Dekker sells the garden fence shown on the left since 2009. The vertical boards are made of Wood Plastic Composite. The horizontal beams are aluminium. When Bakker recently began selling a garden fence that was virtually identical to Dekker’s garden fence, Dekker brought legal action on Bakker. According to Dekker, Bakker infringed its design rights and copyrights.
On 29 March the judge in The Hague passed his judgment in the matter. Bakker argued that the horizontal beams were dictated by their technical function. Technical elements of a design are not protected by design right or copyright. This prevents technical solutions being monopolized outside of patent law.
The judge agrees with Bakker. The aluminium beams have a technical function - they provide strength to the fence. Dekker had stated this in its sales brochure. It is not relevant that there are alternatives to the use of aluminium. The court follows the prevailing doctrine. The aluminium beams are therefore excluded from design protection. The remaining appearance of Dekker’s garden fence resembles the existing design corpus too much and is therefore not new. The garden fence of Dekker can therefore not be protected. Claims rejected.
Maarten Haak and Daniel Haije assisted Bakker in this procedure.
|
office Emerald House Jozef Israëlskade 48-G Amsterdam, the Netherlands t +31 (0)20 - 305 3066 www.hoogenhaak.nl |
post PO Box 76780 1070 KB Amsterdam e info@hoogenhaak.nl f +31 (0)20 - 305 3069 chamber of commerce 34314579 |
Dekker sells the garden fence shown on the left since 2009. The vertical boards are made of Wood Plastic Composite. The horizontal beams are aluminium. When Bakker recently began selling a garden fence that was virtually identical to Dekker’s garden fence, Dekker brought legal action on Bakker. According to Dekker, Bakker infringed its design rights and copyrights.
On 29 March the judge in The Hague passed his judgment in the matter. Bakker argued that the horizontal beams were dictated by their technical function. Technical elements of a design are not protected by design right or copyright. This prevents technical solutions being monopolized outside of patent law.
The judge agrees with Bakker. The aluminium beams have a technical function - they provide strength to the fence. Dekker had stated this in its sales brochure. It is not relevant that there are alternatives to the use of aluminium. The court follows the prevailing doctrine. The aluminium beams are therefore excluded from design protection. The remaining appearance of Dekker’s garden fence resembles the existing design corpus too much and is therefore not new. The garden fence of Dekker can therefore not be protected. Claims rejected.
Maarten Haak and Daniel Haije assisted Bakker in this procedure.