Fathoming functionality for designs

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

Fathoming functionality for designs

AIPPI_rio_designs_crop

Panellists were invited to “tame the beast” of functionality in a panel on industrial designs, which also served as an appetiser ahead of the Working Question on design functionality scheduled for debate at next year’s AIPPI Congress in Milan

AIPPI designs EU
AIPPI designs US
AIPPI designs BR
AIPPI designs China

Design law is one of the least harmonised areas of IP, not least in the terminology used, Chris Carani of McAndrews Held & Malloy said. One issue that continues to cause difficulty is the exception, common to most laws, that covers functional attributes. Speakers from the United States, China, Brazil and the EU discussed various cases where functionality had been addressed (see images).

These cases raise two policy questions regarding functionality, said Carani: first, what is the test to establish whether a design is eligible for protection? And, second, what is the scope of protection when particular elements of a design are dictated solely by function – should any aspects of the design be disregarded?

On the first, as Sara Ashby of Redd Solicitors in the UK illustrated, many tests have been proposed, including the multiplicity of forms theory, the alternative designs theory, the aesthetic consideration test and the primarily functional test. She discussed the Lindner v Franssons case, concerning industrial cutters, where the OHIM 3rd Board of Appeal said that a design is functional if its “characteristic features” pursue a purely technical function.

Carani said that in the US there has only been one case where the Federal Circuit has found that a design was solely dictated by function: it concerned a key blade where only the blade itself was claimed. In Brazil, said Lucas Gaiarsa of  Gaiarsa Ferreira & Meyer, the statutory exceptions are clear, but he added: “The law is there but the application is not always something you understand ­completely.”

On the second question (whether to disregard aspects of the design in infringement cases), Lila Wu of CCPIT Patent and Trademark Law Office said China’s courts had been clear that “any design feature with technical function should not be considered and should be removed from the comparison of infringement”. As an example, she cited a case involving an electrical power unit, where the plug holes were held to be functional. Ashby pointed to a European dispute involving a Dyson vacuum cleaner, where a transparent bin was held to be functional (it lets you see the dirt).

Cases such as these could be examples of where “claim construction ends up being claim destruction”, said Carani. The discussion demonstrated, he added, that there is no clarity on this topic: “Hopefully AIPPI can help.” The Working Question next year is expected to cover all the relevant policy issues and tests and it may even be necessary to ask the fundamental question “Do we need a functionality exception and what are we trying to prevent?” said Carani.

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

IP leaders at Brandsmiths and Bird & Bird, who were on opposing sides at the UK Supreme Court in Iconix v Dream Pairs, unpick the landmark case and its ramifications
Magdalena Bonde discusses Abion’s AI experiments and reveals why an entrepreneurial mindset and a willingness to learn about a business are essential skills
Partner Ginevra Righini explains how she secured victory for the Comité Champagne in its fight against an EUTM application for ‘Nero Champagne’
Volkan Hamamcıoğlu joins us for our ‘Five minutes with’ series to discuss meditation, tackling deadlines, and taking inspiration from Hamlet
A $110 million US verdict against Apple and an appellate order staying a $39 million trademark infringement finding against Amazon were also among the top talking points
Attorneys are watching how AI affects trademark registrations and whether a SCOTUS ruling from last year will have broader free speech implications
Patent lawyers explain why they will be keeping an eye on the implications of a pharma case and on changes at the USPTO in the second half of 2025
The insensitive reaction to a UK politician crying on TV proves we have a long way to go before we can say we are tackling workplace wellbeing
Adrian Percer says he was impressed by the firm’s work on billion-dollar cases as well as its culture
In our latest interview with women IP leaders, Catherine Bonner at Murgitroyd discusses technology, training, and teaching
Gift this article