Designs and a matter of discretion: will Cassina go with the Flos?

It's definitely the season for referring intellectual property questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union for preliminary rulings. Only yesterday the IPKat reported on Case C-207/10 Paranova Danmark A/S, Paranova Pack A/S v Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. (formerly Merck & Co. Inc.), Merck Sharp & Dohme B.V. and Merck Sharp & Dohme, and today it's the turn of Case C-198/10 Cassina SpA v Alivar Srl and Galliani Host Arredamenti Srl, sent to Luxembourg from the Corte d'appello di Milano, Italy.

Right: like the litigants in this latest reference, the IPKat has a substantial interest in furniture design

Cassina SpA makes some striking furniture, it seems, and the question [that's what Curia calls it. Merpel thinks there's more than one of them] referred for a ruling is this:
"Must Articles 17 and 19 of Directive 98/71 [on the legal protection of designs] be interpreted as meaning that the discretion accorded to the Member State to establish independently the extent to which, and the conditions under which, protection is conferred may include discretion to preclude such protection where a third party - without authorisation from the design copyright holder- had already produced and marketed in that State products based on the designs in question - those designs being in the public domain - before the date on which the national implementing legislation entered into force?

Must Articles 17 and 19 of Directive 98/71 be interpreted as meaning that the discretion accorded to the Member State to establish independently the extent to which, and the conditions under which, protection is conferred may include discretion to preclude such protection where a third party - without authorisation from the design copyright holder - has already produced and marketed in that State products based on the designs in question, where protection is precluded within the limits of prior use?"
The IPKat understands from a circular from the UK's Intellectual Property Office that this case has been stayed pending judgment in Case C-168/09 Flos SpA v Semeraro Casa & Famiglia SpA, which the Kat has helpfully if indigestibly noted here. If this is so, is it worth referring it now at all?

Merpal adds: as usual, if you want to make any comments on it which might inspire the UK government to intervene [assuming it can still afford to do so], please email the IPO here, presumably some time in the next few days.

Cassina furniture here
Cassina cat here
Cassata here
Cassandra here
Cassava here
Designs and a matter of discretion: will Cassina go with the Flos? Designs and a matter of discretion: will Cassina go with the Flos? Reviewed by Jeremy on Tuesday, June 22, 2010 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.