Belgian National Association for the Protection of Industrial Property (AIPPI Belgium Group)
BNVBIE/ANBPPI
ANBPPI/BNVBIE aims to contribute to a fair and appropriate protection of Industrial Property (IP), both nationally and internationally.
ID: 874714434618-29
Lobbying Activity
Response to Review of the Community Designs Regulation
27 Jan 2023
Because of the very tight timeframe given, these observations are limited to what our committee considered the most urgent and important issues to be dealt with. On the one hand, under the present interpretation of the Regulation (and therefore of the Directive), the Design law in the EU is unsatisfactory. In concrete terms, all prior products are relevant for destroying the novelty of a design (and perhaps its individual character), and all kinds of products may infringe a design while the latter relates to a particular product only. Such difficulty in obtaining design protection and the broader risk of infringing a prior design right do not comply with the purposes of the Regulation. The EU lawmaker should, and is entitled to, rectify such misunderstanding while the present interpretation originates from a couple of unclear provisions in the Regulation (Art. 7(1) and 36(6) essentially). With reference also to prior Observations of our Association (see Annex thereto), we submit amendments to Article 7(1) and 36(6) of the Regulation (and to corresponding provisions in the Directive). On the other hand, we essentially suggest (i) to improve the wording of the repair clause for avoiding a discrepancy with the interpretation thereof by the CJEU, (ii) to draft the customs enforcement clause more in line with Reg. 608/2013, (iii) not to allow alteration of the representation after the registration, and (iv) to reinforce the protection of the licensee in case of surrender.
Read full responseResponse to Review of the Designs Directive
27 Jan 2023
Because of the very tight timeframe given, Our observations are limited to what our committee considered the most urgent and important issues to be dealt with. On the one hand, under the present interpretation of the Regulation (and therefore of the Directive), the Design law in the EU is unsatisfactory. In concrete terms, all prior products are relevant for destroying the novelty of a design (and perhaps its individual character), and all kinds of products may infringe a design while the latter relates to a particular product only. Such difficulty in obtaining design protection and the broader risk of infringing a prior design right do not comply with the purposes of the Regulation. The EU lawmaker should, and is entitled to, rectify such misunderstanding while the present interpretation originates from a couple of unclear provisions in the Regulation (Art. 7(1) and 36(6) essentially). With reference also to prior Observations of our Association (see Annex thereto), we submit amendments to Article 7(1) and 36(6) of the Regulation (and to corresponding provisions in the Directive). On the other hand, we essentially suggest (i) to improve the wording of the repair clause for avoiding a discrepancy with the interpretation thereof by the CJEU, (ii) to draft the customs enforcement clause more in line with Reg. 608/2013, (iii) not to allow alteration of the representation after the registration, and (iv) to reinforce the protection of the licensee in case of surrender.
Read full response