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 2026

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

US corporates are using the UPC, but much of that work still flows to European boutiques. Last week’s merger, as well as others, could alter that dynamic
Publicly listed Australian group IPH delivered on its promise to profoundly shake up the Canadian market. Four years on, rivals have had time to adapt
IP practitioners debate whether new guidelines will make it more difficult to challenge a patent
Varuni Paranavitane says she is excited to bring ‘rounded expertise’ to the firm, which will have a solicitor in its ranks for the first time
Lawyers adapting to AI-driven recommendations are being pushed to demonstrate expertise publicly rather than simply relying on a polished website
Mid-market businesses looking to establish an online presence need ‘holistic’ brand protection services at an accessible cost, according to partners
Our latest update also includes the latest case filing statistics, and an update on how a transatlantic merger could be a UPC opportunity for the US half of the partnership
New partners, from biotech company Leyden Labs and Novartis, take the total number of partner hires to 12 since the firm took on external investment in late 2024
Labelled the ‘largest law firm merger in history’, the new outfit could also spell an opportunity for US clients to capitalise on Hogan Lovells' UPC expertise
Andy Lee and Amy Brooks of Brandsmiths explain how the firm secured a win for Peppa Pig over rival children’s character Wolfoo, in a case that centred on copied audio clips
Gift this article