Kat-bottles |
Our friends at the Institute of Brand and Innovation Law at UCL wish to remind
IPKat readers that registration is open for an event that promises to be both
timely and exciting and will focus on product shapes.
“The Shape of Things to Come: Predicting the Trajectory of Design and Trade Mark Protection of Product Shapes” will be held in London in the evening of Wednesday, 14 February.
Chaired by The Hon Sir
Richard Arnold, the event will consist of a panel discussion featuring David
Musker (QMUL), David Stone (Allen & Overy LLP), Martin Senftleben (Vrije
Universiteit Amsterdam / Bird & Bird LLP), and Thorsten Gailing (Nestle
UK).
Here’s the description
of the event:
“With the expansion of the definition
of registerable signs and designs, the distinction between trade mark and
design protection has become increasingly blurred.
Once
perceived as the 'Cinderella' of IP rights, design law has caught policy
makers’ attention. As appropriate levels of design protection is now deemed a
vital component in a thriving economy, existing protection regimes are being
scrutinised for their fitness for purpose. While the European Commission’s
recent Legal Review of Industrial Design Protection reports on progress towards
harmonisation, it also pinpoints the aspects of EU design law which are proving
problematic to resolve.
Kat-cushion |
Closer
to home, the UK Supreme Court has considered its first design case. In PMS v. Magmatic [2016] UKSC 12, the Court (albeit
regretfully) confirmed that the registered design for the popular Trunki ride-on case was not infringed by a copycat
emulation. The outcome has leant weight to the perception that the UK appeal
courts are design-right-unfriendly. Are design holders rightly feeling
short-changed by the narrow scope of protection which even the most creative
designs seem to enjoy?
In the
early years of EU-harmonised trade mark law, trade mark protection seemed to
provide a useful supplement to design registration. After all, the Trade Mark
Directive specifically includes the shape of goods as a type of sign which is
eligible for registration. Some 25-years on from its implementation, businesses
which do devise innovative product shapes to differentiate their products now
struggle to identify when a shape mark will be validly registered.
Few
product shapes seem to represent a significant-enough deviation from the 'norm'
to be deemed inherently distinctive, and even the most iconic product shapes
have been denied registration in the UK, because the long-standing use failed
to engender the 'proper' kind of origin association. Having reviewed the
'natural' shape and 'added-value' shape exclusions, in Hauck v. Stokke, the CJEU seems to indicate that more
product shapes, than previously thought, should be denied protection
altogether, as 'functional'."
For more information and
registration, just click here.
Into product shapes? Here's an event in London
Reviewed by Eleonora Rosati
on
Thursday, February 01, 2018
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