A Comparative Study on the Non-functionality Requirement in the ‎Industrial Designs Law

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

Department of Private Law, Faculty of Law, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran‎

10.22059/jcl.2023.362914.634530

Abstract

The appearance and aesthetic aspects of the products can be protected as an industrial design under design law. In addition to the positive substantive requirements for protecting industrial designs, such as novelty, originality and individual character, another requirement is also provided under the title of "Non-functionality", which is described as a negative requirement in different legal systems. According to this requirement, a design that is solely dictated by functional aspects of the products and is made to solve a technical and functional problem of the products cannot be protected as an industrial design. Considering the lack of adequate research in this field on one side, and lack of clear law provisions in Iranian Law Design on another side, this article aims to answer the following questions through a comparative study in pioneer legal systems: why is the functional industrial design not to be protected? And how is the functional industrial design to be identified? And at the end, although this requirement is justified on the bases of different criteria such as the alternative solutions and causative approach the authors propuses that the main basis of this requirement is the separation of the industrial design system from the patent system, after which efficient competition is also maintained, On the other hand.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

  1. Act on the Legal Protection of Designs.2021.(Germany).
  2. Designs Act.2020.(Australia).
  3. Design Act.2021.(Japan).
  4. Directive 2015/2436 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2015 to Approximate the Laws of the Member States Relating to Trade Marks.2015.(EU).
  5. Examination Guidelines for Patent and Utility Model in Japan.2015.(Japan).
  6. Industrial Design Act.2023.(Canada).
  7. Industrial Designs Act.2013.(Malaysia).
  8. Intellectual Property Code.2022.(France).
  9. Guidelines for Examination in the European Patent Office.2023.(EU).
  10. Guidelines for Examination of Registered Community Designs at the European Union Intellectual Property Office.2022.(EU).
  11. Law Industrial Property.2021.(Brazil).
  12. Law on Industrial Property.2016.(Turkey).
  13. Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP).2020.(US).
  14. Patent Act.2022.(US).
  15. The Civil Code of the Russian Federation.2022.(Russia).
  16. The Consolidate Designs Act.2019.(Denmark).
  17. The Designs Act.2000.(India).
  18. Carani, Christopher V. and Barnes, Dunstan H (2022). Design Rights Functionality and Scope of Protection. Netherlands: Kluwer Law International B.V.
  19. Musker, David (2012). Overlapping Intellectual Property Rights:The Overlap between Patent and Design Protection (Chapter2). UK: Oxford University Press
  20. United States Patent Office (1904). Decisions of the Commissioner of Patents and of the United States Courts in Patent and Trade-mark and Copyright Cases. U.S: Government Printing Office.
  21. Burstein, Sarah (2016). Costly Designs. Ohio State Law Journal, 77(1),107-157.
  22. Carani, Christopher V (2014). Design Patent Functionality: A Sensible Solution. American BarAssociation ,7(2), 1-29.
  23. Church, Steven A (1997). The Weakening of the Presumption of Validity for Design Patents: Continued Confusion under the Functionality and Matter of Concern Doctrines. Indiana Law Review, 30(2), 499-521.
  24. Du Mont, Jason J. and Mark, D. Janis (2012). Functionality in Design Protection Systems. Journal of Intellectual Property Law, 19(2), 261-303.
  25. Fischman Afori, Orit (2010). The Role of the Non-Functionality Requirement in Design Law. Fordham Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal, 20(3), 847-874.
  26. Gyorgy, Ádam (2015). European Functionality Doctrine: Functionality in design law. Represenred in MIPLC Alumni Conference at 14/11/2015,1-30.
  27. Legal review on industrial design protection in Europe (2016). Under the contract with the Directorate General Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs (MARKT2014/083/D), 1-168. Available at: file:///C:/Users/En.Zamani/Downloads/ET-04-16-618-EN-N%20legal%20review%20on%20industrial%20design%20protection%20140916-2.pdf.
  28. Menell, Peter S. and Ella, Corren (2021). Design Patent Law’s Identity Crisis. Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 1-147. Available at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3668032.
  29. Saidman, Perry j (2009). Functionality and Design Patent Validity and Infringement. Journal of the Patent and Trademark Office Society, 91, 313-337.
  30. Saidman, Perry j and Hintz, John M (1989). The Doctrine of Functionality in Design Patent Cases. University of Baltimore Law Review, 19(1), 352-361.
  31. Council Regulation No.207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark. (EU).
Comparative Law Review
Volume 14, Issue 2
Autumn $ Winter 2023-2024
January 2024
Pages 679-704

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics