![\"\"](\"https:\/\/inprojournal.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/018-cover-734x1024.jpg\")
<\/figure>\n\n\n\nTheory and practice of intellectual property
\u2116 1 \/ 2021<\/p>\n\n\n\n
ISSN (Print) 2308-0361
ISSN (Online) 2519-2744<\/p>\n\n\n\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/test.inprojournal.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/01\/free-icon-pdf-201153.png\"){kind=icon}
PDF (Ukrainian)<\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\nDOI: https:\/\/doi.org\/10.33731\/12021.234183<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n Published \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a02021-02-01<\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n Some aspects of establishing the conformity of an industrial design to the criteria for protection<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Oleksandr Doroshenko<\/strong> Liudmyla Rabotiahova<\/strong> Abstract Keywords: <\/strong>registered industrial designs, novelty, individual character, administrative procedure, invalidity<\/p>\n\n\n\n References<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n \u041f\u0440\u0430\u0432\u043e\u0432\u0435 \u0437\u0430\u0431\u0435\u0437\u043f\u0435\u0447\u0435\u043d\u043d\u044f \u0441\u0444\u0435\u0440\u0438 \u0456\u043d\u0442\u0435\u043b\u0435\u043a\u0442\u0443\u0430\u043b\u044c\u043d\u043e\u0457 \u0432\u043b\u0430\u0441\u043d\u043e\u0441\u0442\u0456 \u0432 \u0423\u043a\u0440\u0430\u0457\u043d\u0456 \u0432 \u043a\u043e\u043d\u0442\u0435\u043a\u0441\u0442\u0456 \u0404\u0432\u0440\u043e\u043f\u0435\u0439\u0441\u044c\u043a\u043e\u0457 \u0456\u043d\u0442\u0435\u0433\u0440\u0430\u0446\u0456\u0457: \u043a\u043e\u043d\u0446\u0435\u043f\u0442\u0443\u0430\u043b\u044c\u043d\u0456 \u0437\u0430\u0441\u0430\u0434\u0438 : \u043c\u043e\u043d\u043e\u0433\u0440\u0430\u0444\u0456\u044f \/ \u0437\u0430 \u043d\u0430\u0443\u043a. \u0440\u0435\u0434. \u041e. \u041f. \u041e\u0440\u043b\u044e\u043a : \u043a\u043e\u043b. \u0430\u0432\u0442\u043e\u0440\u0456\u0432 : \u0412. \u0421. \u0414\u0440\u043e\u0431\u2019\u044f\u0437\u043a\u043e, \u0410. \u0412. \u041c\u0456\u043d\u0434\u0440\u0443\u043b, \u041e.\u2008\u041e.\u2008\u0422\u0432\u0435\u0440\u0435\u0437\u0435\u043d\u043a\u043e \u0442\u0430 \u0456\u043d. \u041a\u0438\u0457\u0432 : \u041b\u0430\u0437\u0443\u0440\u0438\u0442-\u041f\u043e\u043b\u0456\u0433\u0440\u0430\u0444, 2010. 464 \u0441.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u0420\u0443\u043a\u043e\u0432\u043e\u0434\u0441\u0442\u0432\u043e \u043f\u043e \u043c\u0435\u0442\u043e\u0434\u0438\u043a\u0435 \u044d\u043a\u0441\u043f\u0435\u0440\u0442\u0438\u0437\u044b \u0437\u0430\u044f\u0432\u043e\u043a \u043d\u0430 \u043f\u0440\u043e\u043c\u044b\u0448\u043b\u0435\u043d\u043d\u044b\u0435 \u043e\u0431\u0440\u0430\u0437\u0446\u044b : \u0418\u043d\u0441\u0442\u0440\u0443\u043a\u0442\u0438\u0432\u043d\u043e-\u043c\u0435\u0442\u043e\u0434\u0438\u0447\u0435\u0441\u043a\u0438\u0435 \u043c\u0430\u0442\u0435\u0440\u0438\u0430\u043b\u044b. \u041c\u043e\u0441\u043a\u0432\u0430. \u0412\u041d\u0418\u0418\u041f\u0418, 1989. 124 \u0441.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Examination of design invalidity applications. Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 13 June 2017, Case number T-9\/15 Dosen [f\u00fcr Getr\u00e4nke], 13.06.2017, \u043f. 87. \u0410\u043b\u0435\u043a\u0441\u0435\u0435\u0432\u0430 \u041e. \u0418\u043d\u0434\u0438\u0432\u0438\u0434\u0443\u0430\u043b\u044c\u043d\u044b\u0439 \u0445\u0430\u0440\u0430\u043a\u0442\u0435\u0440 \u0438 \u043e\u0440\u0438\u0433\u0438\u043d\u0430\u043b\u044c\u043d\u043e\u0441\u0442\u044c \u043a\u0430\u043a \u0443\u0441\u043b\u043e\u0432\u0438\u044f \u043e\u0445\u0440\u0430\u043d\u043e\u0441\u043f\u043e\u0441\u043e\u0431\u043d\u043e\u0441\u0442\u0438 \u043f\u0440\u043e\u043c\u044b\u0448\u043b\u0435\u043d\u043d\u044b\u0445 \u043e\u0431\u0440\u0430\u0437\u0446\u043e\u0432 \u0432 \u0415\u0421 \u0438 \u0420\u043e\u0441\u0441\u0438\u0438. \u0418\u043d\u0442\u0435\u043b\u043b\u0435\u043a\u0442\u0443\u0430\u043b\u044c\u043d\u0430\u044f \u0441\u043e\u0431\u0441\u0442\u0432\u0435\u043d\u043d\u043e\u0441\u0442\u044c. \u041f\u0440\u043e\u043c\u044b\u0448\u043b\u0435\u043d\u043d\u0430\u044f \u0441\u043e\u0431\u0441\u0442\u0432\u0435\u043d\u043d\u043e\u0441\u0442\u044c. 2006. \u2116 1. \u0421. 11\u221222.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Common Communication on Criteria for assessing disclosure of designs on the internet \/ EUIPN, april 2020. Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 21 September 2017, Case number C-361\/15P Shower drains, 21.09.2017. Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 22 June 2010, Case number T-153\/08 Communications equipment, 22.06.2010, \u043f. 23-24. Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 6 June 2013, Case number T-68\/11 Watch-dials, 06.06.2013, \u043f. 58. Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 9 September 2011, Case number T-10\/08 Internal combustion engine, 09.09.2011, \u043f. 24. Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 20 October 2011, Case number C-281\/10P Metal rappers, 20.10.2011, \u043f. 54. Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber), 13 November 2012, Case number T-83\/11 Radiatori per riscaldamento, 13.11.2012. Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber), 13 November 2012, Case number T-83\/11 Radiatori per riscaldamento, 13.11.2012. Case number T-84\/11 Radiatori per riscaldamento, \u043f. 44. Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of 10 October 2014, Case number R 1272\/2013-3 Radiatori per riscaldamento 10.10.2014, \u043f. 36, 47, 51. Judgment Of The General Court (Fifth Chamber), 18 March 2010, Case number T-9\/07 Metal rappers, 18.03.2010, \u043f.\u200856. Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber), 21 November 2013Case number T-337\/12 Sacacorchos, 21.11.2013, \u043f. 45-46. Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 21 May 2015, Case number T-22\/13 & T-23\/13, UMBRELLAS, 21.05.2015 \u043f. 97. Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of 28 November 2006, Case number R 1310\/2005-3 Galletas, 28.11.2006, \u043f. 13. Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of 30 July 2009, Case number R 1734\/2008-3 FORCHETTE, 30.07.2009, \u043f. 26.![\"\"](\"https:\/\/inprojournal.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/CC-2.png\")
<\/figure>\n\n\n\n
Ukraine
https:\/\/orcid.org\/0000-0002-2542-2328<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n
Ukraine
https:\/\/orcid.org\/0000-0002-5450-1607<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/strong>The new edition of the Law of Ukraine \u00abOn the Protection of Rights to Industrial Designs\u00bb No. 3770-XII, adopted on October 14, 2020, introduced significant changes to the regulation of the legal protection of industrial designs. The basic norms of the law were harmonized with the articles 212\u2212217 Chapter 9 \u00abIntellectual Property\u00bb of the Association Agreement between Ukraine, on the one hand, and the European Union, the European Atomic Energy Community and their Member States, on the other hand. The concepts of \u00abindividual character\u00bb, \u00abthe overall impression\u00bb, \u00abthe informed user\u00bb and \u00abthe degree of freedom of the designer\u00bb, \u00abthe circles specializing in the relevant industry\u00bb have been introduced into the sphere of legal protection. These concepts were not previously used in the legislation of Ukraine. The article analyzes the content of these concepts on the basis of European law enforcement practice, Decision of the European Union Intellectual Property Office Board of Appeal, Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union \u0438 Judgment of the General Court of the European Union. In accordance with the new edition of the Law, an industrial design can be declared invalid in an administrative procedure. Authors reviewed the administrative procedure for establishing the conformity of a registered industrial design to the criteria for protection (a novelty and an individual character). A registered industrial design shall be considered to be new, if no identical design has been previously disclosed to the public and to have an individual character if the overall impression it produces on the informed user differs from the overall impression produced on such a user by any previously disclosed design. A design shall be deemed to have been made available to the public (i) if it has been published following registration or otherwise, or exhibited, used in trade or otherwise disclosed, (ii) except where these events could not reasonably have become known in the normal course of business to the circles specializing in the relevant industry in Ukraine. Authors analyzed this two-step test. Particular attention was paid to the disclosure of industrial designs as a trade mark, copyright work, patent, utility model or otherwise on the Internet. Criteria for assessing disclosure of designs on the internet considered.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
https:\/\/guidelines.euipo.europa.eu\/1803372\/1786993\/designs-guidelines\/examination-of-design-invalidity-applications<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n
https:\/\/euipo.europa.eu\/eSearchCLW\/#basic\/*\/\/\/number\/9%2F15<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n
https:\/\/euipo.europa.eu\/tunnel-web\/secure\/webdav\/guest\/document_library\/News\/cp10\/CP10_en.pdf<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n
https:\/\/euipo.europa.eu\/eSearchCLW\/#basic\/*\/\/\/number\/361%2F15\u0456 C-<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n
https:\/\/euipo.europa.eu\/eSearchCLW\/#basic\/*\/\/\/number\/153%2F08<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n
https:\/\/euipo.europa.eu\/eSearchCLW\/#basic\/*\/\/\/number\/68%2F11<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n
https:\/\/euipo.europa.eu\/eSearchCLW\/#basic\/*\/\/\/number\/10%2F08<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n
https:\/\/euipo.europa.eu\/eSearchCLW\/#basic\/*\/\/\/number\/281%2F10<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n
https:\/\/euipo.europa.eu\/eSearchCLW\/#basic\/*\/\/\/number\/83%2F11<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n
https:\/\/euipo.europa.eu\/eSearchCLW\/#basic\/*\/\/\/number\/83%2F11<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n
https:\/\/euipo.europa.eu\/eSearchCLW\/#basic\/*\/\/\/number\/84%2F11<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n
https:\/\/euipo.europa.eu\/eSearchCLW\/#basic\/*\/\/\/number\/1272%2F2013-3<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n
https:\/\/euipo.europa.eu\/eSearchCLW\/#basic\/*\/\/\/number\/T-9%2F07<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n
https:\/\/euipo.europa.eu\/eSearchCLW\/#basic\/*\/\/\/number\/337%2F12<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n
https:\/\/euipo.europa.eu\/eSearchCLW\/#basic\/*\/\/\/number\/22%2F13<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n
https:\/\/euipo.europa.eu\/eSearchCLW\/#basic\/*\/\/\/number\/1310%2F2005-3<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n
https:\/\/euipo.europa.eu\/eSearchCLW\/#basic\/*\/\/\/number\/1734%2F2008-3<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n