Practice point: The overlap between registered Community designs and Community trade marks

Journal of Intellectual Property Law and Practice

Volumn 1, Issue 4, 2006, Pages 256-265

  Carboni, Anna ^a  

^a Wilberforce Chambers   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85015527572     PISSN: None     EISSN: 17471540     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/jiplp/jpl002     Document Type: Review

References (25)

1. CDR, arts 5 and 7.
2. CDR, art 6.
3. Case C-299/99 Philips Electronics NV v Remington Consumer Products Ltd [2002] ECR I-5475;
4. [2001] ETMR 48 (AGO);
5. [2002] ETMR 81 (ECJ).
6. eg Joined Cases C-53/01 to C-55/01 Linde AG, Winward Industries, Inc and Rado Uhren AG v Deutsches Patent-und Markenamt [2003] ECR I-3161;
7. [2003] ETMR 78 (ECJ).
8. Case T-128/01 DaimlerChrysler Corporation v OHIM [2003] ECR II-701 (CFI).
9. Case T-305/02 Nestlé Waters France v OHIM [2003] ECR II-5207;
10. [2004] ETMR 41 (CFI).
11. Statistics for both CTMs and CDs can be found at http://oami.eu.int/en/office/stats.htm, with more details and targets for CTMs at http://oami.eu.int/en/office/timestandard.htm.
12. Joined Cases T-146/02 to T-153/02 Deutsche SiSi-Werke GmbH & Co.Betriebs KG v OHIM [2004] ECR II-0000;
13. [2004] ETMR 72 (CFI). An confirmed by the ECJ in 12 January 2006 (Case C-173/04P).
14. Case C-251/95 Sabel BV v Puma AG, Rudolf Dassler Sport [1997] ECR I-6191; [1998] ETMR 1.
15. In OHIM's invalidity decision no. 24 of 27 April 2004, concerning a swivel chair, it was stated without authority that 'the informed user is aware of the prior art known in the normal course of business to the circles specialised in the sector concerned'. The English Patents County Court has also now considered the point and has concluded that the informed user must be a regular user of articles of the sort that are the subject of the registered design. He may be a consumer or user, but is not a manufacturer of such goods or the average man in the street: Woodhouse UK plc v Architectural Lighting Systems [2005] EWPCC (Des) 25 PCC.
16. Case C-342/97, Lloyd Schuhfabrik Meyer & Co.GmbH v Klijsen Handel BV [1999] ECR I-3819;
17. [1999] ETMR 690 (ECJ), para [26].
18. This test was first laid down in Sabel v Puma (n 22 above).
19. Case C-39/97 Canon Kabushiki Kaisha v Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Inc. [1999] ECR I-5507;
20. [1999] ETMR 1, para [24].
21. CDR, art 89(1)(b).
22. CTMR, art 98.
23. CDR, art 50.
24. [1999] ETMR 816 (CA) 824.
25. OHIM Cancellation Action no. 63 C 107029/1 Mega Bloks Inc. v Kirkbi A/S (30 July 2004) [2005] ETMR 87 (OHIM Cancellation Division).