Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Design Protection Relating to Component Parts of Complex Products (Spare Parts) in the EU and the U.S.

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
An International Perspective on Design Protection of Visible Spare Parts

Part of the book series: SpringerBriefs in Law ((BRIEFSLAW))

  • 442 Accesses

Abstract

In the EU, the importance of design as an important sector of economic and cultural achievement began gaining increasing recognition in the mid-late 1990s.

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 44.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 59.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight 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.

    Kur and Dreier 2013, p. 354.

  2. 2.

    Riehle 1993, p. 50: “dual system”. It should be noted that these pieces of legislation were developed by EU lawmakers with applicability to all member states at the time of enactment. In the event the UK ceases to be a member state (“Brexit”) these provisions may or may not remain applicable to the UK.

  3. 3.

    Directive 98/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 1998 on the legal protection of designs, L 289/28; see also Wandtke and Ohst 2005, p. 91. For introductions to the Directive, see Pentheroudakis 2002, pp. 668 et seq. (also on the implementation of the Design Directive in the member states); Kur 1998, pp. 977 et seq.

  4. 4.

    Council Regulation (EC) No. 6/2002 of 12 December 2001 on Community designs, L 3/1.

  5. 5.

    See Kelbel 1985, pp. 669 et seq.

  6. 6.

    Former Geschmacksmustergesetz (GeschmMG).

  7. 7.

    For this reason it was originally named Copyright law on models and designs (original title: Gesetz betreffend das Urheberrecht an Marken und Modellen (Geschmacksmustergesetz)). For details on the legislative history, see Schicker and Haug 2014, pp. 726 et seq.; Kelbel 1985, pp. 669 et seq.

  8. 8.

    Schicker and Haug 2014, p. 726; Kelbel 1985, pp. 669 et seq.

  9. 9.

    See BGH, 22 June 1995, I ZR 119/93, GRUR 1995, 581 – Silberdistel.

  10. 10.

    Cf. Schicker and Haug 2014, pp. 726 et seq.; Kelbel 1985, pp. 669 et seq.

  11. 11.

    Directive Nr. 98/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 1998 on the legal protection of designs, L 289/28.

  12. 12.

    Gesetz über den rechtlichen Schutz von Mustern und Modellen. For an introduction to this law, see Wandtke and Ohst 2005, pp. 91 et seq.

  13. 13.

    For the main changes, see Rehmann 2013, pp. 215 et seq.

  14. 14.

    Council Regulation (EC) No. 6/2002 of 12 December 2001 on Community designs, L 3/1.

  15. 15.

    For details see Kur 2002, pp. 661 et seq. There are registered (Article 1(1)(b) CDR) and non-registered design rights (Article 1(1)(a)CDR); for an introduction see Rahlf and Gottschalk 2004, p. 827. Registration is performed by the EU Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), formerly Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (OHIM), Alicante, Spain (Article 2 CDR).

  16. 16.

    But cf. Kur 2002, p. 661: “Gleichlauf zwischen nationalem und Gemeinschaftsrecht”; Beier 1994, pp. 716 et seq.; Riehle 1993, p. 50.

  17. 17.

    Hudson 1948, pp. 382 et seq.

  18. 18.

    Gorham v. White, 81 U.S. 511, 524 (1871).

  19. 19.

    Gorham v. White, 81 U.S. 511, 524 (1871).

  20. 20.

    35 U.S.C. § 171.

  21. 21.

    See http://www.uspto.gov.

  22. 22.

    See also DuMont 2010, p. 531, for a history of the development of design patents and the non-obviousness requirement; see also, Mueller and Brean 2011.

  23. 23.

    The former German conceptual distinction between the two-dimensional (“Muster”) and the three-dimensional (“Modell”) design was abandoned in the 2004 version of the law (GeschmMG), the law which preceded the current Designgesetz (DesignG, see supra section 3.1.1); see Schicker and Haug 2014, p. 727. For a detailed treatment of further concepts of design law from an international perspective see Pentheroudakis 2002, p. 670.

