A New Intelligence - UK House of Lords Releases Report on Artificial Intelligence

Artificial intelligence is absolutely a hot button issue these days, particularly with a focus on what's coming in the near and more distant future and AI's potential impact on people's lives (both in the good and the bad).  This writer is very interested in AI, having recently published an article discussed the same in relation to copyright, and in that vein was quite thrilled with the release of the House of Lords' report on AI last month. The report is very detailed and discusses many facets of the technology and its potential impact, but what potential recommendations does the report give from a legal perspective?

The Report (titled AI in the UK: ready, willing and able?) considers the development, implementation and impact of AI in the UK in the future, and recommends that the government take certain actions sooner rather than later. This article will endeavour to focus on some of the more interesting, potentially IP specific issues, and general law considerations.

A big point in the Report is the mitigation of risks associated with AI. Largely this relates to any assumed liability for an AI's actions, negligence or malfunction, which, as the law stands, is not covered. The Report does recommend that "…the Law Commission consider the adequacy of existing legislation to address the legal liability issues of AI and, where appropriate, recommend to Government appropriate remedies to ensure that the law is clear in this area. At the very least, this work should establish clear principles for accountability and intelligibility". Without accountability, one could imagine AI skirting liability, and causing potential issues for those wishing to pursue any damages resulting from an AI's decisions.

The consideration of liability ties into the matter of whether AI should be treated the same as humans, or have separate legal or non-legal entity status. For example, should IP rights be awarded to the AI, or the AI's creators (more on which here)? Both paths have their issues, but the Report fails to address this aspect in detail.

Another point of contention in the Report is the amassing of data by large corporations, which would therefore, in a way, control the development of AI and the marketplace for the same. The Report encourages that "…publicly-held data be made available to AI researchers and developers" to facilitate AI development for smaller players. Even so, it does highlight a need for "…legal and technical mechanisms for strengthening personal control over data, and preserving privacy" in the light of AI; however, this has been, at least arguably, largely achieved through the introduction of the GDPR this month.

A human future without TPS reports

In an attempt to kerb any misuses of data, or its monopolisation, the Report recommends that "…the Government, and the Competition and Markets Authority, to review proactively the use and potential monopolisation of data by the big technology companies operating in the UK". Clearly this might create a data competition framework, where companies with large swathes of data could be prevented from merging due to competition issues, or simply to prevent the centralization of requisite data for AI creation and/or operation.

The Report does discuss the IP issues with the development of AI in university settings, and the commercialization of research. As was discussed in the Hall-Pesenti Report last year, licencing of technologies could be problematic, and both the Report and Hall-Pesenti have sought to mitigate this. In this vein, the Report recommends that "…universities should use clear, accessible and where possible common policies and practices for licensing IP and forming spin-out companies", and that a policy should be drafted for Universities to enforce the same. Even so, Universities should be able to protect the know-how relating to AI, but within a reasonable framework.

Although not discussed in the House of Lords' report, the Hall-Pesenti Report also highlights a need for the reform of copyright in relation to data published in research, which would infringe copyright. This is problematic since "[t]his restricts the use of AI in areas of high potential public value, and lessens the value that can be gained from published research, much of which is funded by the public". In terms of reform the report suggests that "…the UK should move towards establishing by default that for published research the right to read is also the right to mine data, where that does not result in products that substitute for the original works". In terms of the development of AI this makes perfect sense, but when that data relates to human individuals, particularly in the light of the GDPR that just recently came into force, we should be cautious for giving AI free reign over all data. A balance needs to be struck with the interests of individuals, but the robust development of AI, provided the developments are for the public good.

As one can imagine, AI is a very difficult and potentially thorny subject, and there will be without a doubt many pitfalls we will end up in and will need to play catch-up with. Nonetheless, the potential of the technology could outweigh these issues, but maybe this writer is too optimistic in terms of AI's future.

Two Words Don't Make a Right - The Use of Two Consecutive Descriptive Terms for Goods not Distinctive as a TM

Many good things come in pairs, for example, shoes, ear plugs and twins, but sometimes even the best pairing won't be enough. This is the case even with trademarks, where the use of two terms that name or describe goods will be difficult to register. A recent case in the Canadian Trade-Marks Opposition Board considered this issue, and further highlighted that, even though a very novel argument, the marks themselves might not be as novel.

The case of Molson Canada 2005 v Drummond Brewing Company Ltd concerned a registration for the trademark "BEER BEER" (TM 1619343) for beer by the Drummond Brewing Company. Due to the quite clear descriptive nature of the mark, Molson Canada opposed the registration, even though it has been used for the goods in Canada since 2009.

The mark was opposed under sections2, 16, 12 and 30 of the Canadian Trade-Marks Act.

The Trade-Marks Opposition Board first considered the grounds under section 30(i), which requires a statement by the applicant that they are satisfied that they are entitled to use the mark in Canada in association with the relevant goods and/or services. The courts will only reject an application under the section if it has been applied for in bad faith. What plays a part in this is an earlier rejection for an application in 2009 for "BEER BEER" by Drummond Brewing due to the descriptive nature of the mark, which potentially indicates an element of bad faith for the new registration.

Donald's new beer brand: BEER BEER BEER BEER

Board Member Kathryn Barnett rejected this argument, as the provision only looks for an entitlement to use the mark, rather than any claims on rights to it. The Applicant's witness statements also indicated a clear belief in the entitlement to use the mark in Canada.

The Board then moved onto matters relating to section 12 of the Act, which prohibits the registration of mark if it, among other things, contains the name of the goods or services or that it clearly is descriptive of the quality of the goods or services relating to the mark.

The first ground under section 12(1)(c) for containing the name of the goods, i.e. beer, based on "…the immediate and first impression of the everyday user of the goods and services". This can include composite marks, including both a word and design element, if the portion of the word in the mark is dominant. The Board rejected this argument, as the mark is "BEER BEER", and not simply just 'BEER'. The name of the goods is simply the single use of the word, not double, and therefore escapes the remit of section 12(1)(c).

The Board then moved onto section 12(1)(b), which prevents the registration of clearly descriptive or deceptively misdescriptive marks from the point of view of the average consumer. The mark has to be assessed in its entirety as a matter of immediate impression to the aforementioned consumer. This is to prevent the registration of a common trade term for goods or services, placing legitimate traders at a disadvantage.

What lies at the heart of this decision is Pizza Pizza v The Registrar of Trade-marks, where the mark 'PIZZA PIZZA' was deemed to not be descriptive of the goods, namely pizza. Molson Canada contested that the phrase 'BEER BEER' would indeed be descriptive, which was, as discussed above, deemed so when applied for previously. The phrase would, in their view, describe a "…“real” or “prototypical” beer, or as a generic marking, or both".

The Board ultimately sided with the opponent, Molson Canada, and decided that the mark was indeed descriptive of the character or quality of the goods, and rejected the application. Due to this the Board deemed it unnecessary to consider the rest of the grounds of opposition.

The decision was an interesting one, and something this writer has never thought about; distinctiveness through the use of 'descriptive' terms in a novel way. While the decision makes perfect sense, it still shows that when you're creative with your marks, even the simplest thing could potentially (although not very often) be distinctive.

Source: JDSupra

Monkey Snap, Monkey Don't - US Court of Appeals Rules Out Animal Ownership of Copyright in Monkey Selfie Case

The rights of animals, whether it is simply to extend human rights to them or even legal rights, are a very contentious and often emotionally charged topic of conversation. A good example of this is the recent monkey selfie legal saga, which grappled with the vesting of intellectual property rights in a monkey (discussed more on this blog here and here). The parties settled the matter out of court late last year, but the Court of Appeals saw to still rule on the matter, irrespective of this settlement (which is within their powers to do). This is very important, since it will set the legal position of animals' rights in IP firmly on one camp; yes or no. This writer has been waiting for the ruling with baited breath, which was published only last week.

