sutton044

Four years is a long time in politics but not a particularly long time in the land of government reports. Just under four years ago the UK Intellectual Property Office commissioned research to address the lack of existing data on design infringement. The results of that research were published last week .  Designs are an important part of the UK economy. In 2015, the UK design economy was worth 6% of the nation’s total economy. It was therefore considered a worthwhile exercise to review the current designs regime and identify opportunities for improvement. The report includes some positive indicators about the design sector " there is some evidence that the design sector as a whole is thriving, and that the use of design improves the productivity of firms in other sectors ." It is less positive about the legal mechanisms which are designed to protect this: " there is still little knowledge based on reliable evidence about the effectiveness of the legal system to achieve ...

David Stone recently shared his wisdom on the current and anticipated EU designs law changes with IPSoc members. IPSoc is the society for junior IP lawyers in the UK, you can find out more about joining IPSoc here . The current legal framework for designs in the EU dates back to 1998 (the Design Directive ) and 2001 (the Community Design Regulation ) . When the Regulation was introduced, the law was completely new. In practice, it was a combination of the law relating to designs of the 14 Member States (at that time) who had designs law within their national systems. For readers wondering what led to the design reforms and what happened next, David's handy summary of the history of the EU designs reforms is below. The reviews of designs law Th e EU has been evaluating the effectiveness of designs law. The purpose of this review is to check whether EU designs law :  has achieved its objectives including efficiency, relevance and effectiveness. is still considered  fit for p...

The guidance note talks about patents. As readers will know, much of the substantive UK patent law comes from international conventions. Consequently, patents are largely outside the remit of the EU and there are less Brexit related issues to consider. However, with the unified patent court as the mystery wild card in the patent mix, arguably patents raise more complex Brexit questions. The full guidance note is available here . As for trade marks & designs and exhaustion of rights, the key bits are below together with a bit of commentary. SPCs, biotech, compulsory licences and clinical trials  The plan is for the EU Withdrawal Act 2018 to save the day and ensure that relevant EU legislation is retained in UK law. Consequently, "the existing systems will... remain in place, operating independently from the EU regime, with all the current conditions and requirements." This means that EU law on SPCs will be kept in UK law and "this law, along with the existing supporti...

The UK government guidance on a no deal scenario also considers the situation for trade marks and designs . To save readers' paws the trouble of clicking through, the abbreviated text for each section is below together with some gratuitous use of bold and initial thoughts on what this could mean. As they are unitary rights, the EU trade mark and registered Community designs are the most harmonised areas of IP law but in some respects, they offer the simplest solutions. EU trade mark and registered Community designs existing registered EU trade marks or registered Community designs held will continue to be valid in the remaining EU member states protection of existing registered EU trade marks or registered Community designs in the UK will be through a new, equivalent UK right which will be granted with minimal administrative burden right holders will be notified that a new UK right has been granted. Any business, organisation or individual that may not want to receive a new compara...

The KitKat trade mark (as reported in the CJEU decision - the photocopier has not been kind) By now, the fate of the four fingered KitKat shape mark is old news -  Joined Cases C‑84/17 P, C‑85/17 P and C‑95/17 P   R umours of the mark’s death have been greatly exaggerated - it is now for the EUIPO to reconsider the evidence in light of the CJEU's ruling and reach a decision as to whether or not the mark is valid. Whilst the press may have put the cart before the horse, the CJEU’s decision does suggest that the mark will not remain registered long term. But this case has stickier and more sickly consequences for EU trade marks than a single chocolate bar. The real question is... What does this mean for acquired distinctiveness in the EU? It is not disputed that the shape mark (see above) is not inherently distinctive. Therefore, in order to avoid the mark being invalidated, Nestle had to show that it had acquired distinctiveness through the use that had been made of it in a suf...