“(1) A design may, subject to the following provisions of this Act, be registered under this Act on the making of an application for registration. (2) In this Act ‘design’ means the appearance of the whole or a part of a product resulting from the features of, in particular, the lines, contours, colours, shape, texture or materials of the product or its ornamentation. (3) In this Act— ‘complex product’ means a product which is composed of at least two replaceable component parts permitting disassembly and reassembly of the product; and ‘product’ means any industrial or handicraft item other than a computer program; and, in particular, includes packaging, get-up, graphic symbols, typographic type-faces and parts intended to be assembled into a complex product.” ‘complex product’ means a product which is composed of at least two replaceable component parts permitting disassembly and reassembly of the product; and ‘product’ means any industrial or handicraft item other than a computer program; and, in particular, includes packaging, get-up, graphic symbols, typographic type-faces and parts intended to be assembled into a complex product.”
“Objective interpretation of a design is a matter for the court - not the court viewing the matter through the eyes of the informed user, particularly since there is no reason to suppose that the notional informed user is aware of the conventional understanding of what dotted lines, grayscale etc. are intended to convey, see Sealed Air Ltd v Sharp Interpack Ltd [2013] EWPCC 23, at [20]-[21].”
“187. … Although in Marks and Spencer I stated the principle that the objective interpretation of a design as registered is a matter solely for court, I will own up to doubt about the breadth of that view of the law having dealt with this case. The interpretation of any of the conventions used in design registrations, dotted lines, greyscale and so on are for the court’s own assessment. However, I would have found these RRDs even more hard to interpret than I did without assistance from [Safestand’s expert witness Timothy] Mr Lohmann. 188. No doubt there may be other examples of where the informed user knows more than the court about how to interpret images in a registered design. I have in mind, obviously, only circumstances in which the informed user has specialised knowledge which is relevant to a significant aspect of the interpretation. In such a case interpretation of the images might usefully be done at least in part by the court through the eyes of the informed user. The practical consequence to litigation would be that sometimes there may be expert evidence about this. In an appropriate case such evidence, kept to the minimum necessary, is in my view admissible. 189. I think that Mr Lohmann’s evidence demonstrates that this is an appropriate case and I will consider his comments on the interrelationship between the articles shown in the images in the RRDs.”
“[60] As the Board of Appeal correctly notes in [18] of the contested decision, the subject matter of a design may only be a unitary object, since art.3(a) of Regulation 6/2002 refers expressly to the appearance of ‘a product’. Moreover, the Board of Appeal correctly stated, in [18] of the contested decision, that a group of articles may constitute ‘a product’ within the meaning of the abovementioned provision if they are linked by aesthetic and functional complementarity and are usually marketed as a unitary product. [61] Proceeding from that premiss, which is not contested by the parties, the Board of Appeal concluded, in [19] of the contested decision, that the contested design did not satisfy the three conditions set out in [60] above and that, consequently, it could not be perceived as a unitary object. According to the Board of Appeal, when groups of beverage cans are offered, they always consist of cans of the same size, which is understandable, inter alia, in the light of transport and storage. [62] The Board of Appeal’s conclusion relating, in the present case, to the lack of a unitary object is also not vitiated by error. Irrespective of the way beverage cans are marketed, it is clear that the three cans represented in the contested design do not perform a common function in the sense of a function which cannot be performed by each of them individually as is the case, for example, of table cutlery or a chess board and chess pieces …”
“A partial view is a view showing part of a product in isolation. A partial view can be magnified. Partial views must be combined with at least one view of the assembled product (the different parts need to be connected to each other).”