By way of a brief primer, the case of Naruto v David Slater concerned a series of photographs taken by a crested macaque in 2011 (named Naruto by its Next Friends in the litigation, PETA). The monkey took the photograph using Mr Slater's camera, which he had configured and left for the monkeys in the area to play with. One such picture became an Internet sensation, leading to Mr Slater asserting his rights in the picture as its author. PETA took the matter to court, claiming the monkey had rights in the picture, and that Mr Slater had infringed its copyrights by publishing it. Even though the parties settled the matter, as discussed above, the Court saw it fit to decide on it anyway due to its importance as a developing area of the law.

Naruto's representatives were aghast at the ruling

Judge Bea, handing down the majority's judgment, started off with determining whether PETA could represent Naruto as its next friends in the case. This is established through showing that "…(1) that the petitioner is unable to litigate his own cause due to mental incapacity, lack of access to court, or other similar disability; and (2) the next friend has some significant relationship with, and is truly dedicated to the best interests of, the petitioner". The Court agreed that Naruto would indeed fulfil the first requirement, but needed to assess whether PETA had a significant relationship with the animal. PETA agreed that it had does not claim to have a relationship with Naruto that is any more significant than its relationship with any other animal, and thus fails the second requirement.

The Court emphasised that animals do not have authorisation by the courts to be represented by a next friend. In other words "…if animals are to be accorded rights to sue, the provisions involved therefore should state such rights expressly".

Judge Bea then moved onto the matter of whether Naruto itself has standing under Article III of the Constitution. Under a previous Court of Appeals decision in Cetacean Community v Bush, the court rejected standing for "…all of the world's whales, porpoises, and dolphins" under environmental protection laws as animals were not expressly included within the provisions. In short, the court concluded that the test for animal standing as "…if an Act of Congress plainly states that animals have statutory standing, then animals have statutory standing. If the statute does not so plainly state, then animals do not have statutory standing".

Under the Copyright Act there is no express mention of any animal rights for intellectual property. The provisions do, however, imply a requirement of humanity or the possibility of marital relations. The Court did conclude that, based on the statute and the Cetacean decision, "…that Naruto - and, more broadly, animals other than humans - lack statutory standing to sue under the Copyright Act".

The case is a very important one, not only for the unusual nature of judgments being issued after settlement, but it puts the rights of animals under copyright to bed once and for all. Clearly, animals cannot have rights, and this writer considers this to be the most logical outcome, even without an express mention to that effect in the legislation. One can therefore finally see a conclusion to all of this monkey business.

Kit Kat Kontinues - Advocate General Wathelet Dismisses Appeal on Kit Kat Shape Trademark

One would've never imagine a chocolate bar could be litigated over for many years, but the Kit Kat saga has proven that even the most seemingly mundane things can be worth a tremendous monetary investment. After the EU General Court decision last year (discussed more here) you could have imagined the matter has been largely concluded. This was clearly not the case, as Mondelez appealed the decision, which has now reached the desk of Advocate General Wathelet. They issued their opinion only last week, which will give direction to the CJEU who will decide the matter once and for all later this year.

Although discussed extensively on this blog, the case still merits a short introduction. The matter Société des produits Nestlé v Mondelez UK Holdings & Services concerns the design of the Kit Kat chocolate bar, which Mondelez has registered as a trademark (EUTM 2632529). Cadbury, now Mondelez, filed for an application of invalidity regarding the mark sometime after, with the matter being decided by the General Court last year. Nestle appealed the decision (which went against them), ending up heading to the CJEU via the Advocate General.

The case on appeal hinges on the extent of the territory that you need to show distinctive character that is acquired through use of the trade mark under Article 7(3) of the CTM Regulations. In the General Court Nestle failed to show use throughout the EU, not just in a substantial part of it, and therefore the mark was invalidated.

A Kit Kat Kounterfeit

Per the decision in August Storck KG v OHIM, the CJEU set the bar for the acquisition of distinctive character through use as requiring "…evidence… that [the mark] has acquired, through the use which has been made of it, distinctive character in the part of the [EU] in which it did not, ab initio, have such character". Adding to this, the CJEU noted that an argument for acquired distinctiveness could be rejected if there is no evidence of use, as detailed above, in a single Member State. Subsequent cases have shown that partial acquisition of distinctive character within the EU is not enough, as there needs to be 'quantitatively sufficient evidence' of acquired distinctiveness.

Looking at the above, the AG did, however, not shut the door entirely on partial acquisition of distinctiveness. They added that a mark could have acquired distinctiveness in the entire EU if evidence is provided for "…a quantitatively and geographically representative sample" of the EU. This means taking into account the various links between the national markets of Member States, and whether those links negate a lack of evidence for acquired distinctiveness in the bigger picture within Europe. Potentially a more regional approach has to be taken and therefore acquired distinctiveness could be extrapolated for any missing countries, i.e. produce evidence for the Nordics and other such 'collectives' of countries if evidence for all Member States is missing for others within those 'collectives'.

Having considered the missing evidence discussed in the General Court's decision, the AG concluded that Nestle's appeal should be dismissed.

While we are still awaiting the CJEU's decision on this matter, things don't look great for Nestle, or 3D marks in general. It will be difficult for many proprietors of such marks to show acquired distinctiveness within the EU, or most of it. It remains to be seen whether the CJEU will go in a different direction, but it seems very unlikely considering the General Court's decision and now the AG's opinion.

As the Oracle Foretold - Court of Appeals Finds no Fair Use for Google's Copying of Java APIs

The Oracle/Google saga has been wagered in the courts for years (discussed on this blog here and here), and many legal scholars enthusiastic about technology have been waiting for the matter to reach its ultimate conclusion. Although the matter is not necessarily over by any means, a recent Court of Appeals decision might have struck the final blow, and ended the matter (and the question of APIs and copyright) for the time being.

The case of Oracle America Inc. v Google LLC concerned the Java software platform, which was developed by Oracle's predecessor, Sun Microsystems. The Java platform also included an Application Programming Interface (API) that allowed for the development of software using pre-written code to execute certain functions without writing the code from scratch, delivered in packages. Google had included some Java API packages in its Android operating system without Oracle's authorisation; specifically 37 Java API packages (amounting to 11,500 lines of code). Android became widely used and very popular, after which Oracle took Google to court for copyright infringement, with proceedings ending up in the Court of Appeals in late March.

The matter focussed on whether Google's copying of the APIs amounted to fair use under 17 USC section 107, which looks at four factors: (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for non-profit educational purposes; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

Justice O'Malley, handing down the majority's opinion, started with the first factor, which, specifically, looks at whether the purpose of the use was a commercial one, and was it transformative or not so as to lean towards for fair use.

In terms of commercial use, the Court considered that, while the Android platform is freely distributed (including the aforementioned APIs) does not mean the use is not commercial. Also, as Google earns money from advertising on the platform, this will weigh towards a finding of commercial use. Indeed, in the end the Court found that the use was commercial.

The second part of the first factor looks at how transformative the use is, i.e. "…adds something new, with a further purpose or different character, altering the first with new expression, meaning or message". The use would have to add something new or supersede the original work. The Court determined that Google's use did not change the APIs or their purpose, but used them for the exact same in the Android operating system. The context of the use within smartphones was also not novel. In short, the Court saw that "…where, as here, the copying is verbatim, for an identical function and purpose, and there are no changes to the expressive content or message, a mere change in format (e.g., from desktop and laptop computers to smartphones and tablets) is insufficient as a matter of law to qualify as a transformative use".

