European Union: Community Designs Solely Dictated By Their Technical Function? What We Found Out After CJEU Ruling On The Case C‑395/16?

Last Updated: 30 May 2018
Article by Tomasz Gawliczek

No one needs to be convinced that the applicable provisions of law are sometimes ambiguous. This also applies to the European Union law, but the European legislator has provided for a possible solution. Pursuant to Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) shall have jurisdiction to give preliminary rulings concerning the interpretation of acts of the institutions, bodies, offices or agencies of the Union. Therefore, if a national court directly applying the EU legal acts has any doubt as to their interpretation, and a decision in this respect is necessary to issue a judgment, the court may address the CJEU with specific legal questions.

As regards the provisions of the applicable Council Regulation (EC) No. 6/2002 of 12 December 2001 on Community designs (OJ L 2002, No. 3, p. 1; hereinafter: "CDR"), the CJEU has repeatedly given its opinion in response to questions referred for a preliminary ruling. However, the last judgment, issued on 8 March 2018, was to dispel substantial doubts concerning the option to exclude Community design protection for features of appearance of a product which are solely dictated by its technical function (Article 8(1) of the of the CDR). So what more about the subject can we say after that ruling?

Litigation in case DOCERAM GmbH v CeramTec GmbH

The dispute that formed a basis for the CJEU to issue the judgment was initiated by a German company, DOCERAM GmbH, which filed claims arising from its rights to registered Community designs in the form of centring pins available in three geometric shapes, each of which having several variants.

As found by the regional court in Düsseldorf, the defendant, CeramTec GmbH, manufactures and places on the market centring pins of the same types as the ones registered as Community designs of DOCERAM GmbH (with an identical overall impression). In response to the claims lodged against it, CeramTec GmbH used the classic form of defence, which in such cases consists in filing a counterclaim for invalidation of rights arising from the registration of Community designs by the principal claimant. In the counterclaim, the company stated that the features of the products in question (centring pins), registered as Community designs, were solely dictated by their technical function (Article 25(1)(b) of the CDR in conjunction with Article 8(1) of the CDR).

The Court of First Instance has dismissed the principal claim and allowed the counterclaim, sharing the opinion that the features of appearance of the disputed centring pins, registered as Community designs, are determined only by their technical functions. The opinion was challenged by DOCERAM GmbH, which filed an appeal, indicating that there are alternative designs of the said centring pins, which are not protected as registered Community designs. This has raised a question whether it is possible to refer to other existing designs that perform the same technical function in order to exclude that a specific feature of appearance of a product is solely dictated by its technical function. In such case, we also face the question whether the technical function is the only factor that determines the said features of appearance of a product.

Considering the discrepancies existing in the case-law, the Higher National Court in Düsseldorf presented the CJEU with the following two questions for a preliminary ruling:

  1. Are the features of appearance of a product solely dictated by its technical function, within the meaning of Article 8(1) of the RCD which excludes protection, also if the design effect is of no significance for the product design, but the (technical) functionality is the sole factor that dictates the design?
  2. If the Court answers Question 1 in the affirmative: From which point of view is it to be assessed whether the individual features of appearance of a product have been chosen solely on the basis of considerations of functionality? Is an "objective observer" required and, if so, how is such an observer to be defined?

Opinion of the Advocate General of 19 October 2017

Before the judgment was made on 19 October 2017, the issue had been addressed by Henrik Saugmandsgaard Øe, Advocate General of the CJEU. By indicating the legal framework, he referred to the recitals of the Council Regulation (EU) No. 6/2002, which stipulate that "technological innovation should not be hampered by granting design protection to features dictated solely by a technical function. It is understood that this does not entail that a design must have an aesthetic quality. (...) Consequently, those features of a design which are excluded from protection for those reasons should not be taken into consideration for the purpose of assessing whether other features of the design fulfil the requirements for protection" (recital 10).

When analysing the provisions of Article 8(1) of the CDR, the Advocate General noted that currently, while interpreting the article, there is a tendency to depart from the criterion of alternative designs in favour of the criterion of causality. Thus, we should principally refer to the causes for which the creator has included the disputed feature in the product. If the requirement to fulfil a specific technical function was the only circumstance determining the discussed design, then the condition provided for in Article 8(1) is satisfied. We should also take into account the artistic effort and the scope of artistic freedom when developing the design. Given the foregoing, Henrik Saugmandsgaard Øe has emphasized that the discussed limitation of right under registration of a Community design does not refer to cases where "the features in question are the only means of fulfilling the technical function of a product, but to cases where the need to achieve that function is the only factor to explain the adoption of those features" (point 29 of the opinion letter).

