Industrial Design in Different Jurisdictions: A Comparison of Laws

2000

This study examines and critiques New Zealand intellectual property protection for industrial designs, taking into account that many New Zealand industrial design owners outsource manufacture of their designs to China. Industrial design, which refers to improving the aesthetics of products to increase their marketability, is evolving conceptually and practically. In New Zealand, copyright and registered design laws each protect, respectively, the visual expression and the “eye appeal” of an original design. As design practices evolve with advances in technology however, it is increasingly evident that industrial design is about more than just visual expression or “eye appeal”. Many designers are not focusing solely on product stylisation and decoration, but on the provision of a more holistic product experience for the consumer. The development process of industrial designs from concept to marketable product is also changing, with many New Zealand industrial design owners employi...

2021

1996

Design occupies an important place in the modern world, and European legislatures have made many attempts, both technical and legal, to protect works of design. The proposals by the European Community for a Directive and Regulation in this area are a response to the widely perceived need for a homogeneous and systematic protection of designs. These initiatives, however, should be considered in light of the many interests at stake and the various solutions proposed in the wake of the Community's past experience in the field of patents and trademarks. This commentary presents both an analysis of the complete texts of the proposals in their "historical" context through annotation of the preparatory stages in the legislative process, as well as an in-depth interpretation of the provisions, seen through the eyes of some of the leading experts in the field.

University of Tasmania Law Review, 1999

My purpose in writing this article is to examine the argument that the current legislative protection of industrial designs should be supplemented or replaced by an unfair competition regime. Such respected commentators as Professors Ricketson and Lahore have advocated the inuoduction of an unfair competition regime in the context of design protection.' In this article, I agree that the introduction of an unfair competition regime could potentially not only provide assistance in overcoming the current difficulties of design protection, but could also allow a more flexible approach to protection in the face of increasing technological change. My contention is that the current scheme of protection is ineffective, largely because of the assumptions and values that the legislation is based upon. Because these assumptions and values are so central to the scheme of intellectual property protection in general, and designs protection in particular, alternative reform proposals, such as simply amending the designs legislation, or adding new mi generis regimes to supplement it,* would continue to have little effect. I argue that the introduction of an unfair competition regime would be problematic, not least because of the resistance to such a regime on the grounds of certainty and competition, but that this resistance, at least in the context of design protection, may be misplaced. I have structured this paper by firstly examining the purposes of, and the background to, legislative design protection. I then proceed to examine three assumptions that underlie the legislative scheme and explain the origins of those assumptions. I then argue that these assumptions are no longer valid, and proceed to examine * LLM (Tas), Senior Lecturer, University of Western Australia. My thanks to Professor Sandra Berns, Ian Campbell, Colin Thomson and Michael Tilbury for reading and commenting upon drafts of this paper. S Ricketson, 'Reaping without sowing; unfair competition and intellectual property rights in Anglo-Australian law' (1984) 7 UNSWJ 1; J Lahore, 'Designs and Petty Patents: A broader reform issue' (1996) 7 AIPJ 7. Such as a utility patent regime. See S Ricketson, 'Towards a rational basis of the protection of indusmal design in Australia' (1994) 5 AIPJ 193.

Fordham Intellectual Property, Media & Entertainment Law Journal, 1993

SSRN Electronic Journal, 2012

From these categories we can derive four recommendations for the Intellectual Property Office, and the broader UK government. Current: often commissioning AND licencing design Action: seem good targets for current EU-wide design rights info and registration encouragement Current: Mostly not using design rights, but contracts or other forms of IP Action: unlikely to benefit except with pan-global uniform rights and enforcement Current: Sell intangibles or hand over rights to client in contract Action: Advice / support in international contracting Current: some use of design rights, but some see speed of innovation as more important Action: greater efforts to ensure easier (cheaper) enforcement of violations Services (most of) the larger design businesses Manu-services Design "aggregators" Global Manu-services businesses Design services businesses Designer-"makers" (Mostly) smaller organisations

Arab Law Quarterly

For the industrial development of national economic industries in any given country, designs for products and goods need to be created and developed. In 2020, Qatar issued a new law on Industrial Designs and Models (Law No. 10 of 2020) as a means of enhancing and strengthening Intellectual Property Rights and their protection, which is regarded as a part of Qatar's National Vision 2030. In this article, the provisions of the new law will be critically examined. The discussion starts by highlighting the definition of, and the requirements for, protection. The rights granted to the owner of the design will also be explored. A comparison between the Qatari provisions and those from a number of other countries will be made throughout. The main purpose of this paper is to provide a comprehensive analysis of the new law on industrial designs, taking into consideration the legal development of those jurisdictions.