Further to the assessment of purpose and character there is also a bad faith argument that the Court considered, meaning whether Google has used the APIs "…in a manner generally compatible with principles of good faith and fair dealing". Even assuming a jury would not be convinced of Google's bad faith use of the APIs, the Court still concluded that the first factor overall weighed against a finding of fair use.

The second factor looks at the nature of the copyright work, i.e. whether the work is more factual or creative, with the latter getting a higher likelihood of protection. The Court did highlight that, while the APIs did involve some level of creativity, they ultimately were for a functional purpose. Even so, the second factor is of very little importance in a finding of fair use, per the Court, they did find that it weighed towards a finding of fair use.

The Court moved onto the third factor, which looks at the substantiality of the copying, which is more an assessment of quality rather than sheer quantity of what was copied. In retaining the functionality of the Java APIs it was necessary to copy only roughly 200 lines of code; however, Google copied nearly the entire API set of 11,500 lines of code. In brief, the Court set out that Google's copying was qualitatively significant and necessary for the creation of the Android OS, and the third factor therefore weighed against a finding of fair use.

Finally, the Court looked at the fourth factor, meaning the copy's effect on the potential market (or the market for any derivative works) or value of the original work. This includes assessing "…the extent of market harm caused by the particular actions of the alleged infringer, but also whether unrestricted and widespread conduct of the sort engaged in by the defendant… would result in a substantially adverse impact on the potential market for the original". Likely market harm can also be presumed by the courts if the use by the potential infringer is commercial and non-transformative.

The Court determined that, there was clear harm to the market in relation to smartphones, as Java had been employed in many phones and tablets at the time of the launch of Android. In the light of the evidence, they indicated that this would clearly lead to a finding of market harm by a jury. There was also impact on the potential market for Java, not just the existing market, specifically with regards to the smartphone market, which was deemed to be "…a traditional, reasonable, or likely to be developed market". Oracle's lack of development of a smartphone or smartphone OS was irrelevant, as the potential still existed for the company that was taken over by Android.

In balancing all of the above factors, the Court found that Google's use was not fair use, but the Court did note that, while this case did not reach the threshold for fair use in relation to computer code or APIs, they did not "…conclude that a fair use defense could never be sustained in an action involving the copying of computer code".

Google's cross-appeal for declaration that the APIs would not be protected by copyright was also dismissed by the Court, which was dismissed by the Supreme Court in a petition before this judgment.

The case is very interesting, in the light of potential copying within software development. From what this writer understands, the appropriation and repurposing of code is very common in the industry, and this decision could create an environment where companies would be more readily okay with pursuing copying. Google seemingly will not have the option to pursue the matter to the Supreme Court, and will end up paying significant damages to Oracle.

Source: JDSupra

An Opinion on Whisky - AG Øe Sets Boundries for Geographical Indicators and their Infringement

Having looked at the legal intricacies of using protected Geographical Indications in a recent case regarding Champagne, this writer has grown to appreciate the complexities of PDOs and the law surrounding them. What amounts to an infringement of GIs rights is very tricky, and any clarification from higher courts is always appreciated. Scotch whisky is one GI that is vehemently defended, and many third-parties would want to benefit from the image that the GI imparts, but to avoid the 'pesky' issues of actually conforming to the classification. In terms of a name for a whisky produced outside of Scotland, what amounts to an infringement of a GI? Ahead of a CJEU decision, Advocate General Øe gave their opinion of this question.

The case of The Scotch Whisky Association v Michael Klotz dealt with the production and sale of a whisky called "Glen Buchenbach" in Germany by Mr Klotz. The SWA objected to the sale of the whisky using the term 'Glen', which, in their view, referred to a geographical location in Scotland and implies the product is a Scotch whisky.  The use could potentially therefore infringe on the Geographical Indications Regulation, which protects Scotch whisky as a GI.

The German courts referred three questions to the CJEU on the matter, which were considered by the Advocate General.

