EUSurvey

Survey

Page 1 of 11

Skip to Main Content
Commission and its priorities (https://ec.europa.eu/commission/index_en)
inf rmation and services (https://ec.europa.eutinfo/index_en)

(https://ec.europa.eu)

English

European Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/index_en.htm)

EUSurvey

Consultation on Design Protection in the EU

Cot
g rov

Fields marked with * are mandatory.

Introduction

(mai
f3@
Doe
Sa

The main substantive aspects of national laws on the protection of designs are harmonized at EU level by the
Design Directive[1] from 1998, which also aimed at maintaining a system for registering designs for businesses that
only operate within an EU Member State. Alongside those national protection systems, the Community Design
Regulation[2] from 2002 created an autonomous system for the protection of Community designs having equal effect
throughout the European Union.
Designs are defined as appearance of the whole or a part of a product resulting from its features such as e.g. lines,
contours, colours, shape, texture, materials used or ornamentation. Designs can be part of handcrafted or industrial
goods, including among others also packaging, graphic symbols or even fonts.
Designers can benefit from different forms of protection of their work in the EU. Their creations are protected without
any registration or formalities for a period of three years as unregistered Community designs (governed by the
Community Design Regulation) if they are made publicly available ('disclosed') within the EU. When longer
protection of up to 25 years is wanted, designers have a choice of registering their designs separately in some or all
of the EU Member States following the harmonized national rules (as specified by the Design Directive).
Alternatively, they can register them once for the whole EU using the registered Community design (governed as
well by the Community Design Regulation) managed by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO). As
yet another option, designers can protect their creations within or outside the EU through the Hague System for the
International Registration of Industrial Designs, administered by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO).
While procedures are not harmonized, the principal substantive conditions for registering a design are identical in all
EU Member States as are the principal rights of design owners. Design is a property right and its owner decides who
can use it, how and for what price. Protection covers unauthorized use or copying. In 2017, 94,000 registered
Community designs were registered (6% more than in 2016, and 12% more than in 2015). The registration involves
fees, which for the registered Community design amount to €350 including publication.

Las
03/(

This public consultation aims at gathering views of all those affected by design protection in Europe in order to
evaluate the performance of the Community and national systems and identify areas where changes may be
necessary. The consultation builds on and follows previous research, analysis and targeted surveys carried out as
part of two studies on economic (http://ec.europa.eu/growth/content/economic-review-industrial-design-europe-0_en) (2015)
and legal (https://ec.europa.eu/growth/content/legal-review-industrial-design-protection-europe-0_en) (2016) review of the
design protection systems in Europe.
The questionnaire of the consultation is divided into several different sections. In principle respondents can choose
to reply to a selection of these sections (one, several or all) according to their profile/type of activity. However,
different levels of knowledge and experience will be needed to be able to answer the individual questions. While the
reply to general questions will require at least certain knowledge on design protection in the European Union, it will
not be possible to answer a larger number of specific questions without having profound legal expertise and
experience in the relevant field.

[1] Directive 98/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 1998 on the legal protection of

https://ec.europa.eu/eusurvey/runner/30fb4c3f c3e2 4213 a74a 3f73ebdce069 3 4 2019

EUSurvey

Page 2 of 11

Survey

designs
[2] Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 of 12 December 2001 on Community designs

About you

* Language of my contribution
English

*1am giving my contribution as
Public authority

* First name
!Saskia

*Surname
iJurna

*Email (this won't be published)

Is.j.jurna@minez.n1
*Scope
National

*Organisation name
255 character(s) maximum
Ministry of Economic Affairs and Climate Policy

*Organisation size
Large (250 or more)

El

Transparency register number

255 character(s) maximum
Check if your organisation is on the transparency register (http://ec.europa.eu/transparencyregister/public/homePage.do?
redir=false&locale=en).1t's a voluntary database for organisations seeking to influence EU decision-making.

