GUIDELINES FOR EXAMINATION OF REGISTERED COMMUNITY DESIGNS .

2y ago
43 Views
2 Downloads
932.81 KB
49 Pages
Last View : 2m ago
Last Download : 2m ago
Upload by : Ciara Libby
Transcription

Examination of Design Invalidity ApplicationsGUIDELINES FOR EXAMINATION OFREGISTERED COMMUNITY DESIGNSEUROPEAN UNIONINTELLECTUAL PROPERTY OFFICE(EUIPO)REGISTERED COMMUNITY DESIGNSEXAMINATION OF DESIGN INVALIDITYAPPLICATIONSGuidelines for Examination in the Office, Registered Community DesignsFINALVERSION 1.0Page 101/10/2017

Examination of Design Invalidity ApplicationsTable of Contents1Purpose . 52Introduction — general principles applying to invalidityproceedings . 532.1Duty to state reasons . 52.2Right to be heard . 52.3Scope of the examination carried out by the Invalidity Division . 62.4Compliance with time limits . 6Filing of an application. 73.1Form of the application . 73.2Scope of the application . 83.3Language of proceedings . 83.4Identification of the applicant . 93.5Locus standi of the applicant . 93.6Professional representation . 93.7Identification of the contested Community design . 93.8Lapsed registrations . 93.9Statement of grounds, facts, evidence and arguments . 103.9.13.9.23.9.3Statement of grounds . 10Facts, evidence and arguments . 11Admissibility in respect of one of the grounds relied on . 123.10 Signing the application . 123.11 Means of filing . 123.12 Payment of fees . 133.13 Treating deficiencies . 133.14 Communication to the holder . 143.15 Participation of an alleged infringer . 144Adversarial stage of the proceedings . 154.1Exchange of communications . 154.1.1Observations by the holder . 154.1.1.14.1.1.24.1.24.1.34.1.4Translation of the holder’s observations . 16Scope of defence . 16Reply by the applicant . 164.1.4.14.1.4.24.1.4.34.1.5Generalities . 15Request for proof of use of an earlier trade mark . 15Generalities . 16Translation of the applicant’s reply . 17Submission of evidence of use of an earlier trade mark . 17End of exchange of observations . 18Guidelines for Examination in the Office, Registered Community DesignsFINALVERSION 1.0Page 201/10/2017

Examination of Design Invalidity Applications4.1.6Extension of time limits and suspension . 184.1.6.14.1.6.24.1.74.1.84.2Taking of evidence . 20Oral proceedings . 20Examination . 214.2.14.2.25Extension of time limits . 18Suspension. 19Commencement of examination . 21Examination of the grounds for invalidity . 21The different grounds for invalidity . 225.1Not a design . 225.1.1. Living Organisms . 235.1.2 Ideas and methods of use . 235.2Lack of entitlement . 235.3Technical function . 245.3.15.3.25.3.3Rationale. 24Examination . 25Alternative shapes . 255.4Designs of interconnections . 255.5Lack of novelty and individual character . 265.5.1Disclosure of earlier design . 75.5.1.85.5.2General principles . 26Establishing the event of disclosure . 27Official publications . 28Exhibitions and use in trade . 28Disclosures derived from the internet . 29Disclosure to a third person under explicit or implicit conditions ofconfidentiality. 30Disclosure within the priority period . 30Grace period. 31Assessment of novelty and individual character . 315.5.2.15.5.2.25.5.2.3Common principles . 31Novelty . 33Individual character . 345.6Conflict with a prior design right . 405.7Use of an earlier distinctive sign . 415.7.15.7.25.7.35.7.45.8Unauthorised use of a work protected under the copyright law of aMember State . 435.8.15.8.25.9Distinctive sign . 41Use in a subsequent design . 41Substantiation of the application under Article 25(1)(e) CDR (earlierdistinctive signs) . 42Examination by the Invalidity Division . 42Substantiation of the application under Article 25(1)(f) CDR (earliercopyright) . 43Examination by the Invalidity Division . 44Improper use of flags and other symbols . 445.9.1Substantiation of the application under Article 25(1)(g) CDR (flags andother symbols) . 45Guidelines for Examination in the Office, Registered Community DesignsFINALVERSION 1.0Page 301/10/2017

Examination of Design Invalidity Applications5.9.2Examination by the Invalidity Division . 455.10 Partial invalidity . 455.11 Grounds of invalidity that become applicable merely because of theaccession of a new Member State . 466Termination of the proceedings . 466.1Termination of proceedings without a decision on the merits. 466.2Decision on costs . 466.2.16.2.2Cases where a decision on costs must be taken . 46Cases where a decision on costs is not to be taken . 476.2.2.16.2.2.26.2.2.36.3Correction of mistakes and entry in the Register . 486.3.16.3.27Agreement on costs . 47Apportionment of costs . 47Fixing of costs . 47Correction of mistakes . 48Entry into the Register . 49Appeal. 497.1Right to appeal . 497.2Interlocutory revision . 49Guidelines for Examination in the Office, Registered Community DesignsFINALVERSION 1.0Page 401/10/2017

Examination of Design Invalidity Applications1PurposeThe purpose of these Guidelines is to explain how, in practice, the requirements of theCommunity Design Regulation 1 (CDR), the Community Design ImplementingRegulation 2 (CDIR), and the Fees Regulation 3 (CDFR) are applied by the InvalidityDivision of the EUIPO from the receipt of an application for a declaration of invalidity ofa Community design (‘application’) up to the point of closure of the invalidityproceedings. Their purpose is also to ensure consistency among the decisions takenby the Invalidity Division and to ensure coherent practice in the treatment of the files.These Guidelines are not intended to, and cannot, add to or subtract from the legalcontents of the Regulations.2Introduction — general principles applying to invalidityproceedings2.1Duty to state reasonsThe decisions of the Invalidity Division must state the reasons on which they are based(Article 62 CDR). The reasoning must be logical and it must not disclose internalinconsistencies.The Invalidity Division will apply the principles explained in the Guidelines, Part A,General Rules, Section 2, General Principles to be Respected in the Proceedings,paragraph 1, Adequate Reasoning.2.2Right to be heardThe decisions of the Invalidity Division will ‘be based only on reasons or evidence onwhich the parties concerned have had an opportunity to present their comments’(Article 62 CDR).The Invalidity Division will apply the principles explained in the Guidelines, Part A,General Rules, Section 2, General Principles to be Respected in the Proceedings,paragraph 2, The Right to be Heard.1Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 of 12 December 2001 on Community Designs, as amended byCouncil Regulation No 1891/2006 of 18 December 2006 amending Regulations (EC) No 6/2002 and (EC)No 40/94 to give effect to the accession of the European Community to the Geneva Act of the HagueAgreement concerning the international registration of industrial designs.2Commission Regulation (EC) No 2245/2002 of 21 October 2002 implementing Council Regulation (EC)No 6/2001 on Community designs, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 876/2007 on 24 July2007 amending Regulation (EC) No 2245/2002 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 onCommunity designs following the accession of the European Community to the Geneva Act of the HagueAgreement concerning the international registration of industrial designs.3Commission Regulation (EC) No 2246/2002 of 16 December 2002 on the fees, as amended byCommission Regulation (EC) No 877/2007 of 24 July 2007 amending Regulation (EC) No 2246/2002concerning the fees payable to the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trade Marks andDesigns) following the accession of the European Community to the Geneva Act of the Hague Agreementconcerning the international registration of industrial designs.Guidelines for Examination in the Office, Registered Community DesignsFINALVERSION 1.0Page 501/10/2017

Examination of Design Invalidity Applications2.3Scope of the examination carried out by the InvalidityDivisionIn invalidity proceedings, the examination carried out by the Invalidity Division isrestricted to the facts, evidence and arguments provided by the parties (Article 63(1)CDR). However, the Invalidity Division must weigh the facts, evidence and arguments,adjudicate on their conclusiveness, and thereafter draw legal inferences from themwithout being bound by the points of agreement between the parties. Alleged facts thatare not supported by evidence are not taken into account (decision of 22/04/2008,ICD 4 448).Facts, evidence and arguments are three different items not to be confused with eachother. For instance, the date of disclosure of an earlier design is a fact. Evidence of thatfact could be the date of publication of a catalogue showing the earlier design togetherwith evidence proving that the catalogue had been made available to the public beforethe date of filing or the priority date of the contested Community design. The applicant’sargument could be that the earlier design forms an obstacle to the novelty of thecontested Community design given the similar overall impression it produces on theinformed user. Whether a Community design lacks novelty or not is not a fact but alegal question to be decided by the Invalidity Division on the basis of the facts,evidence and arguments submitted by the parties.Expert reports or expert opinions and other statements in writing fall within the meansof evidence referred to in Article 65(1)(c) and (f) CDR. However, the fact that they areprocedurally admissible does not automatically mean that the statement is credible andwill serve as proof of the facts to be proven. Rather, such statements must be criticallyexamined as to the accuracy and correctness of the information, as well as whetherthey come from an independent source and/or are fettered or supported by writteninformation (decision of 22/04/2008, ICD 4 448).Moreover, the legal criteria for applying a ground for invalidity are naturally part of thematters of law submitted for examination by the Invalidity Division. A matter of law mayhave to be ruled on by the Invalidity Division, even when it has not been raised by theparties, if it is necessary to resolve that matter in order to ensure a correct applicationof the CDR. The Invalidity Division will thus examine ex officio such matters of law thatcan be assessed independently of any factual background for the purpose of allowingor dismissing the parties’ arguments, even if they have not put forward a view on thosematters (see by analogy judgment of 01/02/2005, T-57/03, Hooligan, EU:T:2005:29,§ 21). Such matters of law will include, inter alia, the definition of the informed user andthe degree of freedom of the designer within the meaning of Article 6 CDR.2.4Compliance with time limitsThe Invalidity Division may disregard facts or evidence that are not submitted in duetime by the parties concerned (Article 63(2) CDR).Parties are reminded that they must file the facts and evidence on which they rely indue time and within the time limits set by the Invalidity Division. Parties that fail toobserve the time limits run the risk that the evidence may be disregarded. Parties haveno unconditional right to have facts and evidence submitted out of time to be taken intoconsideration by the Invalidity Division.Guidelines for Examination in the Office, Registered Community DesignsFINALVERSION 1.0Page 601/10/2017

