Design rights on non-visible parts - samsung cartridges

Design rights are the perfect tool to claim protection of shapes. However, this right has its limitations. Lose parts of an object cannot be protected through design rights. The philosophy behind this is that non-visible parts should be replaceable at all times. Therefore, the manufacturer can only claim design rights for the parts which are visible. However, how far can we take this?

At the court, in the Hague, this question was discussed in a case about Samsung printer cartridges. Can the design of the cartridge be legally claimed as a right? The cartridge can only be used within the printer, when it is not visible. And the printer itself cannot function without the cartridge. The court judges that the shape of a cartridge can be protected by design rights. A printer without a cartridge is still a complete product (like the lamp without the lamp bulb). This is good news for companies, because it enables them to protect the unique shapes of their products even more.

design-law

Latest news
Rituals vs. The Body Shop: Battle of the Brands
The Bulldog rightly claims damages from Red Bull
Trademark Escobar parfum contrary to public order
Abcor team in World Trademark Review 1000
Louis Keijzer passes BBMM exam with flying colours
Our Clients
Follow Abcor
claimant
defendant
claimant
defendant

IP quiz Trademarks

Puma is one of the bigger sports and lifestyle brands in the world. The core-business is the design, development and sale of (sports) shoes, (sports) clothing and accessories. In 1960, Puma registered an international trademark for a device designed in 1958: the formstrip. Since then, Puma has registered approximately 90 formstrip trademarks with validity in the Benelux or the European Union. Puma claims that this is a serial mark. Monshoe is a wholesaler of women's shoes and related products. The company designs and develops Monshoe shoes which it largely markets itself. Monshoe sells its women's shoes under the brands Shoecolate and Pearlz. The shoe Shoecolate is offered in various colour combinations. Puma claims that Monshoe infringes its well-known formstrip trademark. Monshoe contradicts this and states that the average consumer will not perceive the device of Monshoe on the sneakers as a trademark. And if the public will recognize a trademark in the decoration, it will not make the connection to Puma. According to Monshoe, the formstrip logo is not a well-known trademark within the meaning of the BVIE and the UMVo. There is no likelihood of confusion because the sign does not or hardly evoke any association with Puma among the public. In light of the above, who is right? Does this constitute decorative use or linking to a well-known trademark?