*Country of origin
Please add your country of origin, or that of your organisation.
Netherlands

*Mat are the main areas of your activity?

at least 1 choice(s)
Ei Manufacturing
•

Wholesale and retail trade; Repair of motor vehicles

Ei Information and communication
[1] Professional, scientific and technical activities
g Public administration
O Creative, arts and entertainment activities
•

Other activities

*Pubiication privacy settings

https://ec.europa.eu/eusurvey/runner/30fb4c3f c3e2 4213 a74a 3f73ebdce069 3 4 2019

EUSurvey

Survey

Page 3 of 11

The Commission will publish the responses to this public consultation. You can choose whether you would like your details to be made
public or to remain anonymous.
o Anonymous
Only your type, country of origin and contribution wilt be published. All other personal details (name, organisation name and
size, transparency register number) will not be published.
® Public
Your personal details (name, organisation name and size, transparency register number, country of origin) will be published
with your contribution.

2 *I agree with the personal data protection provisions (https://ec.europaseu/info/law/better-regulation/specific-privacystatement_en)

General questions to all

*1. Please indicate whether your knowledge of the design protection systems in the EU comes from the fact that you or
members of your organization
at least 1 choice(s)
1:1 Create/own designs
•

Use designs of others

o Give (legal) advice
gzi Work in intellectual property office, ministry, court or other authority
•

Lecture/research the topic

o Other
•

don't have any knowledge of the design protection systems

*2. What do you generally think about the overall functioning of the design protection system in the EU (taking national
design systems and the Community design regime altogether as a complementary whole and considering all relevant
aspects of design protection)?
•

It works very well

O It works rather well
o It works rather bad
O It works very bad
•

No opinion

*Please explain your answer:
5000 character(s) maximum

3. Please evaluate the importance of the following objectives of the harmonization of national rules and of the creation of
the Community design system.
between 9 and 9 answered rows
Very
important

* Promoting innovation, creativity and
development of new products in the EU

* Allowing products to circulate freely in the
internal market

Important

Rather not
important

Not
important at
all

No
opinion

O

0

0

0

0

O

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

*Providing the same protection of designs
everywhere in the EU

* Serving the needs of all industry sectors
*Preventing counterfeiting and copying of
Community designs

O

* Allowing for simpte registration of
Community designs

* Allowing for affordable registration of
Community designs

O

https://ec.europa.eu/eusurvey/runner/30fb4c3f c3e2 4213 a74a 3f73ebdce069 3 4 2019

EUSurvey

Page 4 of 11

Survey

*Making Community design registration
readily accessible to small and mediumsized enterprises as well as to individual
designers

O

0

0

0

0

*Allowing for a simplified enforcement of
Community designs

O

0

0

0

0

If there are other objectives that should be pursued, please let us know:
5000 character(s) maximum

4. Based on your knowledge of the design protection systems in the EU, how have the harmonization of national rules
and the creation of the Community design system contributed to the achievement of those objectives since 2003?
between 9 and 9 answered rows
Helped Helped a Hindered a
little
little
a lot

Hindered
a lot

No
opinion

*Promoting innovation, creativity and
development of new products in the EU

O

0

0

0

0

*Allowing products to circulate freely in the
internal market

O

0

0

0

0

*Providing the same protection of designs
everywhere in the EU

O

0

0

0

0

*Serving the needs of all industry sectors

O

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

*Preventing counterfeiting and copying of
Community designs
*Allowing for simple registration of Community
designs

O

*Allowing for affordable registration of Community
designs
*Making Community design registration readily
accessible to small and medium-sized enterprises
as well as to individual designers

O

0

0

0

0

*Allowing for a simplified enforcement of
unregistered Community designs

O

0

0

0

0

If you want to add any remark, please do so here:
5000 character(s) maximum

Specific question to national authorities
*5. Do you agree that the respective costs involved in implementing the Design Directive and the Community Design
Regulation are justified given the benefits that have already been achieved by harmonizing essential aspects of design
protection and providing for a unitary system of EU-wide protection?
® Yes
o No
o No opinion

General questions to all
*6. In this context, to what extent do you agree that the harmonization of national rules and the creation of the Community
design system is of added value compared to a situation where Member States would have (entirely) different rules on
design protection and such protection would be available at national level only?

https://ec.europa.eu/eusurvey/runner/30fb4c3f c3e2 4213 a74a 3f73ebdce069 3 4 2019

EUSurvey

Survey

Page 5 of 11

@ Strongly agree
o Agree
o Disagree
o Strongly disagree
o No opinion

If you want to add any remark, please do so here:
5000 character(s) maximum
L
*7. Are you aware of any unintended consequences or shortcomings of the Design Directive or the Community Design
Regulation?
o Yes
g No
o No opinion

