The IPKat has received and is pleased to host the following guest contribution by Katfriend Henning Hartwig (Bardehle Pagenberg, Munich) on what appears a rather disturbing imbalance that he discovered when looking at how the French legislator adopted the provisions of the Directive 98/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 1998 on the legal protection of designs, particularly with respect to the assessment of the scope of protection of a national design. Here’s what Henning writes:

Scope of protection? For ages, the French IP Code in misstep with Designs Directive

by Henning Hartwig

I.

Under EU design law, assessing the scope of protection of the claimed design is key when establishing infringement, under Article 10 (2) Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 of 12 December 2001 on Community designs (‘Community Designs Regulation’), of a Community design or, under Article 9 (2) Directive 98/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 1998 on the legal protection of designs (‘Designs Directive’), of a national design. Both provisions read as follows:

In assessing the scope of protection, the degree of freedom of the designer in developing his design shall be taken into consideration.

It follows from Article 19 (1) Designs Directive that Member States had to bring into force the laws, regulations, or administrative provisions necessary to comply with the Designs Directive in general and Article 9 (2) Designs Directive in particular not later than 28 October 2001.

II.

Hundreds of decisions issued by Community and/or national design infringement courts have accepted and applied the standards flowing from these provisions in the past 20+ years and developed a rich bouquet of factual and legal parameters to be considered when finding infringement (or non-infringement).

This is true for Germany, with 324 design cases decided by the Dusseldorf District Court alone between 1 January 2014 and 31 December 2023 (contentious judgments, default judgments and judgments by acknowledgement), according to unpublished sources, but also, pars pro toto, for Austria, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain, and the United Kingdom (before and after Brexit). In these Member States, the national design laws have adopted Article 9 (2) Designs Directive tel quel as can be seen here, here, here, here, here, and here.

III.

Pursuant to Article 19 (1) Designs Directive, when a Member State adopts the provisions of the Designs Directive, it shall refer to the Designs Directive in the provisions themselves or by means of a reference on the occasion of their official publication.

Interestingly, or rather disturbingly, however, and much to the surprise of this author, the French Republic did not comply with the obligation to adopt the provisions of the Designs Directive because the French IP Code, namely Article L 511-4 du code de la propriété intellectuelle related to the individual-character test reads as follows:

1. Un dessin ou modèle a un caractère propre lorsque l’impression visuelle d’ensemble qu’il suscite chez l’observateur averti diffère de celle produite par tout dessin ou modèle divulgué avant la date de dépôt de la demande d’enregistrement ou avant la date de priorité revendiquée.

2. Pour l’appréciation du caractère propre, il est tenu compte de la liberté laissée au créateur dans la réalisation du dessin ou modèle.

1. Un dessin ou modèle est considéré comme présentant un caractère individuel si l’impression globale qu’il produit sur l’utilisateur averti diffère de celle que produit sur un tel utilisateur tout dessin ou modèle qui a été divulgué au public avant la date de présentation de la demande d’enregistrement ou la date de priorité, si une priorité est revendiquée.

2. Pour apprécier le caractère individuel, il est tenu compte du degré de liberté du créateur dans l’élaboration du dessin ou modèle.

In other words: In the French IP Code, the degree-of-freedom test (‘degré de liberté du créateur dans l’élaboration du dessin ou modèle’) has been replaced by a ‘freedom-only’ test (‘liberté laissée au créateur dans la réalisation du dessin ou modèle’), which does not allow to distinguish between a broad, average, or narrow degree of freedom as required and practiced, particularly by the General Court (for details see, for instance, here).

IV.

La protection conférée par l’enregistrement d’un dessin ou modèle s’étend à tout dessin ou modèle qui ne produit pas sur l’observateur averti une impression visuelle d’ensemble différente.

Obviously, and astoundingly, the French IP Code simply failed to adopt the sophisticated ‘degree-of-freedom’ test, which allows for a nuanced approach and view (instead of a mere all-or-nothing assessment). It would be, therefore, interesting to see whether and, if so, to what extent French courts take into account the degree of freedom when assessing the scope of protection of national design rights, and in particular whether there is any substantive recourse to Article 9 (2) Designs Directive.

In fact, following the view taken by some expert commentaries (for instance, here and here), it seems that French design case law limited the infringement test to a simple comparison of the overall impression of the claimed and accused design under Article 9 (1) Designs Directive or Article 10 (1) Community Designs Regulation, without addressing the specific requirements for assessing the scope of protection of the claimed design under Article 9 (2) Designs Directive or Article 10 (2) Community Designs Regulation.
That said, it would be interesting to carry out a representative analysis of French case law in order to learn whether judicial practice applies the degree of freedom test under the established concept of reciprocity (for details see, for instance, here).

V.

It seems that the reported French law, clearly out of step with the Designs Directive (and the Community Designs Regulation as well), happened to occur somewhat under the radar because, again to the best knowledge of this author, there has been no voice addressing or even criticizing this situation (neither the EU Commission nor an individual or injured party).

This author would hope and expect that – on the occasion of the publication of the text of Directive (EU) 2024/2823 of the European Parliament and of the Council of October 23, 2024, on the legal protection of designs (recast) in the Official Journal of the European Union – the French legislator will proceed from the unchanged French language version of the Designs Directive and adopt its provisions telle quelle, including Article 9 (2) Designs Directive.

New law, new chances, hopefully …





Source link

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *