack against a competitor’s later design, based on a limited circulation of your design, failing).

More insights

Latest Insights

News
- 16 March 2023

Chris Hemingway of Marks & Clerk Malaysia recognised by Asia IP as a top practitioner

We are delighted to announce that Chris Hemingway, Director (Office Managing Partner) at Marks & Clerk Malaysia has been recognised by Asia IP as a top practitioner in his field.
Read more
Black Nike Air Force Ones with Tiffany blue tick, against a Tiffany blue background
Article
- 15 March 2023

IP protection in collaborations: "Just Do It"

2022 saw a growing rise in athleisure, with many brands recognising the business opportunities it brings, including reaching new markets and increasing market share through their own performance lines or through collaborations with existing active wear brands.
Read more
Article
- 13 March 2023

Peppa Pig v Wolfoo: clash of the cartoons

In its recent decision in Entertainment One UK Ltd & Anor v Sconnect Co Ltd & Ors, the High Court considered whether English courts could have jurisdiction in cases involving intellectual property infringements on internationally accessible internet platforms.
Read more
Marks & Clerk logo (white)
  • Terms & Conditions
  • Privacy Notice
  • Cookies
  • Legal Notices
  • Press Enquiries
  • Lexology
  • Mondaq