Being in favour of adopting the causality criterion, the Advocate General referred to the purposes of the Regulation and to its historic interpretation. Among other things, he has indicated that in the Commission's original proposal from 1993 the present provision of Article 8(1) of the CDR was worded as follows: "A Community Design right shall not subsist in a design to the extent that the realisation of a technical function leaves no freedom as regards arbitrary features of appearance". He has also referred to the other question for a preliminary ruling, pointing out that in this respect the assessment in question must be conducted by the court hearing the case "in the light of all the circumstances surrounding the choice of its features of appearance, bearing in mind the evidence provided by the parties, regardless of the subject or the nature of that evidence, and bearing in mind any measures of inquiry ordered by that court" (point 66). Therefore, it is not necessary to refer to the model of 'objective observer', which in the present legal status is unknown to the provisions of the Council Regulation (EC) No. 6/2002.

Opinion of the Court of Justice presented in the judgment of 8 March 2018

Although, when issuing a judgment in a case, the Court is not bound by a legal opinion of the Advocate General, in this case the previously presented reasoning was fully supported in the decision. The judgment presented the following two replies to the questions for a preliminary ruling asked by the German court:

  1. Article 8(1) of the CDR must be interpreted as meaning that in order to determine whether the features of appearance of a product are exclusively dictated by its technical function, it must be established that the technical function is the only factor which determined those features, the existence of alternative designs not being decisive in that regard;
  2. Article 8(1) of the CDR must be interpreted as meaning that, in order to determine whether the relevant features of appearance of a product are solely dictated by its technical function, within the meaning of that provision, the national court must take account of all the objective circumstances relevant to each individual case. In that regard, there is no need to base those findings on the perception of an 'objective observer'.

When judging in this case, the Court noted that the expression 'features of the appearance of a product which are solely dictated by its technical function' designated an autonomous concept of EU law which must be interpreted in a uniform manner in all the Member States. What is important, it has also indicated that the adoption of the criterion of existence of alternative designs from the point of view of interpreting the provision of Article 8(1) of the CDR could lead to a situation where entrepreneurs would intentionally register a range of the product forms covering its features of appearance solely dictated by technical function. In this way, the provisions of patent law could be evaded, as the right under registration of a Community design would actually guarantee the same level of protection but without having to meet the requirements applicable for obtaining a patent. The adoption of such interpretation would imply the risk of limiting technological innovations and would deprive the provision of Article 8(1) of the CDR of its effectiveness (effet utile).

In response to the question for a point of reference necessary to assess whether the individual features of appearance of a product are only determined by its technical functions, the Court sustained the opinion expressed in that regard by the Advocate General. It has also pointed out that the Council Regulation (EC) No. 6/2002 does not set out any legal solutions in this respect.

Do we indeed know more now?

The recently issued judgment of the CJEU in case C‑395/16 clarifies certain aspects of the issue in question, which previously were subject to discrepancies in the case-law and the literature concerning Community designs.

It is worth emphasizing that the assessment whether a particular feature of appearance of a product is solely dictated by its technical features is relevant in terms of both the procedure of registering a Community design (which is suggested even by the mere location of the provision of Article 8(1) of the CDR in Title II, Section 1 of the Regulation, titled "Requirements for protection") and the scope of protection guaranteed by the exclusive right to the registered design. This means that a registered Community design may be effectively invalidated if it is proved that all the features of appearance of the protected product are solely dictated by technical functions. In addition, the demonstration that the registered design shows features determined only by their functional (technical) aspect narrows down the scope of its legal protection, which may be of crucial importance to the subsequent assertion of claims under the violation of registration right.

The hitherto practice of the EUIPO allows to conclude that it is relatively rare that a right under registration of a Community design is invalidated with reference to Article 8(1) of the CDR. It is not easy to demonstrate that a specific design does not have any features other than those dictated by its technical functions (cf. e.g. EUIPO decision of 29/04/2010 r., case no. R 211/2008-3, where an earlier patent document was invoked). On the other hand, in proceedings for the violation of a right under registration of a Community design, it is the court hearing the case which must assess which elements of the design (as full determined by technical functions) should be excluded from protection.

Certainly, the Court judgment of 8 March 2018 ends the discussion on whether it is possible to invoke the theory of alternative designs as the only criterion to determine which features of appearance of a product can be deemed to be solely dictated by technical functions. However, if we adopt the causality criterion, this raises further doubts, for example the need to refer to the reasons (circumstances) why a given feature of the product has been included by its creator. A reference made to the scope of artistic freedom, which exists in this case, may also turn out to be insufficient to clearly distinguish the features of appearance of a product that can be considered to be fully (or only partially) dictated by its technical functions.

With no doubt, the discussed judgment will harmonise the trends in further judicial pronouncements and affect the practice in applying Article 8(1) of the CDR by the EUIPO. It may also have an indirect influence on the judgments made by national courts of the European Union Member States. It will surely be noted in the new EUIPO guidelines concerning Community designs, to be published in the second half of 2018.

Therefore, to give an answer to the question raised in the title, we may conclude that we do know more than before. Nevertheless, in order to dispel the remaining doubts, we will certainly have to wait until the CJEU issues another decision in this regard.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
 
Some comments from our readers…
“The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable”
“I often find critical information not available elsewhere”
“As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”

Related Topics
 
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions