Russia: Catalogue not considered publicly available material in bathtub case

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX

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

As it celebrates its 50th anniversary this year, the firm discusses private equity interest in IP, why the UPC is a key priority, and being a ‘strategic adviser’ to clients
Thomas Rukin discusses IP due diligence, his joy at seeing colleagues succeed, and taking inspiration from Marcus Aurelius
The UK-India trade deal doesn’t mention legal services, showing India has again failed to agree on a move that could help foreign firms and local practitioners
Eva-Maria Strobel reveals some of the firm’s IP achievements and its approach to client relationships
Lateral hires at Thompson Hine and Pierson Ferdinand said they were inspired by fresh business opportunities and innovative strategies at their new firms
The launch of a new IP insurance product and INTA hiring a former USPTO commissioner were also among the top talking points this week
The firm explains how it secured a $170.6 million verdict against the government in a patent dispute surrounding airport technology, and why the case led to interest from other inventors
Developments of note included the court partially allowing a claim concerning confidentiality clubs and a decision involving technology used in football matches
The firm said adding capability in the French capital completes its coverage of all major patent litigation jurisdictions as it strives for UPC excellence
Marc Fenster explains how keeping the jury focused on the most relevant facts helped secure a $279m win for his client against Samsung
Gift this article