Editor's note: 2015 years, Fraga Import Export, S. L. company, basis "European Community design Regulation (The first (EC) 6/2002 No) " and "Spanish law against unfair competition" Stipulation of, Sue Grafoplast del Noroeste, S. A. The company infringes on the non-registered design right of one of its pen bags. Read on for more details!

[background] 2015 years, Fraga Import Export, S. L. company, basis "European Community design Regulation (The first (EC) 6/2002 No) " and "Spanish law against unfair competition" Stipulation of, Sue Grafoplast del Noroeste, S. A. The company infringes on the non-registered design right of one of its pen bags (As shown in the picture below) . The first instance judgment of the Court of Design of the Community of Alicante rejects the plaintiff's claim, Found that the plaintiff failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove that he was the designer of the design involved, Therefore, there is no right to rely on the non-registered design (unregistered design) appeal. As for unfair competition corresponding appeal, The judgment found no unfair competition in the case. The plaintiff appealed against the judgment of the first instance, It is considered that the evidence presented is sufficient to prove that the non-registered design in question was designed and completed by the employee of the plaintiff company, Therefore, the plaintiff has the right to the design.

[conclusion] The court of appeal ruled in favor of the plaintiff's appeal, The court of first instance was found to have made an error in examining the evidence, The available evidence can prove that the involved non-registered exterior design was designed and completed by the employees of the plaintiff company. Therefore, Plaintiff has grounds "European Community design Regulation" The qualification of the subject to bring a suit. The next step is to analyze, Whether there is infringement of the non-registered Community design involved. To solve this problem, The appellate court needs clarification first "European Community design Regulation" Protection requirements for non-registered Community designs: The ordinance 85. 2 Article should be read as, Non-registered design is applicable "Validity inference (presumption of validity) " stipulation, The non-registered Community design right must demonstrate that its design meets the novelty and uniqueness requirements? The Court of Appeal said it should refer to the European Court of Justice (Court of Justice) 2014 years 6 month 19 The contents of the verdict in Japan (Case number: C-345/13) Understand the above terms, In its ruling, the European Court of Justice warned, This understanding is the cornerstone of the unregistered Community design protection regime—— "Simple and fast" target——discrepancy, Also and control 85. 2 Provision of article——The obligee shall explain "Elements that constitute the uniqueness of its community appearance design" ——Be at odds with.

Therefore, According to the new criteria set by the European Court of Justice, It is not necessary for the obligee to prove that all the unregistered designs have been satisfied "European Community design Regulation" The requirements of Section 2 of Chapter 1——Novelty and uniqueness requirements; contrary, You only need to prove that the unregistered design was first disclosed within the EU less than three years ago. For control 85 The second requirement of the article, The right holder does not need to prove that the appearance design is available "European Community design Regulation" The first 6 The uniqueness of the article; contrary, Simply indicate the elements that make up the uniqueness of its exterior design, namely, Shall express "In the eyes of the right holder, Its exterior design has unique elements" . Only so, To define the scope of protection of the right holder's claim, Determine the scope of the disputed design comparison, And the defendant may file a counterclaim for invalidation accordingly. The appeals court ruled, Plaintiff's compliance "European Community design Regulation" The first 85. 2 Provision of article, It is concluded that the design rights are valid. The Court compared the disputed unregistered Community design with the defendant's product, They are considered to be very similar in appearance, Therefore, Found that the defendant copied the plaintiff's design, Infringed the plaintiff's design rights.

[comment] The court of Appeal followed European court precedent, The judgment in this case corrects its previous judgment on a non-registered Community design "Validity inference" Required understanding——The right holder must prove that the exterior design meets both requirements "European Union design Regulations" The novelty and uniqueness requirements set forth in Chapter 1——Undue and unwarranted aggravation (Of the obligee) Burden of proof. According to the new interpretation standard, The right holder only has to prove the date the design was first made public in the European Union and indicate the elements that make up its uniqueness for the purpose of determining the scope of protection, Greatly reduce the difficulty of non-registered design owners seeking protection. As the court noted in its decision, This explanation is logical.

compile: Liu Dan, The source of Aisabri Legal Counsel: Esabaril (ELZABURU)