  24. 24.

    Article 3(a) Community Design Regulation and § 1 nr. 1 Designgesetz (DesignG).

  25. 25.

    Article 4(1) CDR and § 2(1) DesignG.

  26. 26.

    A non-exhaustive list of actions listed in § 5 DesignG under German law are deemed to have constituted disclosure in the sense of § 2(2) DesignG; for CDR, see Article 7 (Article 5(1)). A 12-month grace period is granted (Article 7(2) CDR, § 6 DesignG): Publication by the designer, its successor in title or an abuse in relation to the designer or his successor in title within a 12-month period preceding the date of filing of the application, will not destroy novelty. This allows the designer to test the product in the market without jeopardizing protectability. See Wandtke and Ohst 2005, p. 97; Kur 2002, p. 666.

  27. 27.

    Unlike originality in copyright law, a design is not required to bear the stamp of the designer’s personality. Nor does “individual character” denote a quality requirement either aesthetically in terms of the design’s appeal to the eye, or in terms of the designer’s skills (unlike copyright law, which requires above average designer’s skill, etc.). See Kur 2016.

  28. 28.

    Kur and Dreier 2013, p. 356.

  29. 29.

    Article 6(1) CDR, § 2(3) DesignG.

  30. 30.

    Cf. Wandtke and Ohst 2005, p. 97.

  31. 31.

    Unregistered design rights will not be discussed further as of relatively marginal relevance for the present discussion.

  32. 32.

    Registration under the CDR is available at the EUIPO with the following specified procedures. http://www.euipo.org. The right arises upon registration for a period of 5 years, which can be extended up to a maximum of 25 years. Challenges to validity can be raised at the EUIPO (by application to the Invalidity Division, Article 52 CDR). Validity of a registration will also be subject to challenge in actions for nullification in the courts of applicable jurisdiction. The effect of a declaration of invalidity of the design would be retroactive. See Article 19 CDR; Article 12 Design Directive (see, e.g. § 38 DesignG). Applications are not substantively examined as to comply with requirements for protection prior to registration (Recital 18 of CDR, cf. also Article 85(1) CDR).

  33. 33.

    Kur and Dreier 2013, p. 358.

  34. 34.

    Article 10(1) CDR; Article 9(1) Design Directive.

  35. 35.

    See Kur and Dreier 2013, p. 358.

  36. 36.

    USPTO 2015, § 1502.

  37. 37.

    35 U.S.C. § 171.

  38. 38.

    35 U.S.C. § 171. see also Beldiman and Beconcini 2015, pp. 551 et seq.

  39. 39.

    OddzOn Products, Inc. v. Just Toys, Inc. 122 F.3d 1396 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Richardson v. Stanley Works, 543 F3.d 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2010).

  40. 40.

    35 U.S.C. § 171.

  41. 41.

    Gorham Co. v. White, 81 U.S. 511 (1871).

  42. 42.

    Chisum 2015, § 23.05.

  43. 43.

    35 U.S.C. § 271; Chisum 2015, § 23.05.

  44. 44.

    See In re Borden, 39 USPQ2d 1524, 1527 (Fed. Cir. 1996); see also Beldiman and Beconcini 2015, p. 551; Mueller and Brean 2011.

  45. 45.

    Gorham Co. v. White, 81 U.S. 511 (1871).

  46. 46.

    Prior art will thus prevent non-expert observers from aggregating too many aspects of the design. See Tushnet 2012, pp. 419 et seq.

  47. 47.

    Egyptian Goddess, Inc. v. Swisa, Inc., 543 F. 3d 665, 677 (Fed Cir 2008).

  48. 48.

    Egyptian Goddess, Inc. v. Swisa, Inc., 543 F. 3d 665, 677 (Fed Cir 2008).

  49. 49.

    OddzOn Products, Inc. v. Just Toys, Inc. 122 F.3d 1396 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Richardson v. Stanley Works, Inc., 597 F3.d 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2010).

  50. 50.

    See BGH, 16 October 1986, I ZR 6/85, GRUR 1987, 518 – Kotflügel; Riehle, FS Möschel, 2011, p. 1081.

  51. 51.

    Kroher 1993, pp. 460 et seq.: BMW has been protecting individual designs since 1951.

  52. 52.

    BGH, 16 October 1986, I ZR 6/85, GRUR 1987, 518 – Kotflügel. France also accepted protection of parts; for details, see Berns 2013, p. 222; Beier 1994, p. 718.

  53. 53.

    Drexl et al. 2005, pp. 449 et seq.; Beier 1994, pp. 716 et seq.

  54. 54.

    European Commission, Proposal for a Directive amending Directive 98/71/EC, 2004.

  55. 55.

    Article 4(2) CDR; Article 3(3) Design Directive (see e.g. § 4 DesignG).

  56. 56.

    “A design applied to or incorporated in a product which constitutes a component part of a complex product shall only be considered to be new and to have individual character: (a) if the component part, once it has been incorporated into the complex product, remains visible during normal use of the latter; and (b) to the extent that those visible features of the component part fulfil in themselves the requirements as to novelty and individual character” (Article 4(2) CDR; Article 3(3) Design Directive). ”Normal use” within the meaning of Article 4(2) CDR means use by the end user, excluding maintenance, servicing or repair work (e.g. Article 4(3) CDR).

  57. 57.

    Article 3(c) CDR; Article 1(3) Design Directive (see e.g. § 1 nr. 3 DesignG).

  58. 58.

    See Llewelyn and Baresi 2009, p. 9.

  59. 59.

    USPTO 2015, § 1502.

  60. 60.

    The first sentence of 35 U.S.C. § 171 reads “(w)hoever invents any new, original and ornamental design for an article of manufacture may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title” (emphasis added).

  61. 61.

    Oake 2011.

  62. 62.

    In re Zahn, 617 F.2d 261, 265 (CCPA 1980).

  63. 63.

    35 U.S.C. § 171(a).

  64. 64.

    USPTO 2015, § 1504.04.

  65. 65.

    Article 4(2) CDR; Article 3(3)(a) Design Directive (see e.g. § 4 DesignG). Such parts pertain primarily to the chassis, see Wandtke and Ohst 2005, p. 97.

  66. 66.

    Article 4(3) CDR; Article 3(4) Design Regulation (see e.g. § 1 nr. 4 DesignG); see also Berns 2013, p. 215.

  67. 67.

    Article 4(2) CDR; Article 3(3)(a) Design Directive (see e.g. § 4 DesignG). Such parts pertain primarily to the vehicle body, see Wandtke and Ohst 2005, p. 97.

  68. 68.

    T-11/08, Kwang Yang Motors v. OHIM (Honda), [2011], ECR II -0000.

  69. 69.

    T-11/08, Kwang Yang Motors v. OHIM (Honda), [2011], ECR II -0000.

  70. 70.

    In re Webb, 916 F.2d 1553 (Fed. Cir. 1990); see also International Seaway Trading Corp. v. Walgreens Corp. (Fed. Cir. Dec. 17, 2009).

  71. 71.

    In re Webb, 916 F.2d 1553 (Fed. Cir. 1990); International Seaway Trading Corp. v. Walgreens Corp. (Fed. Cir. Dec. 17, 2009).

  72. 72.

    In re Webb, 916 F.2d 1553 (Fed. Cir. 1990).

  73. 73.

    § 3 DesignG lists certain exclusions, of which only § 3(1) nr. 2 (see Article 7 Design Directive) is relevant for present purposes; almost the same in Article 8(2) CDR. Moreover, Article 8(1) CDR provides for an exclusion of “features of appearance of a product which are solely dictated by its technical function”. For further details relating to the state of the law prior to 2014, see Wandtke and Ohst 2005, pp. 97 et seq.

  74. 74.

    § 3(1) nr. 2 DesignG respectively, Article 8(2) CDR.

  75. 75.

    Brtka and Soetens 2015.

  76. 76.

    As such they would fall under patent or utility model protection, cf. Pentheroudakis 2002, p. 671.

  77. 77.

    Brtka and Soetens 2015; Steinberg, in: Büscher et al. 2015, DesignG, § 3 para 3; Wandtke and Ohst 2005, p. 97. Monopolization based on design rights would hinder development of products with comparable technical characteristics, cf. Pentheroudakis 2002, p. 671; see also the German government’s legislative proposal, BT-Drucks. 15/1075, p. 34.

  78. 78.

    § 3(1) nr. 2 DesignG respectively Article 8(2) CDR. § 3(2) DesignG points to § 3(1) nr. 2 DesignG (“Erscheinungsmerkmale im Sinne von Absatz 1 Nr. 2”), also Article 8(3) CDR to Article 8(2) CDR (“Notwithstanding para 2”).

  79. 79.

    Rehmann 2014, pp. 25 et seq.; Wandtke and Ohst 2005, p. 97; on the requirement of visibility see also Article 3(3)(a) Directive.

  80. 80.

    Cf. Derclaye 2009, p. 31; Wandtke and Ohst 2005, p. 97.

  81. 81.

    Steinberg, in: Büscher et al. 2015, GGV, Article 4 para 16; Bulling et al. 2011, p. 46; on the elements and functions automotive body parts, see Eichmann 1997, p. 600. The difference between “must fit” and “must match” parts cannot be unequivocally based on the comparison between the English terms “fit” and “match” (cf. Stein 2013), but for practical purposes “must fit” can be read as “having to fit in terms of shape” whereas “must match” requires a fit from a visual perspective (cf. Pearsall and Hanks 2003). Riehle 1993, p. 62, includes both categories under the umbrella concept of parts that must conform in terms of shape.

  82. 82.

    Beier 1994, p. 718; see also Lorenzen 2002, para E.2.b), relating to the requirement of visibility in Article 14 Directive.

  83. 83.

    See also Riehle 1993, p. 68. It may be more appropriate to speak of the property of a part as being “must fit”, respectively “must match”.

  84. 84.

    This example is taken from Riehle 1993, p. 62.

  85. 85.

    Beier 1994, p. 718; see also Lorenzen 2002, para E.2.b).

  86. 86.

    Avia Group v. L.A. GearCalif., 853 F.2d 1557 (Fed. Cir. 1988).

  87. 87.

    L.A. Gear v.Thom McAn 988 F.2d 1117 (Fed. Cir. 1993).

  88. 88.

    OddzOn Products, Inc. v. Just Toys, Inc. 122 F.3d 1396 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Richardson v. Stanley Works, 543 F3.d 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2010).

  89. 89.

    OddzOn Products, Inc. v. Just Toys, Inc. 122 F.3d 1396 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Richardson v. Stanley Works, 543 F3.d 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2010).

  90. 90.

    Cf. Kur 1993, p. 71; Riehle 1993, p. 61. Design protectability of spare parts was first recognized in BGH, 16 October 1986, I ZR 6/85, GRUR 1987, 518 – Kotflügel.

  91. 91.

    Arguably, the effect of this provision is also to exclude consumables such as printer cartridges. See Eichmann 1997, p. 859.

  92. 92.

    Whether these parts are indeed protectable, given their very limited design freedom, remains a highly controverted point, particularly in Europe. See Berns 2013, pp. 222 et seq.

  93. 93.

    To illustrate the general order of magnitude, the projected spare parts market for Europe alone in 2020 is 230 billion Euro. Design protectable spare parts represent about a 25% share. Berns 2013, p. 19.

  94. 94.

    E.g. in the period 2009–2014 the USPTO issued over 1,700 design patents to the top five automakers alone. However, the number of applications has increased in other industries as well. In the 5-year period from 2009 to 2013, design patent applications increased by about 40%, significantly outpacing the 28% growth in utility parent applications during the same period (Andrew and Ferrill 2014).

References

  • Andrew RP, Ferrill ED (2014) Using design patent protection for replacement parts. Corporate Counsel. http://www.finnegan.com/resources/articles/articlesdetail.aspx?news=0f2a81f3–7963-4fa8-a92a-3046e1ed30de

  • Beier FK (1994) Der Musterschutz von Ersatzteilen in den Vorschlägen für ein Europäisches Musterrecht. GRUR Int 716–732

    Google Scholar 

  • Beldiman D, Beconcini P (2015) The final impression counts: seeking common ground in design patent infringement. 97 J Pat Trademark Off Soc 551

    Google Scholar 

  • Berns E (2013) Marktmissbrauch auf Ersatzteilmärkten im deutschen, europäischen und US-amerikanischen Markt [Diss.]. EUL Verlag, Lohmar

    Google Scholar 

  • Brtka R, Soetens, R (2015) Focus on the automotive industry: the protection of spare parts using Community designs. In: Lexology. http://www.twobirds.com/en/news/articles/2015/global/designwrites-mar/focus-on-the-automotive-industry-the-protection-of-spare-parts-using-community-designs

  • Bulling A, Langöhrig A, Hellwig T (2011) Geschmacksmuster – Designschutz in Deutschland und Europa mit USA, Japan, China und Korea, 3rd edn. Carl Heymanns Verlag, Köln

    Google Scholar 

  • Büscher W, Dittmer S, Schiwy P (eds) (2015) Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz, Urheberrecht, Medienrecht, 3rd edn. Carl Heymanns Verlag, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Chisum DS (2015) Chisum on patents (17 volumes): a treatise on the law of patentability, validity and infringement, Albany, NY (USA)

    Google Scholar 

  • Derclaye E (2009) Repair and recycle between IP rights, end user license agreements and encryption. In: Heath C, Sanders AK (eds) Spares, repairs, and intellectual property rights. Kluwer Law International, Alphen aan Den Rijn (Netherlands), pp 21–55

    Google Scholar 

  • DuMont J (2010) A non-obvious design: reexamining the origins of the design patent standard. Gonzaga L Rev 45:531–609

    Google Scholar 

  • Drexl J, Hilty R, Kur, A (2005) Designschutz für Ersatzteile – Der Kommissionsvorschlag zur Einführung einer Reparaturklausel. GRUR Int 449–457

    Google Scholar 

  • Eichmann H (1997) Kein Geschmacksmusterschutz für must-match-Teile? GRUR Int 595–609

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (2004) Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 98/71/EC on the legal protection of designs (COM(2004) 582 final – 2004/0203 (COD). http://www.eumonitor.eu/9353000/1/j9vvik7m1c3gyxp/vi7jgsymsdz3

  • Hudson TB (1948) A brief history of the development of design patent protection in the United States. J Pat Trademark Off Soc 30:380–400

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelbel G (1985) Zur Verbesserung des Geschmacksmustergesetzes. GRUR 669–676

    Google Scholar 

  • Kroher J (1993) EG-Geschmacksmusterschutz für Kraftfahrzeug-Ersatzteile. GRUR Int 457–465

    Google Scholar 

  • Kur A (1998) Europäische Geschmacksmusterrechtsrichtlinie verabschiedet. GRUR Int 977–982

    Google Scholar 

  • Kur A (2002) Die Auswirkungen des neuen Geschmacksmusterrechts auf die Praxis. GRUR 661–670

    Google Scholar 

  • Kur A (2016) Ersatzteilfreiheit zwischen Marken- und Designrecht. GRUR 20–30

    Google Scholar 

  • Kur A, Dreier T (2013) European intellectual property: texts, cases and materials. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham (UK), Northampton, MA (USA)

    Google Scholar 

  • Llewelyn D, Barresi V (2009) Right holders’ control over repair and conditioning. In: Heath C, Sanders AK (eds) Spares, repairs, and intellectual property rights. Kluwer Law International, Alphen aan Den Rijn (Netherlands), pp 1–19

    Google Scholar 

  • Lorenzen B (2002) Designschutz im europäischen und internationalen Recht – Zur Anwendung und Auslegung internationalen und europäischen Designschutzrechts. LIT Verlag, Hamburg

    Google Scholar 

  • Mueller JM, Brean DH (2011) Overcoming the ‘impossible issue’ of nonobviousness in design patents, Ky. L J 99:419–554

    Google Scholar 

  • Oake RG (2011) Design patent perspective: understanding functionality in design patent law: part I. In: Intellectual property today. http://www.designpatentschool.com/assets/Oake_OCT11%20V2.pdf

  • Pearsall J, Hanks P (2003) The oxford dictionary of English, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford (UK)

    Google Scholar 

  • Pentheroudakis C (2002) Die Umsetzung der Richtlinie 98/71/EG über den rechtlichen Schutz von Mustern und Modellen in den EU-Mitgliedstaaten. GRUR Int 668–682

    Google Scholar 

  • Rahlf S, Gottschalk E (2004) Neuland: Das nicht eingetragene Gemeinschaftsgeschmacksmuster. GRUR Int 821–827

    Google Scholar 

  • Rehmann T (2013) Das Geschmacksmustergesetz wird modernisiert. GRUR-Prax 215–217

    Google Scholar 

  • Rehmann T (2014) Designrecht, 2nd edn. München, C.H, Beck

    Google Scholar 

  • Riehle G (1993) EG-Geschmacksmusterschutz und Kraftfahrzeug-Ersatzteile. GRUR Int 49–70

    Google Scholar 

  • Riehle G (2011) Immaterialgüterschutz in Sekundärmärkten. Die „Ersatzteilfrage“ – Präzedenz für einen Paradigmenwechsel? In: Bechtold S, Jickeli J, Rohe M (eds) Recht, Ordnung und Wettbewerb. Festschrift zum 70. Geburtstag von Wernhard Möschel. Nomos, Baden-Baden, pp 1075–1096

    Google Scholar 

  • Schicker SC, Haug T (2014) Grundzüge des Designgesetzes. NJW 726–730

    Google Scholar 

  • Stein G (2013) Gebrauchswörterbuch Englisch-Deutsch & Deutsch-Englisch. De Gruyter Mouton, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Tushnet R (2012) The eye alone is the judge: images and design patents. J Intell Prop L 19:409–426

    Google Scholar 

  • United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) (2015) Manual of Patent Examination Procedures (MPEP), 9th edn

    Google Scholar 

  • Wandtke AA, Ohst C (2005) Zur Reform des deutschen Geschmacksmustergesetzes. GRUR Int 91–102

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Academic Director and Founder, Center for Transnational Intellectual Property, Bucerius Law School, Hamburg, Germany

    Dana Beldiman

  2. UC Hastings College of the Law, San Francisco, USA

    Dana Beldiman

  3. Researcher, Center for Transnational Intellectual Property, Bucerius Law School, Hamburg, Germany

    Constantin Blanke-Roeser

Authors
  1. Dana Beldiman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Constantin Blanke-Roeser
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dana Beldiman .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Beldiman, D., Blanke-Roeser, C. (2017). Design Protection Relating to Component Parts of Complex Products (Spare Parts) in the EU and the U.S.. In: An International Perspective on Design Protection of Visible Spare Parts. SpringerBriefs in Law. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-54060-3_3

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-54060-3_3

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-54059-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-54060-3

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

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation