Grounds for refusal. Under Clause 1 of Article 1377 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation the application for grant of a patent for an industrial design shall be related to one industrial design or to a group of industrial designs associated with each other so closely as to form a single creative concept (the requirement of unity of the industrial design). This requirement is met where there is: one independent and distinct industrial design; or one industrial design and its variants differing from that industrial design by visually non-essential features and/or by color combination; or a group of industrial designs belonging to the same set of articles, as well as one or more industrial designs for separate articles belonging to the same set of articles. It is required that all industrial designs of the group shall belong to the same class of International Classification for Industrial Designs (Locarno classification). Under Clause 1 of Article 1352 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation the essential features of an industrial design shall include features determining the aesthetic characteristics of the external appearance of the article, in particular, the shape, configuration, ornamentation, combination of colors, lines, contours of the article, texture or material of the article. The essential features of the external appearance are recognized as essential if they determine the aesthetic characteristics of the external appearance of an article, being dominant and determine the overall visual impression. The non-essential features of the external appearance include such slightly distinguishable and inexpressive features of the external appearance of an article, the exclusion of which from the set of the features of the external appearance does not lead to a change the overall visual impression (clause 72 of the Rules for the drafting, filing and examination of the documents, that are the basis for legally significant actions on the state registration of an industrial design). The claimed group of industrial designs includes: the industrial design 1: fig.
1.1 1.7; the industrial design 2: fig.
2.1 2.7; the industrial design 3: fig.
Grounds for refusal. 1. The description does not fully disclose all the designs as required in Article 103(2)(a) of the Intellectual Property Law of Viet Nam, since the description does not point out all main appearance characteristics of the designs. This reason for refusal may be overcome by submitting a corrected version of description to replace the current description.
2. The registration contains multiple industrial designs but there is not any statement indicating that they are variants or a set of products, thus it does not meet the requirement on the uniformity of industrial property registration applications according to Article 101(1) and Article 101(3) of the Intellectual Property Law of Viet Nam. The designs in the registration are not significantly different from each other. Therefore, these designs should be claimed as variants. This reason for refusal may be overcome if the registration holder submits a corrected version of description to replace the current one, which shall indicate one of the designs as principle design and the others as variants.
3. The reproductions relating to design 1, design 2 and design 3 include the broken lines, therefore these objects are not the whole articles and cannot be circulated independently. Thus, they are not the objects of protection as industrial designs as provided in Article 4(13) of the Intellectual Property Law of Viet Nam and in Article 33(2)(b) of Circular No. 01/2007/TT-BKHCN. This reason for refusal may be overcome if the registration holder submits a corrected set of reproductions with the broken lines being replaced with solid lines. If design 1, design 2, design 3 are identical with design 4 after replacing broken lines with solid lines, the registration holder must remove 3 out of 4 designs from the registration.
4. Design 1 is not significantly different from the prior design disclosed on xxxxx://xxx.xxxxxxx.xxx/web/20210612163312/https://xxx.xxxxxxxxx.xxx/products/w omens-frontline on 12/06/2021. Design 2 is not significantly different from the prior design disclosed on xxxxx://xxx.xxxxxxx.xxx/web/20210612163312/https://xxx.xxxxxxxxx.xxx/products/w omens-frontline on 12/06/2021. Design 3 is not significantly different from the prior design disclosed on xxxxx://xxx.xxxxxxx.xxx/web/20210612163312/https://xxx.xxxxxxxxx.xxx/products/w omens-frontline on 12/06/2021. Design 4 is not significantly different from the prior design disclosed on xxxxx://xxx.xxxxxxx.xxx/web/20210612163312/https://xxx.xxxxxxxxx.xxx/produ...
Grounds for refusal. 1. The description does not fully disclose all the designs as required in Article 103(2)(a) of the Intellectual Property Law of Viet Nam, since the description does not point out all main appearance characteristics of the designs. This reason for refusal may be overcome by submitting a corrected version of description to replace the current description.
2. The registration contains multiple industrial designs but there is not any statement indicating that they are variants or a set of products, thus it does not meet the requirement on the uniformity of industrial property registration applications according to Article 101(1) and Article 101(3) of the Intellectual Property Law of Viet Nam. The designs in the registration are not significantly different from each other. Therefore, these designs should be claimed as variants. This reason for refusal may be overcome if the registration holder submits a corrected version of description to replace the current one, which shall indicate one of the designs as principle design and the other as variant.
Grounds for refusal. The international registration designating Singapore is not entitled to protection under Rule 4(1) of the Registered Designs (International Registration) Rules. The requirements for registration of a design under the Registered Designs Act (Cap. 266) and the Registered Designs Rules (R 1) have not been satisfied, for the following reason(s): (i) Section 2(1) of the Registered Designs Act requires a design to be applied to an article or non-physical product. The design for which protection is sought does not appear to be applied to any article or non-physical product; the indication of product (“article name”) as currently stated in the international registration designating Singapore may not be regarded as an article or non-physical product. Ideas Today. Assets Tomorrow.
Grounds for refusal. 1. The description does not fully disclose the design as required in Article 103(3) of the Intellectual Property Law of Viet Nam, since the description does not list all main appearance characteristics of the design. This reason for refusal may be overcome by submitting a corrected version of description to replace the current description.
2. The description includes the disclaimer, therefore the claimed object is not the whole article. Thus, the subject matter contained in the registration is not circulated independently, therefore it is not the object of protection as an industrial design as provided in Article 4(13) of the Intellectual Property Law of Viet Nam and in Article 33(2)(b) of Circular No. 01/2007/TT-BKHCN. This reason for refusal may be overcome if the registration holder submits a corrected version of description in which the disclaimer has been removed.
3. The reproductions include broken lines, therefore the claimed object is not the whole article. Thus, the subject matter contained in the registration is not circulated independently, therefore it is not the object of protection as an industrial design as provided in Article 4(13) of the Intellectual Property Law of Viet Nam and in Article 33(2)(b) of Circular No. 01/2007/TT-BKHCN. This reason for refusal may be overcome if the registration holder submits a corrected set of reproductions with the broken lines being replaced with solid lines.
Grounds for refusal. The industrial designs applied for registration does not meet the provisions of the Article 7 of the Law on the Protection of Industrial Design No. 161/2007, because theirs significant features are identical with the features of the industrial designs from: No. 1 - EUIPO, (11) 008266308-0002, deposit date (00) 0000.00.00, publication date (00) 0000.00.00, owner: Xxxxx Xxxxxx, Richard-Xxxxxx-Xxx. 00, X-00000 Xxxxxxxx, ALEMANIA (DE); No. 2 - EUIPO, (11) 008266308-0001, deposit date (00) 0000.00.00, publication date (00) 0000.00.00, owner: Xxxxx Xxxxxx, Richard-Xxxxxx-Xxx. 00, X-00000 Xxxxxxxx, ALEMANIA (DE); (LAW of the Republic of Moldova on the Protection of Industrial Design No. 161/2007, Art. 26 (1) b))
(1) An individual design shall be considered novel if no identical industrial design has become publicly known within the meaning of Article 10: a) in the case of a registered industrial design – before the filing date of the application for registration or, if priority is being claimed, before the date of priority of the industrial design for which protection is requested; or b) in the case of an unregistered industrial design – before the date of first disclosure of the industrial design for which protection is requested.
(2) For the purposes of paragraph (1), industrial designs shall be deemed identical if their significant features differ only in non-essential details.
Art. 26. (1) A design shall be refused registration, or, if the design has been registered, the design right shall be declared invalid: b) if it does not fulfil the requirements of Articles 7-11.
Grounds for refusal. 1. The description does not fully disclose all the designs as required in Article 103(3) of the Intellectual Property Law of Viet Nam, since the description does not list all main appearance characteristics of the designs. This reason for refusal may be overcome by submitting a corrected version of description to replace the current description.
2. Design 1, Design 2 are not significantly different from the prior design disclosed on xxxxx://xxx.xxxxxx.xx/dp/B08JLHTXV7 on 21/9/2020. Therefore, the designs in the registration do not meet the requirement of novelty as provided in Article 63(1) of the Intellectual Property Law of Viet Nam and Article 35(7) of Circular No. 01/2007/TT-BKHCN.
3. The registration contains multiple industrial designs but there is not any statement indicating that they are variants or a set of products; thus, it does not meet the requirement on the uniformity of industrial property registration applications according to Article 101(1) and Article 101(3) of the Intellectual Property Law of Viet Nam. The designs in the registration are not significantly different from each other. Therefore, these designs should be claimed as variants. This reason for refusal may be overcome if the registration holder submits a notification, which shall indicate one of the designs as principle design and the other as variant.
4. The description includes the disclaimer (fig. 1.3 and fig. 2.3), therefore the claimed objects in the registration are not the whole articles. Thus, the subject matters contained in the registration are not circulated independently, therefore they are not the objects of protection as industrial designs as provided in Article 4(13) of the Intellectual Property Law of Viet Nam and in Article 33(2)(b) of Circular No. 01/2007/TT-BKHCN. This reason for refusal may be overcome if the registration holder submits a corrected version of description in which the disclaimer has been removed.
5. The reproductions include the broken lines (fig. 1.3 and fig. 2.3), therefore the claimed objects in the registration are not the whole articles. Thus, they are not the objects of protection as industrial designs as provided in Article 4(13) of the Intellectual Property Law of Viet Nam and in Article 33(2)(b) of Circular No. 01/2007/TT-BKHCN. This reason for refusal may be overcome if the registration holder submits a corrected set of reproductions with the broken lines being replaced with solid lines.
Grounds for refusal. Novelty - The registered design does not fulfill the requirement of Articles 56 of Industrial Property Code Articles of the national law applicable on the matter (see extracted law to the below):
Grounds for refusal. 1. The description does not fully disclose all the designs as required in Article 103(2)(a) of the Intellectual Property Law of Viet Nam, since the description does not point out all main appearance characteristics of the designs. This reason for refusal may be overcome by submitting a corrected version of description to replace the current one.
2. The registration contains different industrial designs which are not variants or a set of products, thus it does not meet the requirement on the uniformity of industrial property registration applications according to Article 101(1) and Article 101(3) of the Intellectual Property Law of Viet Nam. This reason for refusal may be overcome if the registration holder submits a declaration to separate the registration into different registrations in Viet Nam, each for one design. Each registration must have a separate description.
Grounds for refusal. The reproductions of the design do not include both side views. Therefore, the reproductions do not include all the required views of the design, thus they are not sufficient to disclose fully the design as required in Article 103(4) of the Intellectual Property Law of Viet Nam. This reason for refusal may be overcome by submitting the missing views. It must be noted that the new set of reproductions must not change the gist of the design.