*8. In general, do you think that there is sufficient awareness among designers and entrepreneurs (including small and
medium-sized enterprises) of the availability, benefits and ways for protecting designs in the EU?
o Yes
@ No
o No opinion

*If no, please specify where and in what respect you see deficiencies in the awareness:
5000 character(s) maximum
Especially among SMEs more awareness would be desirable

*9. Do you consider that the unregistered Community design provides a useful legal protection against unauthorized
copying of that design by a third party?
@ Yes
o No
o No opinion

*Please explain your answer:
5000 character(s) maximum

More specific questions to all
We would now like to ask you questions that are more specific. These are best answered by those with greater
knowledge or experience with the design protection systems in the EU.
Terms of protection

*14. An unregistered Community design is protected for 3 years after its first making available to the public. Do you think
this term of protection is adequate?
@ Yes
o No, it is too long
o No, it is too short
o I have no opinion

*15. A registered Community or national design can be protected up to 25 years from the date of filing. Do you think this
term of protection is adequate?
@ Yes
o No, it is too long
o No, it is too short
o I have no opinion

https://ec.europa.eu/eusurvey/runner/30fb4c3f c3e2 4213 a74a 3f73ebdce069 3 4 2019

EUSurvey

Page 6 of 11

Survey

Spare parts protection

At the time of adoption of the Design Directive it was not possible to harmonize design protection for spare parts.
The letter concern visible component parts used for the purpose of the repair of a complex product (such as a
motorcar) so as to restore its original appearance (covering, in particular, body panels, integrated lighting and
automotive glass).
While the majority of Member States extend design protection to such spare parts the other part does not do so.

*16. Are different rules on spare parts protection in the Member States a problem for you?
o Yes
•

No

o No opinion

* Please explain your answer:

5000 character(s) maximum
in.a.

*17. Should the rules on spare parts protection be the same in the EU?
o Yes
o No
o No opinion

*If yes, please explain your answer and teil us what should be the common rules:

5000 character(s) maximum

Ifull harmonization is desirable

Specific questions to lawyers/legal advisors, authorities and academia
The following questions are very specific and therefore require profound legal expertise and experience in order to
be answered.
Subject-matter and scope of protection
39. Based on your knowledge of the design protection systems in the EU, please evaluate the following elements in the
legislation and its application by industrial property offices and in courts.

between 3 and 3 answered rows
Very
clear

Clear

Not
clear

Very
unclear

No
opinion

*The definition of a "design", a "product" and a "complex
product"

0

0

0

0

C

*The requirements for protection (e.g. related to the need
of being "visible")

0

0

0

0

O

*The scope of design protection (e.g. as to how to
determine the individual character of a design)

0

0

0

0

0

Rights conferred
*40. Do you consider that the current scope of design rights, including limitations, provides sufficient protection against
third parties copying a protected design by means of 3D printing?
ce Yes
o No
o No opinion

*41. Do you think that the scope of design rights should allow preventing third parties from transiting counterfeit design
goods through the Union territory even if the goods are not intended to be placed on the Union market?

https://ec.europa.eu/eusurvey/runner/30fb4c3f c3e2 4213 a74a 3 f73 ebdce069

3 4 2019

EUSurvey

Survey

Page 7 of 11

O Yes
® No
o No opinion

*Please explain your answer:

5000 character(s) maximum

Grounds for invalidity

*42. Do you think that lack of clarity and consistency in the representation should be an explicit ground for invalidity of a
design?
o Yes
e No
o No opinion

*Please explain your answer:

2000 character(s) maximum

Procedural issues

* 43. In your view, are the current requirements for the representation of Community designs under the Community
Design Regulation and the respective Implementing Regulation (EC) No 2245/2002 (e.g. means of representation and their
combination, static views, maximum number of views, neutra) background) appropriate to show designs with sufficient
clarity and precision, both for tangible products and non-tangible products (e.g. animated designs, graphical user
interfaces)?

