Industrial Property Law

The condition of novelty of a design can only be met in the absence of prior art. This results from the existence of one or more identical designs, i.e. designs whose characteristics differ only in insignificant details from the design in question (Article L. 511-3 IP Code). The existence of an identical design is not limited in time or space, since it can be sought at any time and anywhere in the world . The prior design must be precise, determined, individualized and identified among all designs disclosed to the public . A range of products is not sufficiently precise to constitute prior art . Nor must the details that distinguish the design from its predecessors be insignificant or trivial . Differences cannot be considered insignificant if they are perceptible when the earlier design and the contested design are placed side by side .

To be prejudicial to novelty, priority must be established with complete anticipation and be duly  dated .

TGI Paris, 30 March 2017, LawLex202100003280JBJ

CJEU Joined Cases C‑361/15 P and C‑405/15 P Easy Sanitary Solutions BV v EUIPO, Judgment of 21 September 2017, LawLex202300008961JBJ.

Cass. com, 20 September 2016, LawLex201600001542JBJ.

CA Paris, 12 January 2005, LawLex202100003590JBJ; 20 October 1995, LawLex202100003341JBJ; 4 May 2018, LawLex202200001362JB; 25 June 2021, LawLex202200000880JBJ, which notes that the differences between the drawn representation of the bags on the collection book and the bag model claimed are not “without significance” nor “merely a detail”.

Case T-41/14 Argo Development and Manufacturing Ltd, Judgment of 28 January 2015, LawLex202300008962JBJ.

CA Versailles, 10 June 2021, LawLex202100003784JBJ; CA Paris, 18 January 1995, LawLex202100003090JBJ.

430. Priority