The OHIM Invalidity Devision recently applied a strict view on novelty in Community Design Law. The novelty of RCD 1667049-0003 (the line drawing on the side) was contested by referring to a photo posted on a web blog more than one year before the RCD application (photo on the side). The Invalidity Division of OHIM held in its decision that in fact the entire Internet is a source of evidence of prior art:
“(...) as a matter of principle, disclosures on the Internet form part of the prior art. Information disclosed on the Internet or in online databases is considered to be publicly available as of the date the information was publicly posted. Internet websites often contain highly relevant information. Certain information may even be available only on the Internet from such websites. This includes, for example, online publications of design registrations by IP Offices.
The nature of the Internet can make it difficult to establish the actual date on which information was made available to the public: for instance, not all web pages mention when they were published. Also, websites are easily updated, yet most do not provide any archive of previously displayed material, nor do they display records which enable members of the public - including examiners - to establish precisely what was published and when.
It is theoretically possible to manipulate the date and content of an Internet disclosure (as it is with traditional documents). However, in view of the sheer size and redundancy of the content available on the Internet, it is considered very unlikely that an Internet disclosure has been manipulated. Consequently, unless there are specific indications to the contrary, the date can be accepted as being correct.
In the present case of ICD 7178, the publication appeared on a blog with an exact indication of the date, even the time when it was put on the blog. It lies in the nature of a blog that it is addressed to the public and that the contributions published on a blog are dated exactly. Consequently, there is no doubt that the prior designs shown were made available to the public prior at the date indicated in the blog which is a date more than 12 months prior to the date of filing of the RCD.”
In the light of this evidence taken from the Internet the Invalidity Division declared the RCD invalid. This again shows the strict view of the OHIM Invalidity Division on novelty. I hope that this inspires Designers to first apply for an RCD before blogging about there ideas.
Maarten Haak, design lawer
|
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 |
The OHIM Invalidity Devision recently applied a strict view on novelty in Community Design Law. The novelty of RCD 1667049-0003 (the line drawing on the side) was contested by referring to a photo posted on a web blog more than one year before the RCD application (photo on the side). The Invalidity Division of OHIM held in its decision that in fact the entire Internet is a source of evidence of prior art:
“(...) as a matter of principle, disclosures on the Internet form part of the prior art. Information disclosed on the Internet or in online databases is considered to be publicly available as of the date the information was publicly posted. Internet websites often contain highly relevant information. Certain information may even be available only on the Internet from such websites. This includes, for example, online publications of design registrations by IP Offices.
The nature of the Internet can make it difficult to establish the actual date on which information was made available to the public: for instance, not all web pages mention when they were published. Also, websites are easily updated, yet most do not provide any archive of previously displayed material, nor do they display records which enable members of the public - including examiners - to establish precisely what was published and when.
It is theoretically possible to manipulate the date and content of an Internet disclosure (as it is with traditional documents). However, in view of the sheer size and redundancy of the content available on the Internet, it is considered very unlikely that an Internet disclosure has been manipulated. Consequently, unless there are specific indications to the contrary, the date can be accepted as being correct.
In the present case of ICD 7178, the publication appeared on a blog with an exact indication of the date, even the time when it was put on the blog. It lies in the nature of a blog that it is addressed to the public and that the contributions published on a blog are dated exactly. Consequently, there is no doubt that the prior designs shown were made available to the public prior at the date indicated in the blog which is a date more than 12 months prior to the date of filing of the RCD.”
In the light of this evidence taken from the Internet the Invalidity Division declared the RCD invalid. This again shows the strict view of the OHIM Invalidity Division on novelty. I hope that this inspires Designers to first apply for an RCD before blogging about there ideas.
Maarten Haak, design lawer