1. Case Law Laboratory Alicante, 12 June 2017
Functional trade marks and designs
Mikael Francke Ravn, Chief Legal Adviser

2. The ”technical function” prohibition…
Is that prohibition, for all intents and purposes, the same concept merely implemented in two different pieces of legislation or is there a difference? Yes and Yes… Are the same purposes pursued in differing permutations in the context of the trade mark and design regulations respectively? Yes… And what are the differences (if any) in the underlying interests which define the specific application of that prohibition in the context of trade marks and designs? Design: no hampering of technological innovation TM: + no monopolization of the product And finally can jurisprudence regarding trade marks be used analogously to interpret the prohibition within the context of designs and vice versa? Maybe…
Mikael Francke Ravn, Chief Legal Adviser

3. Differences and similarities
Article 7 Designs dictated by their technical function and designs of interconnections 1. A design right shall not subsist in features of appearance of a product which are solely dictated by its technical function.
Article 4 Absolute grounds for refusal or invalidity 1. The following shall not be registered or, if registered, shall be liable to be declared invalid: (e) signs which consist exclusively of: […] (ii) the shape, or another characteristic, of goods which is necessary to obtain a technical result;
Mikael Francke Ravn, Chief Legal Adviser

4. Similarities ”technical function”
Patents Utility Models And any other feature that has a function…
Mikael Francke Ravn, Chief Legal Adviser

5. Differences
Features of appearance of a product ~ Signs A design right shall not subsist in features… ~ Signs which consist exclusively… Solely dictated by its technical function ~ necessary to obtain a technical result Scope of protection Freedom of the designer ~ The need to keep free
Mikael Francke Ravn, Chief Legal Adviser

6. Impact of ”alternatives” A matter of choice…
Trademarks: C-299/99, Philips The ground for refusal or invalidity of registration imposed by that Article 3(1)(e)(ii) cannot be overcome by establishing that there are other shapes which allow the same technical result to be obtained. Designs: The ”multiplicity-of-forms” theory vs. Philips-case In Danish theory the wording ”solely dictated” points to the ”multiplicity-of-forms” theory… …but then again, so (and perhaps even more so) does ”necessary to obtain a technical result”…
Mikael Francke Ravn, Chief Legal Adviser

7. Danish practice
Maritime and Commercial Court, V-4-12, 23 April 2017: Community Design – ”Cutting blade” Competitors product:
Mikael Francke Ravn, Chief Legal Adviser

8. Mikael Francke Ravn, Chief Legal Adviser

9. Mikael Francke Ravn, Chief Legal Adviser

10. Maritime and Commercial Court, V-4-12, 23 April 2017
”At der er tale om identiske designs kan ikke anses for at være begrundet i, at designeren har været begrænset i en sådan grad i sin frihed i forbindelse med udviklingen af det omstridte skæreblad, at det ikke har været muligt, at designe et skæreblad der ikke var identisk med det designregistrerede skæreblad.” That the designs are identical cannot be considered as justified in such a restriction in the designers freedom [when developing the disputed cutting blade] that it was impossible to design a cutting blade not identical to the design-registered cutting blade.
Mikael Francke Ravn, Chief Legal Adviser

11. 3D-marks and Danish practice
Danish Supreme Court: U H U H H.D. 28 August 2003, case H.D. 1 April 1996, case I 239/1993
Mikael Francke Ravn, Chief Legal Adviser

12. Examination …ask the Experts…
Mikael Francke Ravn, Chief Legal Adviser

13. Thanx for your attention
Mikael Francke Ravn, Chief Legal Adviser