Managing IP is part of the Delinian Group, Delinian Limited, 8 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX, Registered in England & Wales, Company number 00954730
Copyright © Delinian Limited and its affiliated companies 2023

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

more from across site and ros bottom lb

More from across our site

The IPO must change its approach and communicate with IP owners about its attempts at clearing up the trademark register
Counsel are looking at enforceability, business needs and cost savings when filing for patents overseas
James Perkins, member at Cole Schotz in Texas, reveals how smaller tech companies can protect themselves when dealing with larger players
We provide a rundown of Managing IP’s news and analysis coverage from the week, and review what’s been happening elsewhere in IP
The EUIPO management board must provide the Council of the EU with a performance assessment before it can remove the executive director
The European Commission confirmed that plans for a unitary SPC will be published in April alongside reforms to the SEP system
The court held that SEP implementers could be injuncted or directed to pay royalties before trial if they are deemed to be unwilling licensees
Patentees should feel cautious optimism over the EPO Enlarged Board of Appeal’s decision in G2/21, say European patent attorneys
Significant changes to the standard of law are unlikely, say sources, who note that some justices seemed sceptical that the parties disagreed on the legal standard
Sources say the High Court of Australia’s ruling that reputation is immaterial in trademark infringement cases could stop famous brands from muscling out smaller players