The first question, in essence, asked "…what is meant by ‘indirect commercial use [of a] registered geographical indication’ for a spirit drink, within the meaning of Article 16(a) of Regulation No 110/2008".

The first part of the first question then focusses on whether "… in order to establish the existence of such use, prohibited by Article 16(a), it is necessary that the disputed indication be used in identical or phonetically and/or visually similar form to the protected geographical indication, or whether it is sufficient that the disputed indication evokes in the relevant public some kind of association with the indication or the geographical area relating thereto". In brief, this is whether the indication has to be phonetically or visually identical to the GI, or if the public associate the term with the GI without similarity (i.e. 'Glen' would be associated with Scotland, and therefore Scotch whisky).

The Advocate General determined that, under Article 16(a), the expression of 'direct or indirect commercial use' requires that "…the use is made of the disputed indication in the form in which it was registered or at least in a form with such close links to it that the sign at issue is manifestly inseparable from it". This means that the use would have to be in an identical or phonetically and/or visually similar form, and not just associated with the GI.

The Court has firmly established that 'direct' use would amount to the use of the GI, or a corresponding term or translation, in conjunction with goods that don't meet the specification. However, the Advocate General had to consider what amounts to 'indirect' use of a GI. In his view, this requires use where "…the indication… feature[s] in supplementary marketing or information sources, such as an advertisement for that product or documents relating to it". Additionally, broadening the provision would make following provisions, such as Article 16(b), redundant, and has to therefore be kept narrower, and won't cover cases of mere association by the public. This interpretation supports the interpretation of the objectives of the Regulation and the Article, which clearly seek to protect GIs from misuse, and to ensure quality of the goods.

The AG probably needed a drink after the case

In terms of the second part of the first question (additional information in relation to an 'association' with a GI in the minds of the public), the Advocate General swiftly concluded that the Court would not have to rule on the point, in the light of the above, but he did make brief observations on the same. In his view there is no ambiguity under the provision on what amounts to infringement, which differs from Article 16(b) that is not at issue in the matter. The Advocate General added that, in considering any "misuse, imitation or evocation" under Article 16(b), a court could take into account the context where the disputed indicator is used, and the same would apply if the Court would consider 'association' as a possibility under Article 16(a).

The second question, split into two parts as well, asks clarification on "…the concept of ‘evocation’ of a registered geographical indication relating to a spirit drink, within the meaning of Article 16(b)".

As with the first question, the first part of the second question asks whether, in determining the existence of 'evocation' "…the disputed designation must be in an identical or phonetically and/or visually similar form to the protected geographical indication, or whether it is sufficient that the designation evokes in the relevant public some kind of association with that indication or the geographical area relating to it".

Having considered relevant case law, the Advocate General concluded that for the purposes of identifying an ‘evocation’ "…the only determining criterion is whether, ‘when the consumer is confronted with the name of the product, the image triggered in his mind is that of the product whose designation is protected’, which the national court must verify by taking into account, as appropriate, the partial incorporation of a protected name in the disputed designation, a phonetic and visual relationship, or a conceptual proximity". He also outright rejected the concept of evocation in relation to a mere association with the GI in the might of the relevant public.

As above, the second part deals with the existence of 'evocation' and whether it has to be determined looking at the use in isolation, or whether the context of the use can be taken into account. Having briefly discussed the matter, the Advocate General concluded that "…for the purposes of establishing the existence of an ‘evocation’… it is not necessary to take account of additional information found alongside the sign at issue in the description, presentation or labelling of the product concerned, in particular with regard to its true origin". That is because this information is largely irrelevant in the assessment, and that 'evocation' can exist even in the absence of confusion in the relevant public.

Finally the Advocate General considered the third question, which asked, in essence, "…whether, for the purposes of determining whether there is ‘any false or misleading indication… liable to convey a false impression as to its origin’, within the meaning of Article 16(c)… it is necessary to take account of the context in which the disputed element is used, in particular where the disputed element is accompanied by an indication of the true origin of the product". The question concerns the use of the name 'Glen', whether its use is false or misleading, and if its use in context can be taken into account (i.e. the use of a German location, Buchenbach, after the name).

