@Specc http://www.aipla.org/learningcenter/...nger-paper.pdf It would appear that once again your assertion is baseless. The RCD is far more similar to the USA Design Patent in terms of process and protection than it is to copyright, differing in only one major category and several smaller ones and whilst I agree it may overlap with the subject matter of copyright/trademarks the major difference to copyright is RCD MANDATES a registration in order to achieve a limited monopoly whereas copyright is IMPLICIT without registration. rgds
This analysis started with the question of why US design patents and RCD were used so differently. In the past chapters, we have come across a number of issues that contribute to an answer. The most significant finding relates to the concept of design. The RCD definition is very broad and covers ‘almost everything’: from products and packaging to parts of complex products, get-ups and computer interfaces. Even typographic typefaces. RCD can also be used for graphical symbols, making them an additional tool for branding (overlap with trademarks). Furthermore, a RCD can be used as ‘standalone’. This wider range of possible uses, as compared to the US design patents, seems to be confirmed by filing figures. I do not consider the differences in the definition of US novelty and non-obviousness and RCD novelty and individual character as an important element for answering our initial question. What is important, according to OHIM users, is the fact that applying for a RCD is very straightforward: Less strict drawing requirements, cheaper fees (– 70%) and significantly quicker prosecution (8 weeks compared to 2 years) as compared to a US design patent. The explanation for this is that the novelty examination is not carried out during prosecution. If companies consider a RCD infringes their prior art, they request OHIM to declare a RCD invalid. Four years of experience show that this mechanism works: Only 400 requests have been received and in two thirds out of them the RCD was cancelled. Given the volume of RCD, these 400 requests represent only a very little proportion (less than 0.3%). Invalidity requests at OHIM may also be a first option in order to avoid more expensive court proceedings. The longer duration of a RCD as compared to the US design patent (up to 25 years versus 14 years) does in my opinion not play an important role when evaluating the differences in filing figures. The possibility of monitoring and preventing importation of infringing goods by the European Customs Authorities is a clear advantage of the RCD as compared to the US design patents, where this possibility only exists for trademarks and trade names, but not for design rights. I would conclude by saying that the US design patent and the RCD are quite different IP tools. Sharing the same root of product shape protection, the US design patent is closer to the ‘more serious’ world of patents and products, whereas the RCD takes on board elements of the ‘gay’ world of creation, design and branding.