Russia: Catalogue not considered publicly available material in bathtub case

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Gardens, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Russia: Catalogue not considered publicly available material in bathtub case

An applicant obtained a patent for design No 83063 concerning a bathtub. An interested person opposed the grant of the patent averring that the patent did not satisfy the patentability criteria, i.e. novelty and originality.

To support his claim the appellant referred to a catalogue of bathrooms SVEDBERGS of 2004 (Sweden) in which there is a picture of a bathtub, Anastasia, the outer appearance of which produces the same general visual impression on the informed consumer as the design covered by the patent under appeal.

The Chamber of Patent Disputes examined both images and made comments regarding the cited source of information.

There are regulations concerning industrial designs. According to paragraph 23.3(1) of the regulations, publicly available sources of information are considered those with which people may familiarise themselves or the contents of which may lawfully be available to them.

The cited catalogue is an illustrated book and the title page of the catalogue has an inscription saying Catalogue for Bathrooms 2004 and the name of the company, SVEDBERG®.

There are stipulations for print editions, requiring there to be some information allowing the user to establish the date of issue of the catalogue. There is no such information in the catalogue. This makes it impossible to ascertain the date of printing of the catalogue. Besides, the setup and contents of the catalogue seem to be characteristic of advertising material. Therefore, it should be copyrighted subject matter and be owned by the manufacturing company or by the publisher. In such circumstances it may acquire the status of a publicly available source as a result of actions of the owner (for example placing it in libraries, sales to third persons, advertising, etc.). However no such documentary evidence was presented by the appellant.

As a result, the submitted catalogue cannot be regarded as a publicly available source for the purpose of examination of patentability of the industrial design covered by patent No 83063.


Vladimir Biriulin

Gorodissky & Partners

Russia 129010, Moscow

B. Spasskaya Str

25, stroenie 3

Tel: +7 495 937 6116 / 6109

Fax: +7 495 937 6104 / 6123

pat@gorodissky.ru 

www.gorodissky.com

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Counsel explain how the USPTO’s decision to discretionarily deny institution of a PTAB case affects their advice to clients
The Life Sciences Awards announces the winners for the 6th annual awards
The UPC’s plans to roll out its new Case Management System and a setback for TikTok in India were also among the top talking points
Trademark specialist Jonathan Thomas says he’s excited to introduce his clients to other areas of Greenberg Traurig’s practice
Counsel at firms responsible for managing the highest number of registered trademarks explain the secrets behind staying organised and keeping the work flowing in
Attorneys explain what stakeholders should know about Patent Term Adjustments in Brazil, more than three years after a landmark Brazilian Supreme Court ruling
New categories have been added to reflect a changing legal and social landscape
Three sources explain why a notification by Nanjing’s IP centre in China banning AI use in patent drafting is too broad and could be difficult to enforce
Sheppard Mullin’s latest hires explain why the firm's industry expertise impressed them
Elizabeth Godfrey explains why she doesn’t believe in a ‘salesperson’ approach to BD, and reveals how AI is playing an important role at Davies Collison Cave
Gift this article