De Nietigheids Afdeling van het OHIM in Alicante beoordeelt verzoeken om Gemeenschapsmodel nietig te laten verklaren. Onlangs bleek maar weer hoe strict OHIM kijkt naar de nieuwheid van een Gemeenschapsmodel. De nieuwheid van model 1667049-0003 (de tekening links) werd ter discussie gesteld, door de enkele verwijzing naar een foto die meer dan een jaar voor de aanvraag op een weblog was geplaatst (rechts). OHIM overwoog in de beslissing dat in feite het hele internet een bron is van bewijs van de zogenaamde prior art, ofwel het vormgevingserfgoed:
“(...) 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 het licht van die foto op een weblog verklaarde OHIM het Gemeenschapsmodel nietig. Designers doen er goed aan om hun modellen tijdig te beschermen. Dus niet eerst enthousiast tonen op Facebook of een blog. En als je dat toch doet, binnen een jaar na die eerste openbaarmaking registreren.
Maarten Haak, advocaat modellenrecht
|
kantoor Emerald House Jozef Israëlskade 48-G Amsterdam t 020 - 305 3066 www.hoogenhaak.nl |
post Postbus 76780 1070 KB Amsterdam e info@hoogenhaak.nl f 020 - 305 3069 kvk 34314579 |
De Nietigheids Afdeling van het OHIM in Alicante beoordeelt verzoeken om Gemeenschapsmodel nietig te laten verklaren. Onlangs bleek maar weer hoe strict OHIM kijkt naar de nieuwheid van een Gemeenschapsmodel. De nieuwheid van model 1667049-0003 (de tekening links) werd ter discussie gesteld, door de enkele verwijzing naar een foto die meer dan een jaar voor de aanvraag op een weblog was geplaatst (rechts). OHIM overwoog in de beslissing dat in feite het hele internet een bron is van bewijs van de zogenaamde prior art, ofwel het vormgevingserfgoed:
“(...) 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 het licht van die foto op een weblog verklaarde OHIM het Gemeenschapsmodel nietig. Designers doen er goed aan om hun modellen tijdig te beschermen. Dus niet eerst enthousiast tonen op Facebook of een blog. En als je dat toch doet, binnen een jaar na die eerste openbaarmaking registreren.
Maarten Haak, advocaat modellenrecht