-
-
Services
-
-
27
2026-03
One Case a Day | China: Article 2 "New Design" Defense - Reexamination Decision No. 215711 (2020)
Case Introduction
Different from the situation of novelty, in cases where no prior art is cited, an industrial design is directly pointed out as not belonging to the "new design" stipulated in Article 2, which is an issue of subject matter. Different strategies and methods from those used for novelty should be employed to address this. The case shared today involves the understanding and handling of the relevant provisions of Article 2 of the Industrial Design Law. The typical significance of this case lies in the fact that even features from uncommon viewing angles should not be overlooked, and the focus should be on analyzing whether they are "commonplace." This differs significantly from the judgments of novelty/creativity and infringement comparisons.
Case Information
- Application Number: 2018304847571
- Invention Title: Round Table (RT-6130)
- Patentee: Suzhou Shijian Furniture Co., Ltd.
- Agency: Chuangyuan Patent
- Reexamination Decision Number: No. 215711
- Case Number: 3F102027
- Decision Date: June 18, 2020
Decision Points
A "commonplace" design usually refers to a design that is widely known to the public and comes to mind immediately upon mentioning a certain product. When determining whether an industrial design is commonplace, it is usually not necessary to consider whether it is an uncommon surface during use.
Case Points
The involved application protects a round table as shown in the figure below.
The rejection decision pointed out: The content represented by the views of this application constitutes an industrial design formed solely by geometric shapes and patterns that are commonplace in the field to which the product belongs. It does not comply with the provisions of Article 2, Paragraph 4 of the Patent Law and cannot be granted an industrial design patent right.
In response, the reexamination requester argued: The upper ends of the table legs extend upward to the circumferential edge of the tabletop, enclosing the outer edge of the tabletop; the connection between the upper ends of the three table legs is Y-shaped, used to support the lower bottom surface of the tabletop. The above shapes are not common in the field of this product.
The original examination department believed that, firstly, the connection part between the upper ends of the three table legs is located on the lower bottom surface of the tabletop, which is an uncommon surface. Additionally, the Y-shaped connection formed by the three legs is a conventional connection method in this field; the upward extension of the upper ends of the table legs to the circumferential edge of the tabletop is a commonplace arrangement in this field.
The reexamination decision pointed out:
Article 2, Paragraph 4 of the Patent Law stipulates: "Industrial design" refers to a new design of the shape, pattern, or their combination, or the combination of color with shape or pattern, of the whole or a part of a product, which is rich in aesthetic appeal and suitable for industrial application. (Editor's note: For ease of study, the provisions for partial industrial designs under the new Patent Law have been added.)
Article 7.4, Part I, Chapter 3 of the Patent Examination Guidelines stipulates the circumstances under which an industrial design patent right shall not be granted. The (9)th circumstance is: An industrial design formed solely by geometric shapes and patterns that are commonplace in the field to which the product belongs.
The collegial panel believes that a "commonplace" design usually refers to a design that is widely known to the public and comes to mind immediately upon mentioning a certain product.
The Y-shaped connection between the upper ends of the three table legs is not a structural design that is widely known to the public and comes to mind immediately upon mentioning a table.
Furthermore, the shape where the upper ends of the three table legs are arc-shaped and extend to the outer circumferential edge of the tabletop, enclosing it, is also not common in the field of tables.
From the application date views, it can also be seen that there is a groove around the table edge, echoing the arc-shaped table leg end faces that enclose the table edge.
Additionally, the collegial panel believes that when determining whether an industrial design is commonplace, it is usually not necessary to consider whether it is an uncommon surface during use.
In summary, the industrial design of this application does not belong to an industrial design that is commonplace in the field to which the product belongs. It complies with the provisions of Article 2, Paragraph 4 of the Patent Law regarding a new design.
undefined
Contact Us
No. 93, Ganjiang West Rd., Suzhou, 215002, P.R.C.
Business Area
Follow Us
