Germany: Protectability Of A Design, The Representations Of Which Show Different Embodiments Of A Product – Federal Court Of Justice, Decisions Of Dec. 20, 2018, Docket Nos. I ZB 25/18 – Sporthelm [Sports Helmet] And I ZB 26/18 – Sportbrille [Sports Glasses]

Last Updated: 2 August 2019
Article by Philipe Kutschke and Vera Mogk

In two groundbreaking decisions that change the settled case law, the Federal Court of Justice continues the trend of the last years: The representations of a design must, in the interest of the legal certainty of third parties, reveal in a clear and unambiguous manner what is exactly protected by the respective design. This requirement sets clearer limits to the previous, highly validity-friendly interpretation of the representations of a design (at European level, see already ECJ, judgment of 5.7.2018, C-217/17 P - Mast-Jägermeister). The core of both cases, which were already decided by the Federal Court of Justice at the end of last year, but were only published recently, was the question of whether a registered design, the representations of which show different embodiments of a product, is valid according to the previous, so-called "intersection theory" ["Schnittmengentheorie"] of the Federal Court of Justice (cf. FCJ, judgment of 15.2.2001, I ZR 333/98 – Sitz-Liegemöbel [loungers]), or – in line with the European case law – is invalid. The Federal Court of Justice opted for the latter alternative and, thus, gave up its previous case law.

Facts of the case

Subject matter of the two decisions of the First Civil Chamber of the Federal Court of Justice were two separate designs of the same owner. For the German Design no. 40200800132-0001 (hereinafter "sports helmet design") that was filed on February 28, 2008 and registered on July 16, 2008, the design owner had filed seven representations, all of which being black and white photographs. These seven representations each showed a sports helmet. However, each sports helmet had different features (e.g., different straps, with or without an equestrian knob, different color contrasts and patterns). For the second German Design no. 402008001031-0001 that was also filed on February 28, 2008 but was only registered on July 23, 2008 (hereinafter: "sports glasses design"), the design owner had filed five representations, once again all of them being black and white photographs. Each of these representations showed skiing glasses or elements of skiing glasses. However, in this case as well, the individual representations depicted glasses with different color schemes, hence, not one and the same product. Thus, as regards both the sports helmet design as well as the skiing glasses design, the applicant had filed different sports helmets or skiing glasses, respectively, as a single design.

The applicant had applied for the declaration of invalidity of both designs, arguing that they lacked protectability because they did not disclose a uniform subject matter.

The German Patent and Trademark Office rejected the applications. The applicant then filed complaints against these decisions with the Federal Patent Court – without success.

As regards the sports helmet design, the Federal Patent Court had found that the design's seven representations show seven different helmets and that the differences are decisive for the respective aesthetic overall impression. However, applying the earlier case law of the Federal Court of Justice, it affirmed the protectability of the design on the ground that the subject matter of the design could be determined by creating an intersection of the features of the seven different helmets (so-called "intersection theory" ["Schnittmengentheorie"]). All of the representations of the sports helmet design coincided insofar as that they depicted an identically shaped helmet shell.

On similar grounds, the Federal Patent Court also affirmed the protectability of the sports glasses design, whereby in this case, according to the Federal Patent Court, the filed representations depicted seven different views of the same product. The different color schemes did not lead to another result, as, in the opinion of the Federal Patent Court, protection was sought for an abstract black and white contrast of two different shades of grey. Furthermore, the Federal Patent Court argued that, even if one would assume that the representations 1 to 3 depicted two different pairs of skiing glasses and the representations 4 and 5 showed parts of a glasses frame that were independently eligible for design protection, the design would still reveal a unitary subject matter. In order to determine this subject matter, one would, again, just need to create an intersection of the coinciding features of the representations. In the present case, representations 1 to 3 showed glasses with an identically shaped frame. Representations 4 and 5 only served the purpose of clarifying the two-piece structure of the glasses frame. 

By way of appeals on points of law, the applicant further pursued its applications for declaration of invalidity of both designs and was successful in both cases.

