Designs of products or parts of products are protected if they are new and the overall impression they make differs from designs know to the public up until that time. Certain features, determined solely by the technical function of the product, are not protected. Until now there were various interpretations as to what in fact determines that a particular feature is solely a result of the product function. The issue was clarified in a recent CJEU judgment.
Ignoring industrial designs or treating them as the least important option is a thing of the past. Designs will increase in importance and therefore need to be part of the intellectual property portfolio. This was the main message at the INTA Designs Conference 2018 on 26–27 February 2018 in London.
Genuine commercial exploitation of a trademark can also be shown when a position trademark is used in combination with other graphic elements.
It is hard to assess the scale of copyright infringement when it occurs on the internet. Proving the amount of the injury is one of the challenges facing the copyright holder. Lump-sum damages can help. This issue was recently addressed by the Warsaw Court of Appeal—a good occasion to cover a few ground rules for how to proceed in cases of this type.
The new ruling by the Court of Justice on the “repair clause” gives more freedom to manufacturers of non-original replacement parts.
We devote today’s edition entirely to the cosmetics and perfumes industry, and to the intellectual property protection phenomena and processes specific to that industry.