FOOD DESIGN: VALORE E TUTELA 22 giugno 2015 – Food Design: valore e tutela – Milano Food...

Click here to load reader

download FOOD DESIGN: VALORE E TUTELA 22 giugno 2015 – Food Design: valore e tutela – Milano Food and Design Protection in Japan June 22, 2015, Minako MIZUNO

of 24

  • date post

    23-Dec-2015
  • Category

    Documents

  • view

    213
  • download

    0

Embed Size (px)

Transcript of FOOD DESIGN: VALORE E TUTELA 22 giugno 2015 – Food Design: valore e tutela – Milano Food...

  • Slide 1
  • FOOD DESIGN: VALORE E TUTELA 22 giugno 2015 Food Design: valore e tutela Milano Food and Design Protection in Japan June 22, 2015, Minako MIZUNO
  • Slide 2
  • 1.Introduction 2.Food involved in Intellectual Property cases 3.Food and Statistics 4.Food and Industrial Design Law 5.Other laws possibly protecting Food Design 22 giugno 2015 Food Design: valore e tutela Milano 2
  • Slide 3
  • In Japan many people love eating SUSHI. The guy cooking SUSHI is a friend of mine. We call him TAISHO with great respect and an endearing tone. 3
  • Slide 4
  • 2 Food involved in Intellectual Property cases Registered designs for SUSHI and tools related to SUSHI 4
  • Slide 5
  • Registered designs in Japan 1971 Similar 1 1987 2007 2013 2002 2005 2006 2007 2013 2015 2010 5
  • Slide 6
  • Foods involved in Intellectual Property cases 1989 1988 2007 2008 2013 2014 6
  • Slide 7
  • 3. Food and Statistics Number of Applications and Registrations at the JPO 7
  • Slide 8
  • 3% to 4% of All design applications are for food. 1% to 3% of All design registrations are for food. 8
  • Slide 9
  • Appeals/Trials: Appeals against Examiners Decision of Refusal 9
  • Slide 10
  • Trials for Invalidation (JPO) 10
  • Slide 11
  • From JPO website 11
  • Slide 12
  • From JPO website 12
  • Slide 13
  • 4. Food and Industrial Design Law R.1466240 Goody R.1466465 R. 1466466 R.1466467 Basic design Related designs 13
  • Slide 14
  • Title of Article and Drawings 1. A new and creative design for a processed food can be registered at the JPO. (Article 3) 2. It is necessary to file a design application at the JPO. (Articles 6 and 7) 3. The design shall be shown in a set of orthographic six- view drawings. (Enforcement Regulations under Design Law) 4. The Examiner of the JPO conducts a search for prior arts, checks the drawings and makes a decision before registering the design. (Articles 17 and 18) 5. A person who has infringed the design right or exclusive license of another person shall be presumed to have been negligent as far as the act of infringement is concerned. (Article 40) The JPO issues Design Gazettes after establishment of a design right. 14
  • Slide 15
  • Steps 1 to 5 for judging similarity of two designs. Based on the Supreme Court Decision 1970 (Gyo-Tsu) No. 45 It is noted that steps 1 to 5 below are important and should be followed when judging the similarity of designs. 1. The subject design should be identified by its appearance which appeals to the eye, and also taking the product into consideration. 2. The design to be compared to the subject design should also be identified in the same way. 3. The identical points, common points and different points between the two designs should be identified and listed. 4. It is necessary to check and understand the historical and existing designs related to the subject product so that the new and creative features in the subject design can be clearly understood. 5. Lastly, similarity is judged by considering the above. 15
  • Slide 16
  • General impression An aesthetic impression through the sense of sight (Article 2) March 7, 1989, Heisei 1Gyo-Ke 129 Packaging can Subject design Cited design The JPO rejected the subject design under Article 3-1-3, since the subject design and the cited design are considered similar. The Tokyo High Court supported the JPO decision. The differences which the applicant asserted are (i) the ratio between the heights and diameters, (ii) colors, (iii) alphabetical characters and (iv) aesthetic impression. The Court did not highly value the above differences. The Court highly valued their common pattern, i.e., light wave patterns vertically arranged from top to bottom on the outer surface of the tin can since that is the feature that most attracts observers interests, and therefore they share the same feature. 16
  • Slide 17
  • Local Interpretation of difference between Informed user and Consumer. The term consumer appears in Japanese Design Law Article 24 2015 AIPPI JAPAN 17
  • Slide 18
  • Consumers (including traders) Design Examination Standards under Japanese Design Law 18
  • Slide 19
  • Other laws possibly protect Food Design 3D Trademark protection Yes! Class 30, Chocolate, Praline 803104= Adm.1195604 No! Class 30 MANJU TM 4704439 The 3D mark cannot be rejected under Article 3-1-3 of the TM Law IPHC June 30, 2008 The 3D mark cannot satisfy the requirements under Article 3-2 of the TM Law IPHC Sept. 27, 2006 Supreme court April 12, 2007 19
  • Slide 20
  • Trademark Law Article 3-1-3 20 2015 AIPPI JAPAN
  • Slide 21
  • Trademark Law Article 3-2 21 2015 AIPPI JAPAN
  • Slide 22
  • Unfair Competition Prevention Law Article 2-1-3 Article 2-1-1, Article 2-1-2 22 2015 AIPPI JAPAN
  • Slide 23
  • Copyright Law Article 2 Article 2-(1) In this Law, the following terms shall have the meaning hereby assigned to them respectively: (i)work means a production in which thoughts or sentiments are expressed in a creative way and which falls within the literary, scientific, artistic or musical domain; (2) As used in this Law, artistic work includes a work of artistic craftsmanship. 23 October, 2014 Copyright Research and Information Center
  • Slide 24
  • mailbox@seiwapat.co.jp GRAZIE 22 giugno 2015 Food Design: valore e tutela Milano