The decisions of the Federal Court of Justice

The Chamber grants both appeals on points of law and lifts both decisions of the Federal Patent Court. However, given that the Federal Court of Justice is not entitled to decide on the merits, it remitted the cases to the Federal Patent Court (Sec. 23 (5) of the German Design Act [DesignG] in conjunction with Sec. 108 (1) of the German Patent Act [PatG]). In view of the very clear reasoning of both decisions, it appears likely that it will declare both of the attacked designs to be invalid.

The starting point of the two decisions is that Sec. 1 no. 1 of the German Design Act [DesignG] stipulates two requirements to assume protectability of a design: First, the subject matter of a design must be the appearance of a "product" in the sense of Sec. 1 no. 2 of the German Design Act [DesignG], thus, the appearance of an industrial or handicraft item (which could, in the present cases, be answered in the affirmative without any difficulties). Second, the subject matter of a design can – as long as it does not have any abstractions – only be the appearance of "one" design (and not of several designs), because, otherwise, the subject matter of the design could not be determined clearly and unambiguously. In the event that one of these requirements is not met, the design is invalid pursuant to Sec. 33 (1) no. 1 of the German Design Act [DesignG].

Insofar, the present decisions are in accordance with the Chamber's earlier case law (cf. FCJ, judgment of 8.3.2012, I ZR 124/10 – Weinkaraffe [wine carafe]), according to which a design application is not only a procedural step, but also a declaration of intent. If a single design application contains several representations of a design and it is questionable whether the design application represents the appearance of "one" design, the protected subject matter must be determined by way of interpretation of the application. However, in favor of the legal certainty of third parties, the Federal Court of Justice now defines clear boundaries for the validity-friendly interpretation: The representations must clearly reveal what the applicant seeks protection for. Should an unequivocal interpretation in this respect not be possible, the design is invalid. Moreover, when interpreting a design application, neither the intention of the designer or the applicant, nor the understanding of the informed user is decisive. Rather, the application must be interpreted from the standpoint of the specialist circles in the respective sector. In this context, it is to be welcomed that the Federal Court of Justice (again) explicitly states that, when interpreting a design application, not only the representations, but also other circumstances of the case should be taken into account, in particular the (optional) description of the representations, the (obligatory) indication of the product and the (optional) list of the class(es) of goods the product is assigned to.

Referring to the necessary legal certainty for third parties and the principle of the clarity of the register, the Federal Court of Justice sets clear limits to such an interpretation and (finally) gives up its previous, so-called "intersection theory" ["Schnittmengentheorie"] (cf. FCJ, judgment of 15.2.2001, I ZR 333/98 – Sitz-Liegemöbel [loungers]), which the Federal Patent Court had used as a basis for its two decisions. Hence, according to the two decisions of the Federal Court of Justice, in cases in which the representations of one single design show different embodiments of a product having different design features, the subject matter of the design cannot be determined by creating an intersection of those features that are contained in all representations. Instead, the design is to be declared invalid. According to the Chamber, this is because a subject matter that was created by way of abstraction, only exists in the imagination of the observer. However, only the features that are clearly revealed in the representations can be comprised in the scope of protection of a design (Sec. 37 (1) of the German Design Act [DesignG]). Furthermore, the principle of the clarity of the register is not adequately safeguarded, if the subject matter for which protection is sought must be explored in several mental steps.

Against this background, the Federal Patent Court's interpretation of the two attacked design applications did not withstand the revision by the Federal Court of Justice. First, with respect to the sports helmet design, the Chamber states that the Federal Patent Court correctly found that the submitted representations show seven different helmets and not seven different views of one and the same helmet. Also, with regard to the sports glasses design, the Federal Patent Court correctly came to the conclusion that the representations that were filed along with the application showed several features of the appearance of the depicted product that were incompatible with one another. However, the Federal Court of Justice corrects the results of both decisions of the Federal Patent Court (thereby giving up its own earlier case law). Now taking greater account of the wording of Sec. 1 no. 1 of the German Design Act [DesignG], the Chamber consequently comes to the conclusion that the representations of the two designs do not unequivocally show the appearance of "one" design and, therefore, the two designs must be declared invalid.