“11.31 Exploded views An ‘exploded view’ consists of a representation showing a product with its parts disassembled, and is normally submitted in order to better illustrate how multiple parts fit together in order to form a single article. …. exploded views must always be accompanied by a representation showing the assembled product. The following example shows an acceptable ‘assembled’ view of a rollerball deodorant alongside a separate representation of an exploded view of that product. This view shows the constituent parts of the deodorant packaging being the lid, the roller ball, the cup that holds the roller ball and the container for the deodorant itself: 11.32 Partial views (or ‘fragmentary’ views) A ‘partial view’ is a view showing part of a product in isolation which can, if required, be magnified. As with exploded views, partial views must be combined with at least one view representing the whole product. This can also apply to component parts of complex products, where there must be at least one view representing the product assembled (that is the different components need to be shown connected to each other). The following shows an acceptable representation consisting of three partial views together with an assembled view. ”
“38. Since the representation of a design for which registration is sought must enable that design, which is the subject of the protection sought by that application, to be clearly identified …, it is necessary, in particular, to examine whether the views constituting the representation as a whole show the appearance of a single or unitary product, that is to say, whether there is unicity of design. 39. In that regard, the requirement that the views be consistent implies that all the views show the appearance of one and the same product (or part of a product), so that they enable one and the same design to be clearly identified. Inconsistencies or contradictions between the filed views may lead to the conclusion that the representation shows different products, and therefore more than one design. The views relate to more than one design in particular when they constitute different embodiments or versions of the same concept, or when the use of the lines intended to identify the design or the use of the disclaimers of certain features is not consistent throughout the views. 40. There can be no unicity of design if the views constituting the representation as a whole are insolubly inconsistent or insurmountably contradictory, so that the appearance of a single product cannot be determined and, consequently, the representation does not allow a single design to be clearly identified. Conversely, the unicity of the design may be established despite minor discrepancies between the views, strictly to the extent that those views can nevertheless be reconciled in the sense of a unitary design. That being the case, the adjudicating bodies of EUIPO are not obliged to consider all possible combinations between the views provided by the applicant at the time of the application, but only those combinations which seem logical and plausible in the light of common experience. 41. A design which does not constitute a unitary object does not meet the definition laid down in Article 3(a) of Regulation No 6/2002 and must therefore be refused registration pursuant to Article 47(1) of that regulation …, or declared invalid if the ground for invalidity set out in Article 25(1)(a) of that regulation has been properly invoked (see, to that effect, … Ball Beverage Packaging Europe v EUIPO …, paragraphs 57 and 60).”
“1. An application for a registered Community design shall contain: ... (c) a representation of the design suitable for reproduction. However, if the object of the application is a two-dimensional design and the application contains a request for publication in accordance with Article 50, the representation of the design may be replaced by a specimen.” ... (c) a representation of the design suitable for reproduction. However, if the object of the application is a two-dimensional design and the application contains a request for publication in accordance with Article 50, the representation of the design may be replaced by a specimen.”
“216. It may be that a registered design with illustrations which do not make it possible to identify the features of the design with reasonable certainty is not a registration for a ‘design’ within the meaning of s.1(2). See also paragraph 46 of Mast-Jägermeister …. 217. However, it is enough for me to note that the judgment of the General Court in Ball Europe was based on art.3(a) of the Design Regulation, the equivalent of s.1(2) of the 1949 Act. It was not in dispute in these proceedings that the resolution of whether a design is of a single article is relevant to validity after registration. It seems to me that if it not possible to tell with reasonable certainty from the illustrations whether the design is of a single article, which implies being able to tell what that single design is, the registration is invalid.”
“53. In that regard, it should be noted that the entry of a design in a public register has the aim of making it accessible to the competent authorities and the public, particularly to economic operators. On the one hand, the competent authorities must know with clarity and precision the nature of the constituent elements of a design in order to be able to fulfil their obligations in relation to the prior examination of applications for registration and to the publication and maintenance of an appropriate and precise register of designs (see, by analogy, judgments of12 December 2002 , Sieckmann, C-273/00, EU:C:2002:748, paragraphs 49 and 50, and of19 June 2012 , Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys, C-307/10, EU:C:2012:361, paragraph 47). 54. On the other hand, economic operators must be able to acquaint themselves, with clarity and precision, with registrations or applications for registration made by their current or potential competitors and thus to obtain relevant information about the rights of third parties (see, by analogy, judgments of12 December 2002 , Sieckmann, C-273/00, EU:C:2002:748, paragraph 51, and of19 June 2012 , Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys, C-307/10, EU:C:2012:361, paragraph 48). Such a requirement, as the General Court points out, in essence, in paragraph 47 of the judgment under appeal, is intended to ensure legal certainty for third parties.”
“ Neither Safestand nor Weston submitted that any of the RRDs in suit is a design of a set of articles …. Most of the images presented are views of part of a complex product, the trestle, but there were no submissions about that. I can approach all three RRDs on the basis that the design claimed is of a single article, a trestle. In each case there is at least one view of the assembled trestle plus views of a part or parts of the trestle.”
“All [three] difficulties relating to RRD 0001 apply to RRD 0004. In addition: (4) The h frames may be coloured yellow or red. (5) The handrails may be coloured yellow or blue.”
“(1) The anti-flip bracket may optionally be red (image 0005.6) or green (image 0005.1). (2) I found it difficult to know whether the parts shown in images 0005.2 and 0005.5 fit into the whole as shown in image 0005.6 or whether they are parts of an embodiment alternative to that shown in image 0005.6. Mr Lohmann said that they depict the way in which the cross-brace is attached to the system. (3) Image 0005.7 has an h frame without feet or lower cross bar. Although Mr Lohmann did not say so, I would infer from he said about RRD 0001 that it is slotted into the frame with legs. (4) One might expect the red kickboard bracket of image 0005.4 to be visible in the image of the assembly, 0005.6. It is not, which may imply that the kickboard bracket is optional.”