Industrial Designs Law in Saint Pierre and Miquelon (France)
The Industrial Designs Law in Saint Pierre and Miquelon, being an overseas collectivity of France, follows the French intellectual property (IP) system with regard to industrial designs. Industrial designs are regulated in France by the Intellectual Property Code (Code de la propriété intellectuelle, CPI), and these rules apply to Saint Pierre and Miquelon as well.
Under French law, an industrial design is defined as the outward appearance of a product, which may include its shape, color, texture, or any other characteristic that gives it a unique and aesthetically distinct appearance. To protect a design, it must meet the following conditions:
Novelty: The design must be new and not have been publicly disclosed or made available to the public before the filing date.
Individuality: The design must create a distinctive impression on the informed user compared to previous designs.
Visibility: The design must be visible during normal use of the product, which means it can be an ornamental feature or part of the product.
Now, let's look at five illustrative cases that demonstrate how industrial design law is applied:
Case 1: Novelty Requirement in Product Packaging
A company in Saint Pierre and Miquelon filed an application for the protection of the packaging design of a new product. The packaging design featured a unique combination of color and shape that was believed to differentiate it from competitors' products.
The patent office rejected the application, citing prior art in the form of similar packaging designs registered in France, even though they were not available in Saint Pierre and Miquelon. The ruling emphasized the importance of global novelty in industrial designs. The court confirmed that the design must be new on an international scale, not just within the local market or the jurisdiction of Saint Pierre and Miquelon.
Outcome: The rejection was upheld, reinforcing that novelty must not only be assessed within local borders but globally.
Case 2: Individuality in Product Design
A local manufacturer in Saint Pierre and Miquelon submitted a design for a kitchen appliance that appeared to closely resemble a widely known competitor’s model. However, the manufacturer argued that the design had subtle but distinctive differences that made it unique.
The case revolved around the individuality requirement. The court assessed the differences between the two designs, including proportions, button placements, and handle style. The court ruled that while the designs were similar, the overall visual impression of the two products was sufficiently different for the local consumer. It concluded that the design could be considered unique, and thus granted protection.
Outcome: The design was registered, emphasizing the importance of the overall visual impact rather than minute differences.
Case 3: Lack of Protection for Functional Designs
A company applied for industrial design protection for the functional aspect of a mechanical part used in its equipment. The design was primarily based on its functionality, with minimal attention paid to aesthetic or ornamental features.
The court ruled that functional elements of a design cannot be protected under industrial design law unless the function is embedded in a design that also has aesthetic merit. In this case, since the design was dictated entirely by its function, it failed the test for aesthetic uniqueness and was not eligible for protection.
Outcome: The application was rejected, reinforcing that industrial designs must have a certain level of aesthetic or ornamental appeal.
Case 4: Prior Disclosure in a Trade Show
A local artist in Saint Pierre and Miquelon presented a new design for a furniture item at a trade fair in France. The designer intended to file for protection, but the design had already been publicly disclosed at the trade show, which is considered a public disclosure under French law.
The designer argued that the disclosure was limited to a specific region and should not count as prior art, but the court disagreed. Under industrial design law, any public disclosure, regardless of location or audience, constitutes prior art and negates novelty.
Outcome: The designer's application was denied due to prior public disclosure. This case emphasized the importance of timing and confidentiality before filing for protection.
Case 5: Design Infringement and Enforcement
A local retailer in Saint Pierre and Miquelon was accused of selling imitation furniture that closely resembled the protected industrial design of a competitor. The competitor had registered their design under the French IP office, which also covers Saint Pierre and Miquelon.
The retailer argued that the furniture was not a direct copy but a slight variation of the design. However, the court sided with the plaintiff, asserting that even small differences in design can still lead to infringement if the overall impression created on an informed user is similar.
Outcome: The retailer was found guilty of design infringement and ordered to stop selling the imitation product. This case demonstrated how design rights are enforced even in smaller markets like Saint Pierre and Miquelon and the importance of ensuring that designs are sufficiently original to avoid legal issues.
Conclusion:
In these cases, we can see how industrial design law applies in Saint Pierre and Miquelon, following the same principles as in mainland France. The emphasis is on novelty, individuality, and aesthetic appeal. Protection can be granted only if a design meets these conditions, and any prior public disclosure or imitation can result in rejection or infringement claims.
RELATED Blog
comments