Activites

• 1998/10/28 Final act published in Official Journal
  • Directive 1998/71
  • OJ L 289 28.10.1998, p. 0028
• 1998/10/13 Final act signed
• 1998/10/13 End of procedure in Parliament
• #2117
• 1998/09/24 Council Meeting
• 1998/09/15 Decision by Parliament, 3rd reading
  • T4-0462/1998 summary

    Adopting the report by Mr Manuel MEDINA ORTEGA (PSE, E), the European Parliament approved the joint proposal agreed between the European Parliament and the Council on 24 June 1998. The compromise approved by plenary primarily concerns article 14 of the directive relating to the ?repairs clause?, i.e. the conditions subject to which car garages and workshops may carry out repairs (using spare parts supplied by the manufacturer or manufactured by third parties). The solution which the negotiators worked out was to have a ?stand still +?, i.e. to freeze the existing legislative situation in each Member State while allowing any State to liberalise the market further. No obstacle will be allowed to the free movement of the parts in question. The Council therefore abandonned its position of seeking a ?free for all?, i.e. allowing Member States carte blanche to introduce or change national legal provisions. For its part, Parliament made concessions as regards a totally harmonised system of fair and reasonable remuneration for right holders for any use of the design or model of a component part which is used in the repair of a complex product. The other point at issue was the method to be used by the Commission to assess the consequences of the directive after its entry into force (article 18). Parliament wished to have a provision included in the text requiring the Commission to consult manufacturers of original parts and spare parts with the aim of arriving at a voluntary agreement between the parties on a system of fair and reasonable remuneration. Parliament finally accepted the Council?s request that this provision should not be incorporated into the text after receiving assurances from Commissioner Mario MONTI that the Commission would issue a declaration which referred to consultation and which would also be printed in the Official Journal along with the text of the directive. The results of consultation should be presented within 3 years of the deadline for the transposition of the directive into national law and should allow the European Commission to present any changes needed in order to complete the internal market in this area a year later (i.e. within 7 years).�

• 1998/09/14 Debate in Parliament
  • Debate in Parliament
• 1998/09/10 Report tabled for plenary, 3rd reading
  • A4-0315/1998
• 1998/07/29 Joint text approved by Conciliation Committee co-chairs
  • 3621/1998
• 1998/06/24 Final decision by Conciliation Committee
• 1998/06/02 Formal meeting of Conciliation Committee
• #2063
• 1997/12/18 Council Meeting
• 1997/10/22 Decision by Parliament, 2nd reading
  • T4-0487/1997 summary

    OBJECTIVE. Adopting the recommendation for second reading by Mr Manuel MEDINA ORTEGA (Soc, E) the European Parliament reintroduced the 'repair clause' regarding automobile components in the directive on the logal protection of designs. This clause seeks to facilitate repair of a complex product (automobile or motorcycle) using a component manufactured by the repairer or a third party on the model of the original component while informing the public and the holder of the design right who should receive fair remuneration. It should be remembered that, in calculating the remuneration, account must be taken principally of the investment necessary to produce the design in question. In addition, a third party should not be entitled to use the design if the right holder produces evidence to sustain a claim that the party on whom the obligations are incumbent is unable or unwilling to comply with them or to pay the remuneration offered by him. �

• 1997/10/20 Debate in Parliament
  • Debate in Parliament summary

    The rapporteur maintained his compromise proposal which would simplify the free movement of spare parts to be used for repair. Commissioner Bangemann stated that he could accept the rapporteur’s amendments. In particular, as regards the repair clause, the Commissioner reiterated the condition imposed at first reading, namely the reinforcement of the guarantee for the holder of a design right so that he would receive remuneration for the use of his design by a third party.

• 1997/10/14 Vote in committee, 2nd reading
  • A4-0319/1997
• 1997/06/26 Committee referral announced in Parliament, 2nd reading
• #2016
• 1997/06/17 Council Meeting
  • 06713/1/1997 summary

    With one important exception, the common position confirmed the approach pursued by the Commission in its proposal, by incorporating, in substance, virtually all the parliamentary amendments accepted by the Commission in its amended proposal. The main changes made by the Council concerned the following points: - Definitions: the common position clarified the definition of 'design', inserting a new recital which states that protection is particularly conferred for those design features of a product which are shown visibly in an application for registration; - Scope: it is stated that the Directive also applies to designs in Member States which do not have a formal registration system but where publication of a design has the effect of protecting it. - Protection requirements: the Council excluded from protection those component parts of a complex product which do not remain visible during normal use; moreover, the reference to the consumer in the definition of 'normal use' is deleted; - Novelty: the common position adopts the principle of relative novelty, so that the European industries to which designs are of concern are protected against legal proceedings seeking a declaration of invalidity of the rights conferred by registration of a design in cases where a previous design exists which is in use in another region of the world but the circles concerned could not reasonably have known of it; - Individual character: the Council accepted Parliament's proposal to lower the threshold for protection by deleting the word 'significantly' after the word 'differs' from the initial proposal. Thus a design is considered to have individual character if the overall impression it produces on the user differs from that produced by any design which has been made available to the public before the date of filing of the application for registration or, if priority is claimed, the date of priority; - Disclosure: the common position also adopts the stance that the disclosure of a registered Community design or a design registered in a Member State as a result of abusive conduct does not prejudice the novelty of the design; - Term of protection: It is stipulated that Member States may opt for a term of protection for designs of 25 years, to be granted on the basis of applications for extensions for one or more periods of five years or a multiple of five years; - Invalidity or refusal of registration: the Council included the grounds for invalidity or refusal which the Commission had inserted in its amended proposal, but in the form of optional rather than compulsory provisions; it rearranged the other grounds for invalidity or refusal and specified who may invoke the various grounds; lastly, it provided for the possibility of registering or maintaining a design in amended form provided that its identity is preserved; - Revision and transposition: five years after the deadline for transposition, the Commission is required to submit an analysis of the consequences of the Directive for Community industry, consumers, competition and the functioning of the internal market, and propose to Parliament and the Council any changes to the Directive which may be needed. The deadline for transposition is three years after the date of publication in the Official Journal. It is important to note that, at the stage which discussions have currently reached, the Council has not been able to reach agreement on the repair clause, which concerns the use of protected designs for the purpose of permitting the repair of a complex product so as to restore its original appearance (particularly components used in repairing motor vehicles). In order to avoid any delay, the Council accepted a solution whereby Member States may retain or introduce provisions regarding the use of a protected design concerning components of complex products. At the end of a period of five years after the date of transposition of the Directive, the Commission is to submit an analysis of the consequences of these provisions and propose any amendments which may be needed to complete the internal market with regard to the use of these components. Lastly, the Council and Commission agreed on the following statement concerning the relationship between the Directive and the proposal for a Regulation on the Community design: 'the Council and the Commission, at the time of the adoption of the Council's common position on the proposal for a Directive on the legal protection of designs, reaffirm the objective that this proposal and the proposal for a Regulation on the Community design should in principle be adopted simultaneously or, if this should prove difficult, to keep as short as possible the time between the final adoption of the two instruments.' �

• #1993
• 1997/03/13 Council Meeting
• #1970
• 1996/11/26 Council Meeting
  • 1970 summary

    The Council had held an in-depth debate on the proposal for a directive. Significant progress had been made on the basis of a proposal for an overall compromise text put forward by the presidency. However, it had not been possible to find a solution to the most controversial problem, namely the so-called repairs clause. While all the Member States would have been capable of accepting the presidency compromise text as part of an overall package – the content of the agreement being to defer temporarily any relevant harmonisation of national legislation – the Commission was not to be won over, given that this solution was fundamentally out of line with its amended proposal, as based on an amendment tabled by Parliament. In the light of the position adopted by the Commission with respect to this clause, unanimous agreement by the Member States on the overall compromise text would have been necessary in order to adopt a common position. This unanimity had not been possible, given that one MemberState had been unable to accept another aspect of the overall compromise, namely the exhaustion of rights. The presidency therefore recorded that no common position could be agreed on at that particular juncture, while at the same time keeping its proposal for an overall compromise on the table.

• #1937
• 1996/06/18 Council Meeting
  • 1937
• 1996/02/21 Modified legislative proposal published
  • COM(1996)0066 summary

    The amended Commission proposal incorporates all the European Parliament amendments except the one concerning the insertion of the concept of a legal presumption of novelty in infringement proceedings brought before national courts. The main changes made by the Commission in the light of the amendments tabled by the European Parliament serve to: - state that the design or model for which protection is sought must mean the 'outwardly visible appearance'; in addition, the word 'texture' adds a dimension to the design or model; - clarify that the scope of the Directive also includes designs and models in Member States which have no system of official registration but grant protection after the design or model concerned has been filed and officially published; - add a further condition to protect the components of complex products: the visible features of the components of a complex product can only as such be afforded protection if the component part remains visible during normal use of the complex product; - define the concept of 'normal use'; - define the individual character of a design or model, lowering the 'threshold' of protection; - limit the guiding principles intended to assist national courts in judging the individual character of a design or model to that which relates to the freedom of the designer; - add a 'safeguard clause' with a view to protecting the designs and models sector from any applications for revocation which might be filed on the grounds that an earlier design or model exists which is used in another part of the world, although the European sectors involved could not have been aware of this; - give more details of the case where disclosure of the design is the result of abusive conduct; - clarify the provisions regarding designs and models dictated by their technical function and designs of interconnections: protection should not be granted where the form is dictated by function; clearer definition of the 'must fit' clause; - state that it is the design or model per se which may be contrary to public order or morality, and not its use or publication; - state that protection extends to cover any design or model which does not produce on the informed user a different overall impression (instead of a significantly similar overall visual impression); - add several reasons for invalidity in order to enable infringing registrations to be removed from the registers of designs and models; - as regards the provisions of the 'repair clause': abolition of the three-year period for freedom of reproduction and introduction of a remuneration system taking effect on the date of registration of the design or model; addition of an obligation whereby the third party concerned must offer to supply the right-holder with the information needed to determine the level of remuneration in a fair and reasonable manner; when component parts falling within the scope of the 'repair clause' are produced outside the EC and then imported, remuneration is paid by the importer; addition of guiding principles to ensure that the system of remuneration works in the same way throughout the EC; details regarding the bases on which to calculate the level of remuneration; possibility for a right-holder to bring infringement actions provided for under national law; analysis of application of the 'repair clause' five years after the directive enters into force; - add a new article concerning the right to information: when interim or interim protective measures are ordered information can be requested before a final decision has been reached in infringement proceedings. No-one can be forced to give information which could subsequently be used against them; - put back the date for transposition of the directive to 1 January 1998. �

• #1886
• 1995/11/23 Council Meeting
  • 1886
• 1995/10/12 Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
  • T4-0457/1995 summary

    The European Parliament adopted the report by Mr Manuel MEDINA ORTEGA (PSE, E), with amendments relating mainly to technical aspects of the proposal for a directive. These concerned, in particularly, the conditions under which a product that is a component part of a complex product may enjoy legal protection as a design or model, the rights and obligations relating to information, and an analysis by the Commission, after the entry into force of the legislation, of the consequences of these provisions on those sections of industry that are most affected. �

• 1995/10/11 Debate in Parliament
  • Debate in Parliament
• 1995/09/28 Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading
  • A4-0227/1995
• 1993/12/17 Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
• 1993/12/03 Legislative proposal published
  • COM(1993)0344 summary

    The proposal for a directive aims to provide effective legal protection for designs or industrial models in the Community Member States. It seeks to reduce the legal obstacles to freedom of movement for design goods and to establish a system of undistorted competition in the internal market. The directive complements the proposal for a regulation to establish a Community protection system and is applicable to registered designs or models or to registration applications. It should make it possible to harmonise the characteristics needed for specific national protection and Community protection of designs and models to coexist. These lie in the definition of 'design or model', the requirement for obtaining protection including the grounds for exclusion, non-prejudicial disclosures as to the individual character and novelty of the design or model, the scope and term of protection, the grounds for refusal or invalidity, the definition of the rights conferred by the design or model including their limitations and exhaustion of rights. �

Documents

• Legislative proposal published: COM(1993)0344
• Committee report tabled for plenary, 1st reading/single reading: A4-0227/1995
• Debate in Parliament: Debate in Parliament
• Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading: T4-0457/1995
• Debate in Council: 1886
• Modified legislative proposal published: COM(1996)0066
• Debate in Council: 1937
• Debate in Council: 1970
• Council position published: 06713/1/1997
• Committee recommendation tabled for plenary, 2nd reading: A4-0319/1997
• Debate in Parliament: Debate in Parliament
• Decision by Parliament, 2nd reading: T4-0487/1997
• Joint text approved by Conciliation Committee co-chairs: 3621/1998
• Report tabled for plenary, 3rd reading: A4-0315/1998
• Debate in Parliament: Debate in Parliament
• Decision by Parliament, 3rd reading: T4-0462/1998
• : Directive 1998/71
• : OJ L 289 28.10.1998, p. 0028

History

(these mark the time of scraping, not the official date of the change)