Scholarly record
ASSESSMENT OF “NOVELTY” AND “DISTINCTIVE CHARACTER” IN INDUSTRIAL DESIGNS
Abstract
As the world economy has become more global towards the end of the 20th century, protection of intellectual property rights has gained a special importance for the free movement of goods. Intellectual property rights are generally organized into two categories: Copyright and industrial property. Copyright refers to the rights related to artistic and literary works whereas industrial property primarily refers to inventions, trademarks and industrial designs. As designs are intellectual outputs embodying both artistic and technical qualities, they cannot be treated as possessing purely technical or purely artistic aspects. Accordingly, assessment of designs presents different challenges in comparison to other types of intellectual property such as inventions, trademarks or artistic works. The design registration system in Turkey does not involve an examination regarding the terms of protection; it involves a formal examination and publication-opposition process managed by the Turkish Patent Institute (TPI). In a registration-without-examination system, a design may get registered although it does not meet the terms of protection, or an infringement claim may be raised. In such cases, the parties in disagreement may file an opposition to registration with TPI, or may file an invalidity case with the specialized courts. Novelty and distinctive character of a design is assessed when either of these situations occurs. When an opposition is filed, the claims and evidence concerning the novelty and distinctive character are usually presented by the design agents, and the decision is taken by the TPI Re-examination and Evaluation Board; or when an invalidity case is filed, judges, court experts and attorneys get involved in the assessment of disputed designs. This study investigates the assessment strategies employed by the parties actively involved in the assessment process. With this purpose, judges, court experts, TPI experts, attorneys and design agents were subjected to face-to-face interviews. The interviews were conducted with 51 participants in total. The aim was to investigate how these parties assessed novelty and distinctive character, and to see whether the professional background played a role in it. The paper describes the assessment strategies employed by these parties actively involved in the assessment process, and proposes two flow charts developed with a holistic approach for the assessment of novelty and distinctive character.
Publication Impact Profile
Publication details
References10
Decree-Law No. 554 Pertaining to the Protection of Industrial Designs, Resmi Gazete, no. 22326, June 27, 1995.
The European Parliament and the Council of the European Union. Directive 98/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 1998 on the legal protection of designs, A. 4-5. 1998.
The Council of the European Union. Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 of 12 December 2001 on Community designs, 2002.
Proposal for a European Parliament and Council Regulation on Community Design, Official Journal of the European Communities, vol. 37, C29, 31 January 1994, pp 20-49, 1994.
Korkut, F. Endüstriyel Tasarımların Korunmasına İlişkin Kanun Hükmünde Kararname'de Korumaya ve Tasarım Hakkına Getirilen Sınırlamalar [Limitations on the design right and the design protection in the Decree Law Concerning the Protection of Industrial Designs]. In Tasarımda Evrenselleşme: 2. Ulusal Tasarım Kongresi Bildiri Kitabı, edited by N. Bayazıt et al., 29-35. İstanbul: İTÜ Mimarlık Fakültesi Endüstri Ürünleri Tasarımı Bölümü, 1996.
TPI (Turkish Patent Institute). Design Examination Guideline, Turkey, 2011.
Elibol G. C. Assessment of Novelty and Distinctive Character in Industrial Design Protection in Turkey. Doctoral Dissertation. Middle East Technical University, Graduate School of Natural and Applied Sciences, Department of Industrial Design, Ankara, Turkey, 2011.
Australian Law Reform Commission, Report 74-Designs, Sydney: Australia, 1995.
Hasdoğan, G. Türkiye’de Endüstriyel Tasarımların Korunmasında Uygulamaya Yönelik Sorunlar: Ayırt Edici Nitelik Değerlendirmesi için Kavramsal Bir Model Önerisi. Legal Fikri ve Sanatsal Haklar Dergisi, no. 2, pp 341-353, 2005.
PepsiCo, Inc. v Grupo Promer Mon Graphic SA (Case C-281/10 P), judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (Fourth Chamber), 20 October 2011.
View or Download full articleAccess options
SWS access login
Login as SWS Scientific CommitteeLogin as SWS Scientific PartnerLogin as SWS AuthorAuthors and approved SWS contributors will read and export their own linked papers after identity matching by SWS profile, email and SGEM GlobalID.
For librarian assistance: [email protected]
Purchase Instant Access
- Article can be downloaded after successful payment.
- Article may be used according to SWS library access terms.
- Article cannot be redistributed.
