THE BOTTOM LINE
- Design rights have teeth, even for functional products: A Dutch appeals court has confirmed that unique aesthetic features on an otherwise functional item, like a building component, are protectable. This overturns a lower court decision, reinforcing the value of registering designs.
- Appeals can flip the script on risk: Companies that successfully defend an infringement claim in a lower court are not necessarily in the clear. An appeal can result in a swift injunction, halting sales and forcing the disclosure of supplier and customer information.
- The “Informed User” is the benchmark for infringement: The court focused on how a professional in the field (in this case, a roofer) would perceive the product’s design. This specialized perspective, rather than a consumer’s glance, was decisive in finding that the competing product was infringing.
THE DETAILS
This case revolved around a “roof base profile,” a component used in construction, designed by EBS European Building Supply B.V. (EBS). In 2021, EBS registered a design for its profile, which featured a distinctive honeycomb-like pattern of hexagonal cells. When a competitor, Belplast, began selling a strikingly similar profile, EBS sought an injunction, claiming infringement of its design rights, copyright, and slavish imitation. The lower court initially sided with Belplast, ruling that the EBS design was not new and lacked the “individual character” required for protection, invalidating the design right.
In a significant reversal, the Arnhem-Leeuwarden Court of Appeal disagreed with the lower court on all key points. The appeals court found that the EBS design was indeed valid. It compared the design to pre-existing products on the market and concluded that the specific arrangement, dimensions, and connecting elements of its honeycomb pattern were different enough to be considered “new” and not just minor variations. Furthermore, the court held that the design possessed an “individual character” because it would create a different overall impression on an “informed user“—defined here as a professional roofer—than any earlier designs.
Crucially, the court also dismissed the argument that the design was dictated purely by its technical function. While the profile must allow for ventilation, the court noted that there are many ways to achieve this, and EBS made specific aesthetic choices in creating its unique honeycomb pattern. Having established the validity of EBS’s design right, the court found that Belplast‘s product created the same overall impression and therefore infringed upon it. As a result, the court issued an injunction against two of the Belplast entities, ordering them to cease all sales of the infringing product and provide a detailed account of their suppliers and non-consumer customers.
SOURCE
Source: Gerechtshof Arnhem-Leeuwarden