® Yes
o No
o No opinion

"Please explain your answer:

5000 character(s) maximum
the possibility to file computer animated designs appears very useful and technical
cooperation in this respect would be welcomed

*44. Are you aware of any problems in relation to the option to file a description of a design under the Community design
regime, national law or the international Hague system?
o Yes
•

No

o No opinion

*45. The Community Design Regulation allows for the filing of a specimen where the application is for a two-dimensional
design (e.g. a piece of textile), and deferment of publication is requested. Do you consider this option stilt to be relevant
and meeting current business needs?
o Yes
(g No
o No opinion

*Please explain your answer:

2000 character(s) maximum
none were filed at BOIP, and besides, the scope of protection is determined by what's in
the register

https://ec.europa.eu/eusurvey/runner/30fb4c3f c3e2 4213 a74a 3f73ebdce069 3 4 2019

EUSurvey

Page 8 of 11

Survey

*46. In your view, are there any specific provisions or requirements/conditions in the Community Design Regulation or the
respective Implementing Regulation (EC) No 2245/2002 in relation to procedures before the EUIPO (e.g. for the application
or registration of a registered Community design) which you consider to be inappropriately complex or rigid, or
generating unnecessary burdens for users of the system?

o Yes
o No
o No opinion
Other potential for improvement
*47. Are you aware of any (other) specific issue in relation to the protection, registration or enforcement of designs in
respect of which you feel there is need for improvement or updating of the Community Design Regulation and/or the
Design Directive?

o Yes
o No
(4) No opinion
Degree of harmonization
48. Below is a list of design law aspects that are not (fully) harmonized by the Design Directive. For each item please let
us know how do you assess the need for harmonization in view of potential obstacles for the internal market and the
establishment of a level playing field for the registration of national designs.

between 16 and 16 answered rows
Very
important

Rather
important

Rather not
important

Not at all
important

No
opinion

*Description of design and its legai relevance
for the subject-matter of protection

0

0

0

0

O

*Product indication and the design's scope of
protection

0

0

0

0

O

*Formai requirements to represent a design
(e.g. number of views, neutra) background)

0

0

0

0

*Deferment of publication

0

0

0

0

O

*Multiple applications and its conditions

0

O

0

0

0

*Right to the design

0

0

0

0

O

*protection of unregistered designs

0

0

0

0

O

0

0

O

*Right of prior use
*National designs as objects of property
(transfer, rights in rem, levy of execution,
licensing)

0

e

0

*Substantive grounds for refusal of
registration

0

0

0

0

O

*Procedure for refusal of registration

0

0

0

0

O

*Responsible authority for invalidating a
design

0

0

0

0

* Procedure for invalidating a design

0

0

0

0

O

*Refusal/invalidity based on earlier distinctive
sign (optional in the Directive)

0

0

0

0

0

*Refusal/invalidity based on unauthorized use
of a copyright protected work (optional in the
Directive)

0

0

0

0

9

*Refusal/invalidity based on improper use of
an item listed in Article 6b of the Paris
Convention for the Protection of Industrial
Property (optional in the Directive)

0

0

0

0

C

0

https://ec.europa.eu/eusurvey/runner/30fb4c3f c3e2 4213 a74a 3f73ebdce069 3 4 2019

EUSurvey

Survey

Page 9 of 11

*Please also explain the problems caused by the lack of harmonization:

5000 character(s) maximum

*Please also explain the problems caused by the lack of harmonization:

5000 character(s) maximum

If you consider other aspects in need of harmonization, please specify them and explain the problems caused by the lack
of harmonization:

5000 character(s) maximum

Specific question to national authorities

*49. In some Member States, invalidity proceedings can only be brought before a judicial body. What is your view on
making such proceedings available before all national industrial property offices across the EU?
o Positive
•

Negative

o No opinion

*Please explain your answer:

2000 character(s) maximum
00 little experience with designs at national/regional office, due to low volumes compared
o EUIPO

Specific questions to lawyers/legal advisors, authorities and academia

*50. In terms of coherence, are you aware of any problematic inconsistencies or discrepancies in the provisions of the
Design Directive and/or the Community Design Regulation, and/or between these two instruments, and/or between
one/both of these two instruments with other Union legislation?
o Yes
@ No
o No opinion

*51. The Community Design Regulation and the respective Implementing Regulation (EC) No 2245/2002 set out rules for
procedures before the EUIPO which is also responsible to conduct procedures in European Union trade mark matters. Are
you aware of any procedural discrepancies between these regulations which are not justified by the different nature of
designs and trade marks?
o Yes
o No
o No opinion

