Enforcement of designs and understanding the design rights of others
Criminal sanctions
Criminal sanctions for the deliberate copying of registered designs was introduced. It would be interesting to know of how many cases have been brought under these provisions as we at CIPA and CITMA have not heard of any.
It remains the case, even if prosecutions have not been brought in practice, that the provisions present concerns in the spare parts business or other businesses involved in the supply of essentially functional designs. Typically, such a product will be a copy of, or differ in only immaterial details, from the original. The legislation provides a defence that the person (the accused) reasonably believed that the registration of the design was invalid; however, the typical basis for invalidity in these case will be the appearance of the product is solely dictated by technical function, or relevant features must match/must fit or are not visible in normal use. There is considerable uncertainty as to when a design is invalid on these grounds and the possibility of reproducing such functional parts being a criminal offence is undesirable principle where there is such uncertainty. It is also undesirable because it often necessitates the business seeking legal advice on the issue to provide support for their opinion, and such legal advice may not be unequivocal. It is suggested that, if the offence is retained, it should include the requirement that the registration is shown to be clearly valid, or at least that the defence is amended to provide that the accused reasonably believed that the registration was not clearly valid.
We understand that certain stakeholders are lobbying for these sanctions to be extended to also cover unregistered designs. We would strongly argue that any extension be resisted, firstly on the basis that unregistered rights are not always certain, definite and clear (see our comments above, for example) and there can be much confusion in determining who owns the rights and what rights exist and we don’t consider it appropriate for such rights to be subject to criminal sanctions. In particular if no cases or only few cases have been brought under the criminal sanctions available for the deliberate copying of registered designs this would also support that the provisions should not be extended, as this would put yet more pressure on Trading Standards.
Design Opinions Service
We note that the non-binding Design Opinions Service has not yet been introduced and we look forward to the introduction of this service in the future.
Appeal to Appointed Person
We are pleased to note that this has been introduced and gives greater flexibility to users of the system who need to appeal.
Other things to improve the design IP framework
Hague Agreement
We are pleased that the UK has now joined the Hague Agreement in its own right.
Inspection of Documents
We are pleased that an online filing service has been brought in and that number of views to file has been expanded to 12 following the initial limitation to 7. We understand that the IT focus has been elsewhere within the IPO of late and look forward to the IPO being able to refocuses its efforts in relation to for online inspection of documents and obtaining documents electronically in hopefully not too distant future.
Full review of unregistered design law after Brexit
We would strongly be in favour of a full review (and simplification) of unregistered design law once the UK has left the EU, provided the existing protection afforded by UK UDR is retained.
Date Published: 18 December 2019