- Endorses the new definition of a design set out in the proposal for a directive.
- Supports limiting protection to those features of appearance, which are shown visibly in the application for registration, as this increases the legal certainty of the protection.
- Welcomes the fact that the proposal for a regulation takes up the solution put forward by the Court of Justice of the EU in its "Acacia" judgment, in which it clarified the interpretation of the concept of a "repair clause", especially since this solution improves consumer protection.
- Does not believe that merging the publication and registration fees will reduce the total cost of the fees, as the cost of renewals, as proposed, will increase drastically.
- Would like to see lower fees for SMEs and individual designers, perhaps in proportion to their turnover.
- Believes that the simplification brought about by abolishing the "unity of class" rule is necessary but not sufficient, as there is still a need to improve the usability of the design filing systems available on the websites of the national industrial property offices and the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO). To meet this challenge, offices could make use of the expertise of patent agents.
- Considers it inappropriate to use Article 290 of the TFEU to draw up rules on disputes and appeals against EUIPO decisions.
For more information please contact the INT Section Secretariat.