*52. In your opinion, to what extent has the accession of the EU (2006) to the international Hague system, which allows EU
applicants to obtain design protection in countries which are party to its Geneva Act, proved to be a useful complement to
the available venues for obtaining design protection both within and outside the EU?
® Very useful
o Useful
o Useless
o Completely useless
o No opinion

*Please explain your answer:

5000 character(s) maximum

h.a.

https://ec.europa.eu/eusurvey/runner/30fb4c3f c3e2 4213 a74a 3f73ebdce069 3 4 2019

EUSurvey

Survey

Page 10 of 11

*53. In this context, do you consider the accession of Member States to the international Hague system to be necessary to
remove major obstacles to the internat market and the establishment of a level playing field?
® Yes
o No
o No opinion

*Please explain your answer:

5000 character(s) maximum

*54. Are you aware of any problems/issues which negatively influence the complementarity and interoperability between
the Community design system, the national design systems and/or the international Hague system?
o Yes
p No
o No opinion

*55. If you wish to register the same design in the EU and in other countries outside the EU, what are the main difficulties
in achieving it?

at least 1 choice(s)
•

Different scope of protection

Ei Different requirements for the design representation
o Different requirements for the product indications
El Different procedural rules
o Other
13 There are no relevant difficulties
g I have no experience

*56. In your view, is the current genera! level of fees for Community designs appropriate?
® Yes
•

No, fees are too high

o No, fees are too low
O No opinion

*57. In your view, does the current structure of the various fees present any difficulties to applicants and holders of
Community designs?
•

Yes

p No
o No opinion

*58. In this context, do you think it is appropriate that all designs of a multiple application must refer to products in the
same class of the International Classification for Industrial Designs (Locarno Classification) to be able to benefit from the
current bulk discount?
O Yes
p No
O No opinion

Invitation to all

59. If you wish to add any further information or views in relation to the design protection systems in the EU and their
potential for improvement, which have not been covered by this questionnaire, please feel free to do so here:

5000 character(s) maximum

60. Please feel also free to upload a concise document, such as a position paper or study. Please note that the uploaded
documents will be published alongside your response to the questionnaire.
The maximum file size is 1 MB
Only files of the type pdf,txt,doc,docx,odt,rtf are allowed

https://ec.europa.eu/eusurvey/runner/3Ofb4c3f c3e2 4213 a74a 3f73ebdce069 3 4 2019

EUSurvey

Survey

Page 11 of 11

Select file to upload

Submit

EUSurvey is supported by the European Commission's ISA programma (http://ec.europa.eu/isa), which promotes interoperability solutions for European public administrations.

EUSurvey

Documentation (/eusurvey/home/documentation)
FAQ (/eusurvev/home/helpparticipants)
(/eusurvey/home/helpparticipants)
(/eusurvey/home/helpparticipants)

(/eusurvey/home/helpparticipants)
(/eusurvey/home/helpparticipants)
(/eusurvey/home/helpparticipants)
f/eusurvey/home/helpparticipantal
All public surveys (/eusurvev/home/publicsi
About (/eusurvey/home/about)
Search (http://ec.europa.eu/geninfo/guery/:
Download (/eusurvey/home/download)

European Commission

Follow the European Commission

European Union

Commission and its priorities
(httPs://ec.europa.eu/commission(ndex en)
Policies information and services
(https://ec.europa.eufinfaindex en)

Facebook
(https://www.facebook.com/EuropeanCommission)
Twitter (https://twitter.com/EU commission)
Other social media

EU institutions
011psikuro..eukuronean-uniontabout-eufinstitutions-bodie

European Union (https://europa.eukuropean-unionfiné

(hit. //europa eukuropean-unionkontact/soctal-networks enl

About the Commission's new web presence (http://ec.europa.eu/info/about-commissions-new-web-presence en) Resources for partners (http://ec.europa.eufinfo/resourcet
Cookies (http://ec.europa.eu/cookies/index en.htm) Legal notice (http://ec.europa.eu/geninfogegal notices en.htm) Contact (/eusurvey/homeisupport)
Privacy statement Ueusurvey/home/privacystatementl

https://ec.europa.etileusurvey/numer/30fb4c3f c3e2 4213 a74a 3f73ebdce069 3 4 2019