What changed

on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the legal protection of designs (recast)

TEXTS ADOPTED

DRAFT EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT LEGISLATIVE RESOLUTION

P9_TA(2024)0165

on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council onIndustrial theproperty: legal protection of designs (recast)

(COM(2022)0667 – C9395/2022 – 2022/0392(COD))

Committee on Legal Affairs

PE749.961

European Parliament legislative resolution of 14 March 2024 on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the legal protection of designs (recast) (COM(2022)0667 – C9-0395/2022 – 2022/0392(COD))

(Ordinary legislative procedure – recast)

– having regard to the Commission proposal to Parliament and the Council (COM(2022)0667),

– having regard to Article 294(2) and Article 114(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, pursuant to which the Commission submitted the proposal to Parliament (C9395/2022),(C90395/2022),

– having regard to Article 294(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

– having regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 28 November 2001 on a more structured use of the recasting technique for legal acts,

– having regard to the provisional agreement approved by the committee responsible under Rule 74(4) of its Rules of Procedure and the undertaking given by the Council representative by letter of 20 December 2023 to approve Parliament’s position, in accordance with Article 294(4) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

– having regard to Rules 110 and 59 of its Rules of Procedure,

3. Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the national parliaments.

Amendment 1

P9_TC1-COD(2022)0392

Proposal for a directive

Position of the European Parliament adopted at first reading on 14 March 2024 with a view to the adoption of Directive (EU) 2024/… of the European Parliament and of the Council on the legal protection of designs (recast)

Recital 1

(As an agreement was reached between Parliament and Council, Parliament's position corresponds to the final legislative act, Directive (EU) 2024/2823.)

Amendment 2

Proposal for a directive

Recital 3

Amendment 3

Proposal for a directive

Recital 5

Amendment 4

Proposal for a directive

Recital 6

Amendment 5

Proposal for a directive

Recital 7

Justification

These are the terms used in paragraph 32 of the European Parliament resolution of 11 November 2021 on an intellectual property action plan to support the EU’s recovery and resilience.

Amendment 6

Proposal for a directive

Recital 8

Amendment 7

Proposal for a directive

Recital 13

Amendment 8

Proposal for a directive

Recital 18

Justification

Linguistic clarification.

Amendment 9

Proposal for a directive

Recital 19

Amendment 10

Proposal for a directive

Recital 21

Justification

Often, designs are not mere design objects but are industrial products having a function. Design protection presents a major asset also for functional and technical products and should therefore enjoy protection.

Amendment 11

Proposal for a directive

Recital 27

Justification

This reference to legal certainty underlines the importance of exhaustively listing the substantive reasons for such non-registrability and invalidation.

Amendment 12

Proposal for a directive

Recital 28

Amendment 13

Proposal for a directive

Recital 29

Justification

It is worth noting that this concern to combat counterfeiting more effectively has been expressed by the European Parliament previously.

Amendment 14

Proposal for a directive

Recital 34

Amendment 15

Proposal for a Directive

Recital 35

Amendment 16

Proposal for a directive

Article 2 – point 5 a (new)

Amendment 17

Proposal for a directive

Article 19 – paragraph 1

Amendment 18

Proposal for a directive

Article 19 – paragraph 2

Amendment 19

Proposal for a directive

Article 19 – paragraph 3

Amendment 20

Proposal for a directive

Article 24

Amendment 21

Proposal for a directive

Article 31 – paragraph 1

Justification

A mandatory administrative system for invalidity would lead to an increase in workload and in public expenditure and investments in the National IP Offices, because (1) conflicts in the field of design are less than in the field of trademark, and putting the system into force would be useless and onerous; and (2) if the rightholder pays the renovation timely, the legal life of a trademark could last forever, while, the legal life of a design is restricted to maximum 25 years -yet designs are often protected from 5 to 10 years-.

EXPLANATORY STATEMENT

The Rapporteur takes a generally favourable view of the Commission’s proposal, which repeals and replaces the existing Directive 98/71/EC. It has the merit of adapting design protection to the evolution of digital technologies, in particular the appearance of 3D printers. It also seeks to further align national laws in order to enhance their interoperability and complementarity with the Community design system. Finally, it aims to complete the single market in repair spare parts by introducing a repair clause into the Directive as already contained in the Regulation.

The proposed changes are guided by two general objectives: enhancing legal certainty and reiterating positions previously expressed by the European Parliament. The most important concern the replacement of the concept of ‘origin’ of the product, which is too vague, with the concept of ‘identity of the manufacturer’ of the product (Nos 8 and 14), and the relaxation of the ten-year period for the application of the repair clause to designs for which registration was sought before the entry into force of the new Directive, which was considered excessively rigid (No 15).

MINORITY POSITION

24/10/2023

Rule 55(4) of Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament

As pro-European and democratic political group, committed to the improvement and modernisation of the EU legal framework on industrial design protection, Renew Europe fully supports the revision of the Regulation on Community designs introduced by the European Commission and amended by Members of this Parliament.

For this reason, our political group will support the legislative report attributed to Mr LEBRETON from ID Group. Nevertheless, our support can in no way link us to this political group and the Eurosceptic positions it conveys, which we firmly oppose.

ANNEX: OPINION OF THE CONSULTATIVE WORKING PARTY OF THE LEGAL SERVICES OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL AND THE COMMISSION

Brussels, 23 June 2023

OPINION

FOR THE ATTENTION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

THE COUNCIL

THE COMMISSION

Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the legal protection of designs (recast)

COM(2022)667 final of 28.11.2022 – 2022/0392(COD)

Having regard to the Inter-institutional Agreement of 28 November 2001 on a more structured use of the recasting technique for legal acts, and in particular to point 9 thereof, the Consultative Working Party consisting of the respective legal services of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission met on 12 May 2023 for the purpose of examining the aforementioned proposal submitted by the Commission.

At that meeting, an examination of the proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council recasting Directive 98/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 1998 on the legal protection of designs resulted in the Consultative Working Party’s establishing, by common accord, that the following should have been marked with the grey-shaded type generally used for identifying substantive amendments:

- the entire text of recital 6 of Directive 98/71/EC;

- in Article 23, the deletion of the words ‘of that State’.

In consequence, examination of the proposal has enabled the Consultative Working Party to conclude, without dissent, that the proposal does not comprise any substantive amendments other than those identified as such. The Working Party also concluded, as regards the codification of the unchanged provisions of the earlier act with those substantive amendments, that the proposal contains a straightforward codification of the existing legal text, without any change in its substance.

F. DREXLER E. FINNEGAN D. CALLEJA CRESPO

Jurisconsult Jurisconsult Director-General

PROCEDURE – COMMITTEE RESPONSIBLE

FINAL VOTE BY ROLL CALL IN COMMITTEE RESPONSIBLE