Taiwanese court throws hat into ring over when a design is considered purely functional
Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX
Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2024

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Taiwanese court throws hat into ring over when a design is considered purely functional

Sponsored by

saint-island-400px.png
cap-3851017.jpg

Ming-yeh Lin of Saint Island International Patent & Law Offices reports on a ruling in a design patent infringement lawsuit that addresses how to assess the creativity involved in producing articles

‘New design’, as referred to in the Taiwan Patent Act, means any novel design created with respect to the shape, pattern or colour of a portion of an, or an entire, article, or any combination thereof, thereby creating an appealing aesthetic effect. However, if the configuration of an article is purely dictated by its function, the article shall be excluded from design patent protection. For instance, the threads of a screw and a nut, the key slots of a lock, and the grooves of a key are statutorily unpatentable.

Taiwan’s Intellectual Property and Commercial Court has recently rendered its opinion in a design patent infringement lawsuit regarding whether the features of a design patent are purely functional.

Background to the case

The design patent in question is a scarf-hat. This soft scarf-hat, in its entirety, is substantially in the form of a hollow arcuate rectangular body. It has, from top to bottom, three parts: the hat top, the hat body, and the hat brim. There is a circular hole in the centre of the hat top, the perimeter of which extends downward to connect with the hat body, and a three-dimensional thread shape is formed on the surface of the hat top and the hat body by rotating and folding. The bottom of the hat body extends forward on one side to form a crescent-shaped hat brim, and a fold strip is provided at the seam between the hat body and the hat brim.

Perspective view.png
Picture2.png

The Intellectual Property and Commercial Court's ruling

The court held that if a design is entirely dictated by functional considerations and there is no creative leeway to design its appearance, the design shall be considered purely functional. Moreover, if the design of an article is solely determined by the basic shape of a part that must inevitably fit with another commonly known article, and if the overall design is simply the result of attaching or assembling another commonly known article, with no creative ideas incorporated, the design shall be regarded as purely functional and cannot be granted a design patent.

Although the design patent in question functions both as a hat and a scarf, its overall appearance, as illustrated in the drawings submitted when filing the design application, does not have any features that are created to conform to the shape of another commonly known hat or scarf. In other words, the overall design is not an inevitable result of attaching or assembling another commonly known article.

Moreover, although the evidential materials submitted by the defendant were sufficient to support that the design patent in question has the function of a scarf and a hat, the designs illustrated in the evidential materials submitted by the defendant respectively exhibited distinct aesthetical feature and shape, proving that the design patent in question is not created purely due to functional considerations that result in a necessary basic shape.

Final thoughts

As evident from the above ruling, if the design of an article is not solely determined by the basic shape of a part that must inevitably fit with another commonly known article, and if there is a space to create a design which varies from the basic shape of an article, it would be reasonable for the design patent owner to aver that the design is not purely functional.

If this argumentation is supplemented with examples of other designs in different shapes or configurations but that have the same, or a similar, function, the design patent owner would be in a better position to argue that the design patent is not purely functional.

more from across site and ros bottom lb

More from across our site

The new head of Phillips Ormonde Fitzpatrick outlines his vision for the firm and explains why D&I measures need constant work
Based on surveys covering more than 25,000 in-house lawyers, the series provides insights into what law firms must score highly on when pitching to in-house counsel
We provide a rundown of Managing IP’s news and analysis from the week, and review what’s been happening elsewhere in IP
Tony Nguyen, who returned to Fish & Richardson this month after a year travelling overseas, tells Managing IP how and why he took the plunge
Tom Treutler, who previously managed the Vietnamese office of Tilleke & Gibbins, has joined East IP
Counsel discuss upcoming AI and data privacy legislation and what they’ve learned since Chile joined the Madrid Protocol
INTA has postponed its planned Annual Meeting in Dubai, but the organisation should think carefully about whether it wants to go there at all
The firm has named its new managing director after its former Asia head resigned earlier this year
As law firms explore how best to support clients at the UPC, members of the UPCLA network believe they have found the best of both worlds
The Industry Patent Quality Charter hosted a conference in which it discussed the importance of granting high-quality patents
Gift this article