Examination of Design Invalidity ApplicationsWhere the Invalidity Division exercises its discretion under Article 63(2) CDR, it muststate reasons why the late facts and evidence are admissible or not, taking intoconsideration whether the material that has been produced late is, on the face of it,likely to be relevant to the outcome of the invalidity proceedings brought before it and,second, whether the stage of the proceedings at which that late submission takes placeand the circumstances surrounding it do not argue against such matters being takeninto account (judgment of 13/03/2007, C-29/05 P, Arcol, EU:C:2007:162, § 42-44).Where a party files a submission by fax, it should indicate on the accompanying letterwhether a confirmation copy (which, as the case may be, may contain documents incolours) has been sent. Both the fax and the confirmation copy should reach the Officewithin the set time limit. In accordance with Article 63(2) CDR, the Office may take intoaccount a confirmation copy that was not submitted in due time by the partiesconcerned.If the time limit is still running, the party may request an extension of the time limit,pursuant to Article 57(1) CDIR (see paragraph 4.1.6 below, Extension of time limits andsuspension).For general information on time limits, see the Guidelines, Part A, General Rules,Section 1, Means of Communication, Time Limits.As regards incomplete or illegible faxes, see paragraph 3.11 below.However, applicants should be reminded that the one-month time limit, specified underparagraph 3.11 below, only applies to the filing of a request for a declaration ofinvalidity (for which no time limit is set by the Office), and not to other procedural stepsfor which the Office sets a time limit.3Filing of an application3.1Form of the applicationThe Office recommends filing an application by mean

FINAL VERSION 1.0 01/10/2017 GUIDELINES FOR EXAMINATION OF REGISTERED COMMUNITY DESIGNS EUROPEAN UNION INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY OFFICE (EUIPO) REGISTERED COMMUNITY DESIGNS EXAMINATION OF DESIGN INVALIDITY APPLICATIONS . Examination of Design Invalidity Applications Guidelines for Examination in the Office, Registered Community Designs Page 2 FINAL VERSION 1.0 01/10/2017 Table of Contents 1 .

Related Documents:

Bruksanvisning för bilstereo . Bruksanvisning for bilstereo . Instrukcja obsługi samochodowego odtwarzacza stereo . Operating Instructions for Car Stereo . 610-104 . SV . Bruksanvisning i original

10 tips och tricks för att lyckas med ert sap-projekt 20 SAPSANYTT 2/2015 De flesta projektledare känner säkert till Cobb’s paradox. Martin Cobb verkade som CIO för sekretariatet för Treasury Board of Canada 1995 då han ställde frågan

service i Norge och Finland drivs inom ramen för ett enskilt företag (NRK. 1 och Yleisradio), fin ns det i Sverige tre: Ett för tv (Sveriges Television , SVT ), ett för radio (Sveriges Radio , SR ) och ett för utbildnings program (Sveriges Utbildningsradio, UR, vilket till följd av sin begränsade storlek inte återfinns bland de 25 största

Hotell För hotell anges de tre klasserna A/B, C och D. Det betyder att den "normala" standarden C är acceptabel men att motiven för en högre standard är starka. Ljudklass C motsvarar de tidigare normkraven för hotell, ljudklass A/B motsvarar kraven för moderna hotell med hög standard och ljudklass D kan användas vid

LÄS NOGGRANT FÖLJANDE VILLKOR FÖR APPLE DEVELOPER PROGRAM LICENCE . Apple Developer Program License Agreement Syfte Du vill använda Apple-mjukvara (enligt definitionen nedan) för att utveckla en eller flera Applikationer (enligt definitionen nedan) för Apple-märkta produkter. . Applikationer som utvecklas för iOS-produkter, Apple .

och krav. Maskinerna skriver ut upp till fyra tum breda etiketter med direkt termoteknik och termotransferteknik och är lämpliga för en lång rad användningsområden på vertikala marknader. TD-seriens professionella etikettskrivare för . skrivbordet. Brothers nya avancerade 4-tums etikettskrivare för skrivbordet är effektiva och enkla att

Den kanadensiska språkvetaren Jim Cummins har visat i sin forskning från år 1979 att det kan ta 1 till 3 år för att lära sig ett vardagsspråk och mellan 5 till 7 år för att behärska ett akademiskt språk.4 Han införde två begrepp för att beskriva elevernas språkliga kompetens: BI

Andreas Wagner Head of Building Science Group Karlsruhe Institute of Technology Department of Architecture. Background Occupant behaviour has a strong influence on building energy performance Reasons for occupants’ interventions: dissatisfaction with building automation interfaces are not designed/equipped for intended purpose designers / building managers do not fully consider –or .