Abstract
This chapter provides a summary and an analysis of the 26 preceding chapters. What emerges is that the design and design protection history of each country is extremely diverse and complex—the result of a myriad of interconnected and multi-directional factors. It also reveals the connected and often complementary relationship of the two histories, not only for each country, but between countries, often as a result of government policies, trade, colonialism, immigration and globalization. Despite this complexity, it is possible to identify some themes that highlight a connection between the history of design and design law: the changing nature of design and the subject matter of design protection; modernism, technology, mass production and substantive protection requirements; nation building, government policy and design protection systems; the designer and their role in design protection. The chapter briefly examines regional and international influences in design history, before focusing on influences in design protection, including international instruments, cross-jurisdictional influences and responses to imitation cultures. The chapter also makes some key observations on the history of design protection, including on the subject matter of protection, the nature of rights, functional design, examination, substantive protection requirements, deferred publication and overlapping copyright and design protection. The final section considers the future of design and design protection.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
We sincerely thank Professor Minako Ikeda and Professor D.J. Huppatz for their feedback on an earlier draft of this chapter.
- 2.
See the list of references, and in some cases additional bibliographies, at the end of each chapter. For a recent discussion of IP history, see Alexander (2020).
- 3.
Sherman and Bently (2002 [1999]), p. 206.
- 4.
- 5.
See, e.g., Schovsbo and Teilmann-Lock (2016).
- 6.
- 7.
See, e.g., Chapter 21 (US).
- 8.
- 9.
- 10.
Alexander (2020), Chap. 13 (Kindle location 5804).
- 11.
- 12.
- 13.
- 14.
- 15.
- 16.
- 17.
- 18.
- 19.
Chapter 11 (Germany).
- 20.
See Chapter 21 (US).
- 21.
See Chapter 9 (UK).
- 22.
- 23.
- 24.
See, e.g., the discussion in Chapter 26 (Australia).
- 25.
- 26.
See, e.g., the section on ‘unfair and economic parasitical competition’ in Chapter 14 (France).
- 27.
- 28.
See discussion under ‘Overlapping Copyright and Design Protection’ below.
- 29.
- 30.
See, e.g., Chapter 16 (Italy).
- 31.
See, e.g., Ishōhō [Design Act], Act No. 125 of 13 Apr 1959, Art. 1; Directive 98/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 1998 on the legal protection of designs, (1998) OJ L 289/28 (EU Design Directive), Recital 14; Chapter 26 (Australia).
- 32.
- 33.
Reichsgericht [Reich Court of Justice], decision of 14 Jan 1933, Case No. I 149/32, published in GRUR (1933), 323 in Chapter 12 (Germany).
- 34.
Supreme Court of Italy, 7 July 1994, no. 10516, in Chapter 16 (Italy).
- 35.
For example, see Chapter 16 (Italy).
- 36.
See Chapter 10 (UK).
- 37.
- 38.
- 39.
- 40.
- 41.
- 42.
- 43.
See, e.g., Chapter 22 (US).
- 44.
See, e.g., Chapter 26 (Australia).
- 45.
See, e.g., Chapter 2 (Japan).
- 46.
- 47.
See, e.g., the discussion of D. Sebel & Co. Ltd v. National Art Metal Co. Pty Ltd (1965) 10 FLR 224 in Chapter 26 (Australia) and more recently Samsung Electronics (UK) Limited v Apple Inc. [2012] EWHC 1882 (Pat).
- 48.
- 49.
- 50.
- 51.
- 52.
See Chapter 19 (Russia) which includes other examples of US and USSR exchange.
- 53.
- 54.
- 55.
See, e.g., Chapter 11 (Germany); Chapter 13 (France); Chapter 15 (Italy); Chapter 17 (Scandinavia). Some chapters note how design has been present at some important political moments in history, including the Hans Wegner’s ‘Round Chair’ at the John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon televised US election debate in 1960 (see Chapter 17 (Scandinavia)); or the historic ‘Kitchen Debate’ between the then US Vice President Richard Nixon and the Soviet First Secretary Nikita Khrushchev (see Chapter 19 (Russia)).
- 56.
- 57.
- 58.
Such as the separation of Singapore from Malaysia in August 1965, and the mass withdrawal of British troops from Singapore in the late 1960s and early 1970s, see Chapter 7 (Singapore).
- 59.
- 60.
- 61.
- 62.
- 63.
- 64.
- 65.
- 66.
- 67.
- 68.
- 69.
- 70.
- 71.
- 72.
- 73.
- 74.
- 75.
- 76.
See, e.g., Hall (2021) and the role of women designers in Chapter 17 (Scandinavia); Chapter 21 (US); and Chapter 15 (Italy). See the mention of designers in Chapter 1 (Japan); Chapter 3 (South Korea); Chapter 5 (China); Chapter 7 (Singapore); Chapters 23 and 24 (Brazil); designers from diverse cultural backgrounds in Chapter 21 (US) and Chapter 25 (Australia) and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander designers in Chapter 25 (Australia).
- 77.
This varied across countries. For example, in the early nineteenth century, design and production was often undertaken by different people in England, whereas a French designer combined both roles: Chapter 10 (UK).
- 78.
- 79.
Chapter 21 (US).
- 80.
See Chapter 11 (Germany).
- 81.
- 82.
See the discussion of the ‘Mingei’ philosophy of Sōetsu Yanagi in Chapter 1 (Japan). Professor Almir Mirabeau da Fonseca Neto notes that design history often gives ‘more importance to a chair designed by a renowned architect than to packaging designed by an anonymous printer’ and questions how the importance of design is to measured: ‘can’t a poster designed by an anonymous person impact society as much as a project by a renowned architect?’: Chapter 23 (Brazil).
- 83.
Chapter 11 (Germany).
- 84.
- 85.
- 86.
- 87.
- 88.
- 89.
See, e.g., the discussion of Amp Inc v Utilux Pty Ltd [1971] FSR 572, [1972] RPC 103 (HL) in Chapter 10 (UK).
- 90.
See, e.g., EU Design Directive, Art. 5.
- 91.
See Chapter 2 (Japan).
- 92.
- 93.
- 94.
- 95.
- 96.
- 97.
- 98.
See Chapter 1 (Japan).
- 99.
For example, the influence of Japanese aesthetics on Scandinavian design, see Chapter 17 (Scandinavia).
- 100.
- 101.
- 102.
- 103.
- 104.
Chapter 25 (Australia).
- 105.
Chapter 23 (Brazil).
- 106.
- 107.
- 108.
- 109.
See Chapter 1 (Japan).
- 110.
Chapter 3 (South Korea).
- 111.
- 112.
- 113.
Huppatz (2015), p. 195. The history of some of these organisations also highlights the limits of Western modernist approaches to design and ‘diffusionist’ models of cross-cultural exchange—‘which assumes that the west continuously modernizes and innovates, in opposition with a ‘periphery’ perpetually condemned to catch up due to some primordial environmental, cultural or technological differences’—particularly in relation to industrial design and development. See, e.g., Messell (2019), p. 89. See also Chapter 23 (Brazil).
- 114.
Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property, 20 Mar 1883 (revised 14 July 1967), 828 U.N.T.S. 305 (Paris Convention); Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, 15 Apr 1994, Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, Annex 1C, 1869 U.N.T.S. 299, 33 I.L.M. 1197 (TRIPS Agreement).
- 115.
TRIPS Agreement, Art. 26(2).
- 116.
The Hague Agreement concerning the International Deposit of Industrial Designs, 6 Nov 1925 (revised 2 July 1999), 2279 U.N.T.S. 3 (Hague Agreement).
- 117.
Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, 9 Sept 1886 (revised 24 July 1971), 828 U.N.T.S. 221 (Berne Convention).
- 118.
See Chapter 2 (Japan).
- 119.
In particular, Japan referred to English law. See Chapter 2 (Japan).
- 120.
See Chapter 4 (South Korea).
- 121.
- 122.
See Chapter 22 (US).
- 123.
See Chapter 24 (Brazil).
- 124.
- 125.
However, the English and French laws at that time did not have a very similar system.
- 126.
See Derclaye (2018).
- 127.
- 128.
- 129.
EU Design Directive; COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 6/2002 of 12 December 2001 on Community designs, [2002] OJ L 3, 1-24 (EU Design Regulation).
- 130.
- 131.
See, e.g., Chapter 26 (Australia).
- 132.
See Chapter 14 (France).
- 133.
- 134.
- 135.
For example, the legal amendments to prevent the export of imitated designs in response to overseas criticism, see discussion of the Japanese Export Product Design Act of 1959 in Chapter 2 (Japan). See also Chapter 1 (Japan); Chapter 3 (South Korea); Chapters 5 and 6 (China); Chapter 8 (Singapore); Chapter 17 (Scandinavia).
- 136.
See, e.g., Chapter 2 (Japan).
- 137.
- 138.
See Chapter 14 (France).
- 139.
See Chapter 2 (Japan).
- 140.
- 141.
- 142.
See Chapter 4 (South Korea).
- 143.
- 144.
- 145.
- 146.
See, e.g., Chapter 14 (France). The Ordonnance of 1711 concerned the abus de confiance (breach of trust) of a competitor, which meant that it was, in fact, a relatively exclusive right, and the enforcement of the right was limited to competitors who imitated fabrics, etc.
- 147.
See Chapter 20 (Russia).
- 148.
Many jurisdictions provide for prior-user rights to balance the effect of such absolute protection. See e.g. Chapter 12 (Germany).
- 149.
- 150.
- 151.
Some countries such as Germany introduced Utility Model protection to bridge the gap between design subject matter and patentable subject matter.
- 152.
- 153.
See, e.g., Chapter 20 (Russia).
- 154.
See, e.g., Chapter 10 (UK) and Chapter 26 (Australia). Before 1998, in Japan, ‘aesthetic impression’ was used to exclude the registration of functional designs: Ishōhō [Design Act], Act No. 125 of 13 Apr 1959, Art. 2(1). The introduction of a new Art. 5(3) in 1998 that expressly excludes the registration of functional designs has meant that is no longer necessary to interpret 'aesthetic impression' in Art. 2(1) as excluding designs based solely on function.
- 155.
- 156.
- 157.
- 158.
See, e.g., Chapter 4 (South Korea).
- 159.
See Chapter 14 (France).
- 160.
- 161.
See, e.g., Chapter 26 (Australia).
- 162.
- 163.
See ‘Modernism, Technology, Mass Production and Substantive Protection Requirements’ above.
- 164.
See Chapter 14 (France).
- 165.
- 166.
- 167.
EU Design Regulation. This is based on a ‘Design Approach’. See Kur et al (2018).
- 168.
Even in Germany, where design law was understood to be similar to copyright law, the 1876 Design Act required novelty and originality (see Chapter 12 (Germany)).
- 169.
See Chapter 14 (France).
- 170.
See Chapter 2 (Japan).
- 171.
- 172.
See, e.g., Chapter 2 (Japan); Chapter 4 (South Korea); Chapter 12 (Germany); Chapter 14 (France); Chapter 24 (Brazil); Chapter 26 (Australia); EU Design Regulation. Under Art. 11 of the Hague Agreement, international publication may be delayed for 30 months from the filing date. The UK did have a secret design system (see Chapter 10 (UK)), but now registration (and therefore publication) can be deferred by up to 12 months from the filing date of the application. Therefore, it is a system that extends the period of secrecy by delaying registration. Australia is in the process of implementing a similar system. However, the period is only 6 months (see Chapter 26 (Australia)).
- 173.
See, e.g., Chapter 6 (China); Chapter 20 (Russia); Chapter 22 (US). However, it appears that in China it is possible to delay publication for up to three years from the filing date by requesting a delay in the examination. In Russia, it is possible to delay publication by deliberately triggering some action by the patent office, such as deliberately not fulfilling a formality requirement (a system of secrecy used to exist); and in the US, it is possible to delay publication of a gazette by suspending examination procedures.
- 174.
Derclaye (2018).
- 175.
See Chapter 14 (France) discussing the lobbying efforts for a revision of the Act of 1902. Unlike in other cases, requesting copyright protection was not motivated by a desire to obtain longer protection, as the 1806 Act allowed for permanent protection of designs.
- 176.
- 177.
This was due to the enactment of Law No. 48 of 1970 on the protection of ‘a work of artistic craftsmanship’.
- 178.
See Chapter 2 (Japan).
- 179.
See also Bently (2018), pp. 188–189.
- 180.
See Chapter 21 (US).
- 181.
See, e.g., discussion in Chapter 5 (China) on inclusive design and environmental design.
- 182.
- 183.
- 184.
- 185.
References
Alexander I (2020) The Challenges of Intellectual Property Legal History Research. In: Austin GW, Christie AF, Kenyon AT, Richardson M (eds) Across Intellectual Property: Essays in Honour of Sam Ricketson, Kindle edn. Cambridge University Press, New York
Bently L (2018) The Copyright/Design Conflict in the United Kingdom. In: Derclaye E (ed) The Copyright/Design Interface: Past, Present and Future. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 171–225
Commission of the European Communities (1991) Green Paper on the Legal Protection of Industrial Design. EC Commission Working Document, III/F/5131191-EN (Brussels, June 1991). Available via University of Pittsburgh, Archive of European Integration (AEI). http://aei.pitt.edu/1785/1/design_gp_1.pdf. Accessed 25 Oct 2021
Derclaye E (2018) The Copyright/Design Interface in Italy. In Derclaye (ed) The Copyright/Design Interface: Past, Present and Future. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 268–296
Hall J (2021) Woman Made: Great Women Designers. Phaidon, London and New York City
Huppatz DJ (2015) Globalizing Design History and Global Design History. J Des Hist 28(2):182–202
Kur A, Levin M, Schovsbo J (eds) (2018) The EU Design Approach. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton
Messell T (2019) Globalization and Design Institutionalization: ICSID’s XIth Congress and the Formation of ALADI, 1979. J Des Hist 32(1):88–104
Moran Uncle C, Harrington Uncle G, Sheehan NW (2018) On Country Learning. Des Cult 10(1):73
Pascoe B (2014) Dark Emu, Black Seeds: Agriculture or Accident. Magabala Books, Broome
Sherman B, Bently L (2002 [1999]) The Making of Modern Intellectual Property Law: The British Experience, 1760–1911. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Dobinson, J., Aso, T., Rademacher, C. (2022). History of Design and Design Law: Connections, Influences and Observations. In: Aso, T., Rademacher, C., Dobinson, J. (eds) History of Design and Design Law. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-8782-2_27
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-8782-2_27
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-16-8781-5
Online ISBN: 978-981-16-8782-2
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)