Hylly
Henkilönnimi
Nimeke- ja vastuullisuusmerkintö Differences in immaterial details : dimensional conversion and its implications for protecting digital design s under EU Design Law
Julkaistu
Ulkoasutiedot
Sarjamerkintö ei-lisäkirjausmuodossa IIC : International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law , ISSN 0018-9855 ; 52(2)
Huomautus sisällöstä The paper considers three main questions: the legal status of digital design s from the perspective of EU design law , whether the protection is tied to the reproduction of physical products, and whether the scope of protection covers dimensional conversion such as using a 3D design in 2D form or vice versa. There are two sets of views regarding dimensional conversion: the “abstract” and the “concrete” view. These two different attitudes towards the scope of protection influence the manner in which the protectability of digital design s is assessed. In the “abstract” protection, it would not matter whether a product only exists as a digital image and not as a physical shape. In the “concrete” view, the protection of digital design s is more problematic, as the scope of protection is often tied to the reproduction of an actual physical product. The paper argues that, under CJEU jurisprudence and EUIPO practice, most of the open questions regarding the protection of digital design s and dimensional conversion can be considered as solved. The CJEU has chosen “abstract” protection over “concrete”, thus broadening the scope of protection at the EU level. This means that the digital use of non-digital design s can now be seen as infringing. As a consequence, in the future, right holders should put more care into evaluating the limitations and exceptions. The paper points this out with regard to the issues that are of relevance for the gaming industry, as this is where the use of digital design s is most versatile and relevant.
Asiasana
Asiasana - Kontrolloimaton
Sarjalisäkirjaus - yhtenäistetty nimeke IIC : International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law , 0018-9855 ; 52(2)
Elektronisen aineiston sijainti ja käyttö (URI) https://doi.org/10.1007/s40319-020-01010-0 Linkki verkkoaineistoon
*000 ab a ar
*00115149
*008 s2021||||gw |||||||||||||||||eng||
*041 $aeng
*1001 $aAntikainen, Mikko.
*24510$aDifferences in immaterial details :$bdimensional conversion and its implications for protecting digital design s under EU Design Law /$cMikko Antikainen
*260 $c2021
*300 $as. 137–168.
*4901 $aIIC : International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law ,$x0018-9855 ;$v52(2)
*505 $aThe paper considers three main questions: the legal status of digital design s from the perspective of EU design law , whether the protection is tied to the reproduction of physical products, and whether the scope of protection covers dimensional conversion such as using a 3D design in 2D form or vice versa. There are two sets of views regarding dimensional conversion: the “abstract” and the “concrete” view. These two different attitudes towards the scope of protection influence the manner in which the protectability of digital design s is assessed. In the “abstract” protection, it would not matter whether a product only exists as a digital image and not as a physical shape. In the “concrete” view, the protection of digital design s is more problematic, as the scope of protection is often tied to the reproduction of an actual physical product. The paper argues that, under CJEU jurisprudence and EUIPO practice, most of the open questions regarding the protection of digital design s and dimensional conversion can be considered as solved. The CJEU has chosen “abstract” protection over “concrete”, thus broadening the scope of protection at the EU level. This means that the digital use of non-digital design s can now be seen as infringing. As a consequence, in the future, right holders should put more care into evaluating the limitations and exceptions. The paper points this out with regard to the issues that are of relevance for the gaming industry, as this is where the use of digital design s is most versatile and relevant.
*650 $avideopelit$0http://www.yso.fi/onto/yso/p17281$2yso/fin
*650 $atekijänoikeus$0http://www.yso.fi/onto/yso/p2346$2yso/fin
*650 $apelisuunnittelu$0http://www.yso.fi/onto/yso/p27380$2yso/fin
*653 $adigital design s
*653 $aEU design law
*830 $aIIC : International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law ,$x0018-9855 ;$v52(2)
*852 $hSA-IIC
*85640$uhttps://doi.org/10.1007/s40319-020-01010-0$yLinkki verkkoaineistoon
^
Tästä teoksesta ei ole arvioita.
Näpäytä
kun haluat kirjoittaa ensimmäisen arvion.