Having considered all parties' arguments extensively, the Advocate General determined that "…for the purposes of establishing the existence of a ‘false or misleading indication’ prohibited by [Article 16(c)], it is not necessary to take account of additional information found alongside the sign at issue in the description, presentation or labelling of the product concerned, in particular with regard to its true origin". He also noted that, in the current case, the use of the name 'Glen' does not have a sufficiently clear and direct link with the protected geographical indication, or with its origin country, in order for it to be a 'false or misleading' indication.

The Advocate General's opinion is very important, particularly in the light of GIs and the assessment of their protection and remit thereof. It clearly narrows down the use of any disputed indication in isolation, avoiding any other contextual indicators as to origin or otherwise; however, the CJEU's ultimate decision will set the scene in a more concrete fashion later in the year. This writer expects them to follow the opinion, but that is by no means a certainty.

Only a Technicality - CJEU Decides on What Amounts to a 'Technical Function' in Registered Designs

The protection of designs is complicated, no less because the design of a particular product can often be tied to the end function it is meant to achieve. A functional element of a design might not attract protection as a design, since the regime only protects (to put very simply) aspects of designs that are of more aesthetic value. What amounts to a feature that won't be protected is difficult to decide, as many aesthetic features can often achieve a technical result as well. This prompts the question, when is a feature like that protectable or not? The CJEU took on this question on a case decided only a few weeks ago.

The case of DOCERAM GmbH v CeramTec GmbH concerned the manufacture and sale of technical ceramic components by DOCERAM, in particular, weld centring pins for the automotive and textile industries. Many of these designs are registered as Community designs (RCD 242730). CeramTec also manufactures and sells similar centring pins in the same variants as DOCERAM's registrations. DOCERAM subsequently took CeramTec to court for design infringement, with the matter ultimately ending on the desk of the CJEU.

The referring court asked two questions, which related to the factors in determining whether a design is one that is solely dictated by its technical function, and therefore not registrable under Article 8(1) of the Community Design Regulation.

The first question, as set out by the Court, asked whether "…Article 8(1)… must be interpreted as meaning that, in order to ascertain whether the features of appearance of a product are solely dictated by its function, the existence of alternative designs is decisive, or whether it must be established that function is the only factor which dictated those characteristics".

Having considered the legislation and relevant case law, the Court determined that "…Article 8(1)… excludes protection… for features of appearance of a product where considerations other than the need for that product to fulfil its technical function, in particular those related to the visual aspect, have not played any role in the choice of those features, even if other designs fulfilling the same function exist". In short, even if alternative designs exist, the only relevant consideration is whether the technical function is the only factor which determined the features in question and the applicability of Article 8(1).

With regards to the second question, the referring court asked whether "…Article 8(1)… must be interpreted as meaning that in order to determine whether the relevant features of appearance of a product are exclusively dictated by its technical function, that finding must be based on the perception of the ‘objective observer’".

The Article does not set out any requirements on the perspective of the assessment above, unlike other provisions in the Regulation. That in mind, the objective of the Regulation nonetheless does require national courts to take account of all the objective circumstances relevant to each individual case when determining whether features of a design are covered by the provision.

The Court finally set out that "…in order to determine whether the relevant features of appearance of a product are solely dictated by its technical function… the national court must take account of all the objective circumstances relevant to each individual case. In that regard, there is no need to base those findings on the perception of an ‘objective observer’".

The case sets out clear guidelines on the assessment of features in designs that may or may not be solely dictated by their technical function. Designs are often a pile of uncertainty, being very difficult to protect (as illustrated well by the Trunki case, more on which here). Having a clearer idea as to how the lines are drawn for protection helps both proprietors and others disputing the registrations.