Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 11th Aug 2011 09:22 UTC
Legal Earlier this week, we were introduced to a new concept in intellectual property law: the European 'Community Design'. The Community Design is a sort of trademark on design, and sits halfway between a trademark and a patent. I decided to investigate what, exactly, the laws and regulations around Community Designs are, and what I found was shocking. Think the USPTO is bad? Wait until you learn about the Community Design.
Thread beginning with comment 484820
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Comments from an IP professional
by AdamW on Sat 13th Aug 2011 07:40 UTC in reply to "Comments from an IP professional"
AdamW
Member since:
2005-07-06

"I don’t know much about German case law on preliminary injunctions so I will sick to England and Wales. "

That's sort of the problem. You want to stick to England and Wales because that's what you know about; fine. But Apple didn't have to. The RCD system is EU-wide, which allowed Apple to go jurisdiction shopping and find the country with the preliminary injunction system most suited to their purposes - just as U.S. patent aggressors tend to go to East Texas. You may well be entirely correct about English preliminary injunctions, but so what? The case wasn't filed in England.

Reply Parent Score: 2

IPprofessional Member since:
2011-08-13

I think you missed my point, possibly I communicated it badly in a long post written late at night.

I was not saying that its hard to get prelim injunctions in England so don't worry, I was saying that since English prelim injunctions don't normally depend much on the merits of the case the lack of evaluation of validity before a PI is given is not the departure from normal justice that it first seems.

Reply Parent Score: 1

kristoph Member since:
2006-01-01

IP preliminary injunctions (PIs) are not generally decided on the merits of the case


Do you know this is different in the German system or are you just mindlessly raging?

Reply Parent Score: 2

IPprofessional Member since:
2011-08-13

Im not interested in the specifics of the Apple-Samsung case (Id go elsewhere for that). I was trying to add further context to Thom's impressive but IMO slightly flawed attempt at assessing the CD system as a whole. For those reasons England is as relevant as Germany to that discussion (well maybe slightly less as Germany is the more popular venue for litigation).

My understanding of Thom's view is that being able to get a PI on presumed validity of the design is unfair and unusual since unlike a patent the registration office have not considered validity. My point was that for at least the major IP court of the EU that I know well the merits of arguments regarding both validity and non-infringment (the latter of which has never been previously considered for any IP right)aren't big factors in determining PIs and therefore the lack of examination of CRDs is not as relevant to the PI issue as Thom may have believed.

To be honest the PI point was very much secondary to the point I was making about the intents and purposes of the system. PIs are a pretty rare niche thing and in most cases can be compensated for when they are given wrongly.

Edited 2011-08-13 20:32 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1