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

Lawyers at Lavoix provide an overview of the UPC’s approach to inventive step and whether the forum is promoting its own approach rather than following the EPO
Andrew Blattman, who helped IPH gain significant ground in Asia and Canada, will leave in the second half of 2026
The court ordering a complainant to rank its arguments in order of potential success and a win for Edwards Lifesciences were among the top developments in recent weeks
Frederick Lee has rejoined Boies Schiller Flexner, bolstering the firm’s capabilities across AI, media, and entertainment
Nirav Desai and Sasha S Rao at Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox explore how companies’ efforts to manage tariffs by altering corporate structures can undermine their ability to assert their patents and recover damages
Monika Żuraw, founder of Żuraw & Partners, discusses why IP should be part of the foundation of a business, and taking on projects that others walk away from
Lawyers say attention will turn to the UK government’s AI consultation after judgment fails to match pre-trial hype
Susan Keston and Rachel Fetches at HGF explain why the CoA’s decision to grant the UPC’s first permanent injunction demonstrates the court’s readiness to diverge from national court judgments
IP, M&A, life sciences and competition partners advised on deal that brings together brands such as ‘Huggies’ and ‘Kleenex’ with ‘Band-Aid’ and ‘Tylenol’
Stability AI, represented by Bird & Bird, is not liable for secondary copyright infringement, though Fieldfisher client Getty succeeds in some trademark claims
Gift this article