Registered Community Designs (Rcds)
1. Introduction to Registered Community Designs (RCDs)
A Registered Community Design (RCD) is a form of intellectual property protection for the appearance of a product, including lines, contours, colors, shape, texture, or materials. RCDs are governed by Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 in the EU and are valid in all EU member states.
Key Features:
Protects ornamental or aesthetic aspects of a product, not its function.
Duration: 5 years initially, renewable up to 25 years.
Requires novelty (no identical design has been made available before).
Requires individual character (gives a different overall impression on an informed user compared to existing designs).
Enforcement: The holder of an RCD can stop unauthorized copying or imitation of the design.
2. Landmark Case Laws on RCDs
Case 1: C-281/10, Linz Textil v. EUIPO
Facts: Linz Textil filed a RCD for a patterned fabric. A competitor produced a similar fabric pattern. The dispute was about whether the competitor's design lacked novelty due to prior disclosure.
Issue: Whether a prior design shown in a trade fair constitutes disclosure that destroys novelty.
Ruling: The Court clarified that public availability in any medium that allows informed users to see the design destroys novelty. Private, confidential showings do not.
Significance: Reinforces the novelty requirement for RCDs; even partial public displays can affect RCD validity.
Case 2: T-353/11, Ferrero v. EUIPO
Facts: Ferrero applied for an RCD for a chocolate wrapper. A competitor argued that the wrapper lacked individual character, as it resembled existing chocolate wrappers.
Issue: Whether minor differences in ornamentation are sufficient for individual character.
Ruling: The General Court held that a design has individual character if it produces a different overall impression on the informed user, even if minor differences exist.
Significance: Sets a high bar for similarity assessment—minor distinctions can make the design protectable.
Case 3: C-281/13 P, LEGO v. EUIPO
Facts: LEGO sought protection for its interlocking toy brick design. Competitors challenged that the shape was dictated by technical function, not aesthetics.
Issue: RCDs cannot protect designs dictated solely by technical function.
Ruling: The Court confirmed that designs dictated exclusively by technical function are not eligible for RCD protection.
Significance: Reinforces the functional exclusion principle—RCDs protect appearance, not utility.
Case 4: T-450/15, Samsung v. EUIPO
Facts: Samsung registered a smartphone RCD. Apple claimed it infringed its design.
Issue: How to assess infringement—whether minor differences prevent infringement.
Ruling: The General Court emphasized that infringement occurs if the contested design produces the same overall impression on the informed user, considering all features of the design.
Significance: Shows how the overall impression test is applied in infringement cases.
Case 5: C-281/18, Nike v. EUIPO
Facts: Nike claimed that a competitor’s sports shoe design copied its RCD.
Issue: Whether partial similarity in certain design elements constitutes infringement.
Ruling: The Court held that substantial similarity of core features is sufficient for infringement, even if minor elements differ.
Significance: Protects key design elements; partial copying can still be actionable.
Case 6: T-251/20, Apple v. EUIPO
Facts: Apple claimed protection for the design of its smart watches.
Issue: Whether 3D renderings in marketing material affect novelty assessment.
Ruling: Marketing disclosures publicly accessible online count as prior disclosure; even images can destroy novelty.
Significance: Highlights digital disclosure as a critical factor in RCD validity.
Case 7: C-228/19, Philips v. EUIPO
Facts: Philips claimed RCD protection for a household appliance design.
Issue: Competitor argued the design lacked individual character, as consumers were influenced by technical functions.
Ruling: Court reiterated that overall impression matters, and individual character is assessed from the informed user’s perspective, not the general public.
Significance: Clarifies the standard for assessing individual character in multi-feature designs.
3. Key Takeaways from RCD Case Laws
Novelty Requirement: Any prior disclosure that is publicly accessible can invalidate an RCD.
Individual Character: Even minor differences may grant protection if they affect the informed user’s overall impression.
Functionality Exclusion: Designs dictated solely by technical function are not protected.
Infringement Assessment: Focuses on overall impression; partial copying may still constitute infringement.
Digital/Public Display: Online publications, exhibitions, and images can affect novelty.
RELATED Blog
comments