A little bit of soon-to-be-forgotten history was made today when the European Union's General Court handed down its first decision on Community design law in a dispute involving PepsiCo and a Spanish manufacturer of promotional items. The IPKat thanks his Class 99 blog team colleague and great MARQUES supporter David Stone (Simmons & Simmons) for drawing his attention to it. By way of excuse for not spotting it first the IPKat explains that, while he checks the Curia website daily for signs of fresh IP cases, this particular decision hadn't yet been posted by that admirably early when the Kat checked it out ...
Case T-9/07, Grupo Promer Mon Graphic SA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market, PepsiCo Inc, as David points out, is the first from an EU court to discuss in detail the meaning of several key aspects of the current European law on design right law. One is the tricky question as to who is the "informed user". This is the person whose impression of the similarities or differences between a later design and an earlier one is so important (in this dispute, there was discussion as to whether the "informed user" was "a child in the approximate age range of 5 to 10" or a marketing manager).
Another significant issue is the meaning of the term "same overall impression", this being the impression which, when the informed user receives it, means that the registration of the later design is invalid for lack of novelty or individual character. Today's decision will therefore go some way towards harmonising the very different designs jurisprudence that has developed in the various Member States of the EU [if, Merpel adds, the EU's various courts understand it and apply it in a uniform manner, which is far from impossible].
Case T-9/07, Grupo Promer Mon Graphic SA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market, PepsiCo Inc, as David points out, is the first from an EU court to discuss in detail the meaning of several key aspects of the current European law on design right law. One is the tricky question as to who is the "informed user". This is the person whose impression of the similarities or differences between a later design and an earlier one is so important (in this dispute, there was discussion as to whether the "informed user" was "a child in the approximate age range of 5 to 10" or a marketing manager).
Another significant issue is the meaning of the term "same overall impression", this being the impression which, when the informed user receives it, means that the registration of the later design is invalid for lack of novelty or individual character. Today's decision will therefore go some way towards harmonising the very different designs jurisprudence that has developed in the various Member States of the EU [if, Merpel adds, the EU's various courts understand it and apply it in a uniform manner, which is far from impossible].
Spinner dispute hits dizzying new heights
Reviewed by Jeremy
on
Thursday, March 18, 2010
Rating:
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