11 Amendments of Daniel BUDA related to 2022/0392(COD)
Amendment 16 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 1
Recital 1
(1) A number of amendments are to be made to Directive 98/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council22. In the interests of clarity, legal certainty, streamlining and updating of rules in relation to market developments determined by the development of information technology and artificial intelligence, that Directive should be recast. _________________ 22 Directive 98/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 1998 on the legal protection of designs (OJ L 289, 28.10.1998, p. 28).
Amendment 17 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 3
Recital 3
(3) Design protection in national law of the Member States coexists with protection available at Union level through European Union designs (‘EU designs’) which are unitary in character and valid throughout the Union as laid down in Council Regulation (EC) No 6/200223. The coexistence and balance of design protection systems at national and Union level provides an appropriate level of legal certainty and constitutes a cornerstone of the Union’s approach to intellectual property protection. _________________ 23 Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 of 12 December 2001 on Community designs (OJ L 3, 5.1.2002, p. 1).
Amendment 18 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 5
Recital 5
(5) In its conclusions of 11 November 2020 on intellectual property policy and the revision of the industrial design system in the Union25, the Council called on the Commission to present proposals for the revision of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 and Directive 98/71/EC. The revision was requested due to the need to modernise the industrial design systems, to update them in line with market developments regarding information technology and artificial intelligence and to make design protection more attractive for individual designers and businesses, especially small and medium-sized enterprises. In particular, that revision was requested to address and consider amendments aiming at supporting and strengthening the complementary relationship between the Union, national and regional design protection systems, and involve further efforts to reduce areas of divergence within the design protection system in the Union.26. _________________ 25 Council conclusions on intellectual property policy and the revision of the industrial designs system in the Union 2020/C 379 I/01 (OJ C 379I, 10.11.2020, p. 1). 26 THIS FOOTNOTE IS MISSING. THANK YOU FOR USING ANOTHER LANGUAGE.
Amendment 19 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 6
Recital 6
(6) Based on the final results of the evaluation, the Commission announced in its communication of 25 November 2020 entitled ‘Making the most of the EU’s innovative potential. An intellectual property action plan to support the EU’s recovery and resilience’27 that it willould revise the UnionEU legislation on design protection, following the successful reform of the Union trade mark legislationEU trade mark legislation, with a view to simplifying the system and making it more accessible and efficient and with a view to updating the regulatory framework in the light of the development of new technologies on the market. _________________ 27 Communication (COM/2020/760 final) from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on Making the most of the EU’s innovative potential. An intellectual property action plan to support the EU’s recovery and resilience.
Amendment 20 #
(8) Consultation and evaluation have revealed that, in spite of the previous harmonisation of national laws, there are still areas where further harmonisation could have a positive impact on competitiveness and growth and, in particular, in terms of the increased accessibility SMEs would have to the design protection system.
Amendment 21 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 13
Recital 13
(13) The attainment of the objectives of the internal market requires that the conditions for obtaining a registered design right be identicalharmonised in all the Member States.
Amendment 23 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 19
Recital 19
(19) Although product indications do not affect the scope of protection of the design as such, alongside the representation of the design they may serve to determine the nature of the product in which the design is incorporated or to which it is intended to be applied. Furthermore, product indications improve the searchability of designs in the register of designs kept by an industrial property office. Therefore, accurate product indications facilitating search and increasing the transparency and accessibility of a register should be ensured prior to registration without undue administrative burdens onr additional costs for applicants.
Amendment 25 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 27 a (new)
Recital 27 a (new)
(27a) Since the establishment of the Community design system, the development of information technology and artificial intelligence has entailed the advent of new designs which are not embodied in physical products. In this respect, there is a need to further harness the potential of new technologies such as artificial intelligence and blockchain so as to improve the efficiency of our intellectual property systems;
Amendment 34 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 37
Recital 37
(37) In order to improve and facilitate access to design protection and to increase legal certainty and predictability, the procedure for the registration of designs in the Member States should be efficient and transparent and should follow rules similar tothat are harmonised with those applicable to EU designs.
Amendment 38 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 14 – paragraph 1 – point c
Article 14 – paragraph 1 – point c
(c) by virtue of a final decision of the competent court or authority, the holder of the design right is not entitled to it under the law of the Member State concerned;
Amendment 39 #
(a) any natural or legal person who can prove a legitimate interest;