Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorELAM, Viola 
dc.date.accessioned2019-01-16T14:11:37Z
dc.date.available2019-01-16T14:11:37Z
dc.date.issued2016
dc.identifier.citationJournal of Intellectual Property Information Technology and E-Commerce Law (JIPITEC), 2016, Vol. 7, No. 2, pp. 146-162en
dc.identifier.issn2190-3387
dc.identifier.otherurn:nbn:de:0009-29-44394
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/1814/60433
dc.descriptionFirst published online: 2016en
dc.descriptionAny party may pass on this Work by electronic means and make it available for download under the terms and conditions of the Digital Peer Publishing License. The text of the license may be accessed and retrieved at http://www.dipp.nrw.de/lizenzen/dppl/dppl/DPPL_v2_en_06-2004.htmlen
dc.description.abstractThree-dimensional printing (“3DP”) is an additive manufacturing technology that starts with a virtual 3D model of the object to be printed, the so-called Computer-Aided-Design (“CAD”) file. This file, when sent to the printer, gives instructions to the device on how to build the object layer-by-layer. This paper explores whether design protection is available under the current European regulatory framework for designs that are computer-created by means of CAD software, and, if so, under what circumstances. The key point is whether the appearance of a product, embedded in a CAD file, could be regarded as a protectable element under existing legislation. To this end, it begins with an inquiry into the concepts of “design” and “product”, set forth in Article 3 of the Community Design Regulation No. 6/2002 (“CDR”). Then, it considers the EUIPO’s practice of accepting 3D digital representations of designs. The enquiry goes on to illustrate the implications that the making of a CAD file available online might have. It suggests that the act of uploading a CAD file onto a 3D printing platform may be tantamount to a disclosure for the purposes of triggering unregistered design protection, and for appraising the state of the prior art. It also argues that, when measuring the individual character requirement, the notion of “informed user” and “the designer’s degree of freedom” may need to be reconsidered in the future. The following part touches on the exceptions to design protection, with a special focus on the repairs clause set forth in Article 110 CDR. The concluding part explores different measures that may be implemented to prohibit the unauthorised creation and sharing of CAD files embedding design-protected products.en
dc.language.isoenen
dc.relation.ispartofJournal of Intellectual Property, Information Technology and E-Commerce Law (JIPITEC)en
dc.relation.isreplacedbyhttp://hdl.handle.net/1814/60404
dc.relation.urihttps://www.jipitec.eu/issues/jipitec-7-2-2016/4439en
dc.titleCAD files and European design lawen
dc.typeArticleen
dc.identifier.volume7en
dc.identifier.startpage146en
dc.identifier.endpage162en
dc.identifier.issue2en


Files in this item

Icon

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record