Nevertheless, the Chamber emphasizes once more that, regarding black and white photographs that show a color contrast in different shades of grey, the visible light and dark contrast takes part in the scope of protection of a design, not however, a specific color scheme (in this respect, it is indeed still possible that one design protects more than the appearance of "one" product).

Remarks

It is to be highly welcomed that, with its two decisions, the Federal Court of Justice now clarifies that the interpretation of design applications can only go as far as the principle of the clarity of the register, that serves the legal certainty of third parties, is not infringed. Giving up the "intersection theory" ["Schnittmengentheorie"] was logical and long overdue. 

With this change of case law, the two decisions of the Federal Court of Justice are in line with the recent case law of the European Court of Justice, in particular its "Mast-Jägermeister" decision. Even if the European design regime is comparatively liberal with regard to the type and amount of representations, the validity-friendly interpretation does have limits (cf. ECJ, judgment of 5.7.2018, C-217/17 P – Mast-Jägermeister).

Moreover, it is very positive that the Federal Court of Justice again (cf. also FCJ, judgment of 8.3.2012, I ZR 124/10 – Weinkaraffe [wine carafe]) expressly – and also in accordance with the case law of the European General Court of Justice and the General Court of the European Union (cf., for example, ECJ, judgment of 8.3.2018, C-395/16 – DOCERAM/CeramTec; ECJ, judgment of 20.10.2011, C-281/10 – PepsiCo) – states that, when interpreting a national German design (the same applies for a registered Community design) not only the representations, but also other circumstances from outside the register should be taken into account (such as, for example, the real products that are manufactured based on the design). Now, it remains to be seen whether these principles of interpretation are going to be applied by the offices and courts more consequently than in the past. In this respect, it also remains to be seen whether the requirement established by the European Court of Justice, according to which it must not only be clearly distinguishable from the representations what is protected, but also what is not protected (cf. ECJ, judgment of 5.7.2018, C-217/17 P – Mast-Jägermeister), will be applied.

At the same time, the two decisions of the Federal Court of Justice illustrate the pitfalls of unexamined protective rights and the necessity to already act strategically and thoroughly when filing the design application. Whereas, in the last five years, an average of approximately 10 % of the German design applications (and, on average, approximately 5 % of the registered Community designs) have not been registered, the present two decisions could possibly even increase the rejection rate and/or invalidation rate. However, although registered designs are not subject to comprehensive examination, at least the EUIPO evaluates, inter alia, whether or not the representations are consistent. Thus, if the discrepancies between the representations are already noticed during the application procedure, the office invites the applicant to either delete individual representations, or to divide the design into two (or more) designs. Hence, provided that the applicant reacts reasonably to a respective office action, the invalidity can be prevented. In the event that the applicant is stubborn and insists on maintaining the representations, however, he or she must expect the rejection of the application (cf. ECJ, judgment of 5.7.2018, C-217/17 P – Mast-Jägermeister). As the case may be, the applicant may also consider refiling the designs within the twelve-month grace period of novelty.

In the present cases, it is unknown whether the applicant actually intended to apply the Federal Court of Justice's "intersection theory" ["Schnittmengentheorie"] when filing the contradictory representations. It also appears to be reasonable to assume that the applicant made a mistake insofar as, instead of filing a multiple application with different designs (which would have been possible without any difficulties), he or she just put all the available representations into one single design application. In any case, particularly with regard to unexamined protective rights, it makes sense to seek advice from experts beforehand in order not to end up losing the registered design rights, as will presently most likely be the case.

For the sake of completeness, however, it should be noted that, from the wording of Sec. 1 no. 1 of the German Design Act [DesignG] ("one" design), it cannot be concluded that it is inadmissible to use disclaimers, but only that the representations cannot be contradictory insofar as that they show different variations of one and the same feature (such as, for example, an ornament or a pattern). On the contrary, it is still admissible to protect "several" embodiments of a product by one single design by abstracting the color or using disclaimers, for example.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
 
Some comments from our readers…
“The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable”
“I often find critical information not available elsewhere”
“As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”

Related Topics
 
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions