Report on the Appropriateness of Legislation Protecting Functional Objects


REPORTONTHEAPPROPRIATENESSOFLEGISLATIONPROTECTIONGFUNCTIONAL
OBJECTS

by
HuguesG.Richardetal.*

LEGERROBICRICHARD,Lawyers,
ROBIC,Patent&TrademarkAgents
CentreCDPCapital
1001Square-Victoria-BlocE–8
thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.(514)9876242-Fax(514)8457874
www.robic.ca-info@robic.com

ABSTRACT

ThisReportexaminesthequestionastowhetheritisappropriatethatCanada
adoptlegislationfortheprotectionoftheshapeanddesignofobjectsthat
arelargelyifnotentirelyfunctionalbutdonothavethenecessaryattributes
astopatentability.ItistherecommendationoftheauthorsofthisReport
that,inviewofthelackofspecifictreatyobligations,thelackofan
internationalconsensusandinviewofthelackofanycleardemandfromthe
businesscommunity,thereisnoneedforCanada,atpresent,tomoveto
adoptsuchlegislation.
TABLEOFCONTENTS

A.THEQUESTION
B.INTRODUCTION
C.HISTORYOFCANADIANJURISPRUDENCE
D.1988AMENDMENTSTOTHECANADIANCOPYRIGHTACT
E.OVERLAPINCANADIANLEGISLATION
F.LEGISLATIVEEXPERIENCEINOTHERCOUNTRIES
1.INGENERAL
2.REGISTEREDDESIGN
3.UTILITYMODEL
I.GERMANY

*
©1991.
Lawyerandtrademarkagent,HuguesG.RichardisaseniorpartnerinthelawfirmLEGER
ROBICRICHARD,g.p.andinthepatentandtrademarkagencyfirmROBIC,g.p.Co-Author
RogerT.Hughes,Q.C.iswiththeTorontofirmSimMcBurney.Thismaterialwasdesignedfor
thepurposeofareportpreparedinMay1991fortheCCAContheappropriatenessof
Canadatoadoptlegislationfortheprotectionoftheshapeanddesignoffunctional
objects:thisisonlypartofthereportsubmittedtotheDepartmentofConsumersand
CorporateAffairsofCanada.Itwasmeantfordiscussionanddoesnotnecessarily
conclusivelystatetheopinionoftheauthororthemembersofhisfirmonthesubjectmatter.
Publiation168


(i)NatureandScopeofProtection
(ii)Duration
(iii)InfringementandRemedies
II.JAPAN
(i)ScopeofProtection
(ii)TermofProtectionandMarking
(iii)InfringementandRemedies
4.UNREGISTEREDDESIGNRIGHT
5.REGISTEREDFUNCTIONALDESIGN
6.MIXTUREOFREGISTEREDANDUNREGISTERED
DESIGNRIGHTS
G.COMMONLAW-UNFAIRCOMPETITION
H.CONSIDERATIONSASTOLEGISLATION
1.LEGALISSUES
2.IMPLICATIONSARISINGFROMTREATIESAND
INTERNATIONALCONVENTIONS
3.PROPOSEDTREATIES
4.THECANADIANCONSTITUTION
5.ARGUMENTSPROANDCON
A.INFAVOUR
B.AGAINST
I.RECOMMENDATIONS
ANNEXES(boundseparately)
ISLEGISLATIONPROTECTIONFORFUNCTIONALOBJECTSAPPROPRIATEFOR
CANADA
A.THEQUESTION
TheauthorsofthisreporthavebeenaskedbyConsumerandCorporate
AffairsCanadatosurveythehistoryoflegislationandjurisprudencein
CanadaandelsewhereandpresentthisReportgivingrecommendationsas
towhetheritisappropriatethatCanadaadoptlegislationfortheprotection
oftheshapeanddesignofobjectsthatarelargely,ifnotentirely,functional
butdonothavethenecessaryattributesforpatentability,and,ifso,what
legislationmaybeappropriate.
B.INTRODUCTION
Industrializednationshavetraditionallyfoughtforabalancebetween
encouragementandrewardforthosewhoinnovate,andthefreeavailability
ofuptodateproductsattheleastcosttoconsumers.Thepublicreadily
concedesthatgreatartists,suchassculptors,shouldbeprotectedfora
reasonableperiodagainstunauthorizedcopying;thepublicsimilarly
concedesthatcreatorsofnewdevicessuchascomputers,shouldbe


encouraged.Ontheotherhand,thepublicalsodemandsthatcommodities
suchasnailsandlampbulbsbecheap,readilyavailableand
interchangeable,incompetitiveeconomicconditions.
Thecontroversyexistsbetweentheextremes;forinstance,mustan
automobileownerreturntothemanufacturer’srepresentativeforanew
muffler,oranewfender?Partsmustnotonlyfit,theymustalsofunctionand
“lookright”.CananyonemakeafenderforanewChevrolet,oronlythe
designerorthedesigner’semployerGeneralMotors?
CountriesintheforefrontofindustrialtechnologysuchasGermany,the
UnitedKingdomandJapanhavecreatedsubstantiallawsinareassuchas
patent,UtilityModel,designlaw,copyright,andcomputerchiplegislation,all
designedtogivesignificantmonopoliestocreatorsandinnovators.Other
countrieshavesignificantcopyingindustriesengagedinthemanufactureof
unauthorizedreplacementpartsforvehicles,”lookalike”fashionitemssuchas
watches.Someofthesecountriesdohavelegislationthatis,intheory,like
thatoftheforefrontcountriesbutenforcementofsuchlegislationisindifferent
ifnotimpossible.
Canadahastendedtofollowtheleadofforefrontcountries.Ithas,for
instance,maderecentchangestoitspatentlawstoconformtotheleading
Europeanandinternationalstandards.Changeshavebeenmadeto
Canada’scopyrightlawstodealwithissuessuchas”moralrights”forauthors,
andtheadministrationofcopyrightroyaltiesassociatedwithcabletelevision.
OnesignificantchangetoCanada’scopyrightlawinJune1988wasthe
removalofcopyrightprotection(ifindeedthereeverwassuchprotection)for
functionalthreedimensionalobjectsintendedforvolumemanufacturer.This
latterchangehasgivenrisetothequestiontobeaddressedinthisreport.
Canadahas,historically,adoptedaverytraditionalapproachtothe
legislativeprotectionofwhatiscommonlyreferredtoas”industrialproperty”
rights,thatispatentswhichgranttotheowneramonopolyofuptotwenty
yearsfromthefilingofapatentapplicationforaninventionwhichisanew
usefulandinventiveproduct,machineorprocess;industrialdesignswhich
grantamonopolyofuptotenyearstotheproprietorofanewornamental
designwhichisappliedtoaproduct;copyrightwhichgrantsamonopolyof
fiftyyearsandmoretotheauthorofanoriginalartisticworkthatisnot
intendedforproductioninvolumeand;trade-markswhichprovideprotection
foranindefinitetermtolabelsandpackagingwhichhaveacquireda
characterthatisrecognizedasuniqueanddistinguishingtheproductor
serviceofaparticularpersonororganization.
Apatentisgenerallyconsideredtobeinvolvingsomethingthatisan
“invention”;anindustrialdesignhasmoretodo,inthiscontext,witheye
appealthantechnologyandis”ornamental”innature;copyrightrelatestoa


workwhichis”original”andsometimes”artistic”;trade-markrightsarecreated
byuseinthemarketplaceandhavetodowithlogos,words,orpackagingor
shapeofanobjectthatmakeitdistinguishablefromproductsfromother
sources.
Theproblemarisessincethelinesbetweenwhatis”inventive”or”ornamental”
or”original”or”artistic”or”distinctive”haveneverbeenwelldefined,nor
capableofexactdescriptionorapplicationinpractice.Mostobjectspossess
manyofeachofthesecharacteristicsandcan,andhaveonoccasion,been
arguedarguedtopossesswhichevercharacteristicorgroupof
characteristics,thatsuitsthepurposesoftheproponent.Asaresult,wehave
seenaseriesofconfusingandofteninconsistentdecisionsbytheCourtsas
wellaslegislativeattemptsatclarificationnotonlyinCanadabutalsoin
manyotherindustrializedcountrywheresimilarproblemshavearisen.
C.HISTORYOFCANADIANJURISPRUDENCE
SinceamendmentsweremadetotheCanadianCopyrightActRSC1985c.
C-42,sections64and64.1,(acopyofthesesectionsisattached)thereisno
copyrightprotectionaffordedtotheshapeordesignofobjectsthatare
functional;whereprotectionissoughtforornamentalfeatures,registration
undertheIndustrialDesignActRSC1985,c.I-9,(copyattached)canbe
obtained.Thehistoryleadingtothispresentsituationisconsiderably
intertwinedwiththeUnitedKingdomexperience,requiringthereforeacloser
lookatwhathashappenedintheUnitedKingdom.
ThehistoryofcopyrightprotectionintheUnitedKingdom,particularlyin
artisticworks,cameaboutinaratherpiecemealfashion.Protectionwasfirst
extendedintwoactsofGeorgeIII(54GeoIIIc.56and38GeoIIIc.71)which
providedlimitedprotectionfornewmodelsofcastsandbusts.In1839(2Vict.
c.17)anActwaspassedtogivetoproprietorsofdesignsofarticlesalimited
periodofmonopoly.OtherActswerepassedtogiveprotectionforpaintings,
printedmaterialsandsoforthbutitwasnotuntil1911thataconsolidated
CopyrightActwaspassedembracingall”copyright”matters(1&2GeoV,c.
46).Atalmostthesametime,1907,thePatentsandDesignsAct(7Edw.VII,c.
29)wasenactedsothatpersonswhohadcreateddesignsformanufactured
articleswhich”appealedtoandarejudgesolelybytheeye”couldregister
suchdesignifproducedbyanindustrialprocess.Itwasalmostinevitablethat
apatternormodelwouldhavetobecreatedbutwouldbeconsideredasan
artisticworktherebyattractingcopyrightprotection(e.g.Millerv.Polak[1908]
1Ch433).ThustheCopyrightActof1911providedthatcopyrightprotection
didnotextendtodesigns”capableofbeingregistered”asindustrialdesigns
andprovidingaseriesofrulesforsuchcapabilitysuchasthemakingofover
50copies.


TheCanadianCopyrightActpassedin1924isessentiallythesameasthe
UnitedKingdomActof1911.TheprovisionsrespectingCanadianIndustrial
Designsareessentiallythesameaswell.Canadaamendedtheseprovisions
inJune1988.TheUnitedKingdomActwasfirstamendedinthatregardin
1956andagainin1988tocorrectaratherpeculiarcourseofjudicial
interpretationthathadbeengiventothoseUnitedKingdomstatutes.
Underthe1911Act,theUnitedKingdomCourtsdidrecognizesomeformof
copyrightprotectioninthreedimensionalarticles;aleadingcaseisKing
Featuresv.Kleeman[1941]AC417wheretheHouseofLordsheldthata
broachintheformofthepopular”Popeye”cartooncharacterinfringed
copyrightinthedrawingofthecharacter.
In1956theUnitedKingdomCopyrightAct(4&5Eliz.II,c.74)wasamendedso
astoprovidethatcopyrightwouldsubsistindrawingsirrespectiveoftheir
artisticmerit(s.3(1)(a)).Threedimensionalreproductionsofthosedrawings
wouldinfringethecopyright(s.9(8))eventhoughthosethreedimensional
worksthemselveswerenotcapableofcopyrightprotection(s.3(1)(a)).These
provisionswereconsideredbytheEnglishCourtofAppealinDorlingv.Honnor
[1965]Ch1,acasedealingwithwhetheracopyrightexistedinplansfora
boatdesign.Thecourtheldthatwherethedesignofanarticlewasnot
“registrable”undertheRegisteredDesignActasbeingfunctionalratherthan
ornamental,itstillenjoyedcopyrightprotection.
In1968therewasimplementedintheUnitedKingdomaDesignCopyrightAct
(copyattached)whichwouldprovidecopyrightprotectiontoregisteredor
registrabledesignsforaperiodof15years,thesametermasaregistered
IndustrialDesign.ItwasseenthatregistrationasIndustrialDesignforarticles
thathad”appealtotheeye”wouldbegivenprotectionforonly15years.On
theotherhand,copyrightofferedtheprotection,withoutneedinganyform
ofregistration,for50yearsandmore,providedthereexistedadrawingof
whichthethreedimensionalobjectcould,toa”non-expert”,appeartobea
copy.
AseriesofcasesintheUnitedKingdomCourtsfollowedinwhichdesignsthat
couldnotberegisteredundertheDesignsActwereentitledtocopyright
protectionfor50years.AnexampleisInterlegoAGv.TycoIndustries[1988]3
WLR678,acaseinthePrivyCouncilwhereitwasarguedthatthepopular
“Lego”toyblockswerenotregistrableasdesignshenceenjoyedcopyright
protection.AhighwaterpointwasreachedinLB(Plastic)Ltd.v.Swish
ProductsLtd.[1979]RPC591,adecisionoftheHouseofLordsdealingwith
knockdownplasticdrawersfamiliartothosemaking”Ikea”furniture.There
wasneveranoriginaldrawingofthedrawers,thoughonewaslatercreated,
andthedrawerswerenotparticularlydifferentfromsimilartypespreviously


madeandsoldbyothers.TheCourtnonethelessheldthatthedrawerswere
entitledtocopyrightanddrawerscopiedfromthesedrawersinfringedthat
copyright.
ThelatestcasedecidedintheHouseofLordsinBritishLeylandCorp.v.
ArmstrongPatentsCo.Ltd.,[1986]AC577,triedtocometogripswiththe
incongruitiesraisedbythedecisions.Thiscaseinvolvedreplacement
automotiveexhaustsystems.Theautomobilemanufacturerarguedthat
independentmufflershapesinfringedthemanufacturer’scopyrightinthe
exhaustsystembyprovidingthecustomerwithreplacementparts.TheHouse
ofLordshaddifficultybackingofffromtheLB(Plastic)Ltd.v.SwishProducts
decisionwheretheyhadrecentlydecidedthatcopyrightdidexistbut
insteadcreatedthedoctrinethatanautomobileownerhasan”inherentright
torepair”whichsupersededanycopyright.Therewereverydifferentjudicial
opinionsgivenintheHouseofLords,foroneLordScarmansaidatpage613:
“thiscaseillustratesthat…nothinglessthananoverhaulofsomeofthe
principlesofthemodernextendedlawisnecessary.Judicialdecision
hasextendedcopyrightprotectiontoindustrialdrawingsofpurely
functionalobjects…Thustherehasarisentheanomalythatineffect…
amanufacturercanachieveinrespectofsuchobjects…amore
enduringmonopolythanwouldhavebeenavailableiftheobjecthad
beenwhichitisnot,patentable…oritsdesignhadbeenregistrable.”

Againstthisbackgroundandhavingseveralreportsinmind,theUnited
KingdomParliamentin1988passedseveralamendmentsinthecopyright
anddesignarea.TheDesignsandPatentsAct1988(36&37Eliz.II,c.48)
(copyattached)introducedtheconceptofaproprietaryrightina”design”
whichisdefinedas:
“anyaspectoftheshapeorconfiguration(whether)internalorexternal
ofthewholeorpartofanarticle”(Sec.213(2)).
Exceptionswereprovided,(Sec.213(3))sothatadesignrightdoesnot
subsistin
(a)amethodorprincipleofconstruction,
(b)featuresofshapeorconfigurationofanarticlewhich;
(i)enablethearticletobeconnectedto,orplacedinaround
oragainst,anotherarticlesothateithermayperformits
function,or


(ii)aredependentupontheappearanceofanotherarticleof
whichthearticleisintendedbythedesignertoforman
integralpart,or

(c)surfacedecoration.”

Theexceptioninpart(b)issometimescalledthe”mustmatch”exceptionto
provideforlampbulbsocketsandthelikealthoughitappearsthatanarticle
havingonlyinparta”mustmatch”featuremuststill,asawhole,be
consideredasadesign(seeAmpInc.v.UtiluxPtyLtd.,[1977]RPC103.)
TheCopyrightActandRegisteredDesignActwereamendedsothat
copyrightextendedto”artistic”threedimensionalobjectsonlyforthesame
lengthoftimeasaregistereddesign(25years).Howeverifadesignisnot
“artistic”itgetsnocopyrightprotectionexceptthatprovidedbythe”design
right”.
The”designright”isautomatic,noregistrationisrequiredasprovidedfor,and
itlastsforupto15years.Howeverforthelastfiveyearsofthisterm
compulsorylicensesareavailable.Itcanextendtofunctionalobjectsand
arisesoncethedesignisreproducedinadrawingorarticlebearingthe
design(suchasaprototype).Thisrightisonlyavailableifthedesignerwasa
citizenorsubjectoftheUnitedKingdomoritscoloniesandthedesignwas
madeintheUnitedKingdomoraStateoftheEuropeanEconomic
Community.Provisionismadetoextendthequalificationstoothercountries
byOrder.
Todatetherearenoreporteddecisionswhichcommentontheseprovisions.
Howevertheendeavouristocreateaminimum15yearrighttonewarticles,
functionalornot,andextendarightupto25yearsforartisticarticles.
Qualificationsastocitizenshipandcountryoforigincreatesevererestrictions
anditisdoubtfulthattheseprovisionscomplywithInternationaltreaty
obligationsforreciprocity(seesectionH(3)infra).
AgainstthisvigorousbackgroundofBritishjurisprudence,theCanadian
situationshouldnowbeexamined.
ThelongestlineofcasesinCanadarelatestoIndustrialDesign.Theproprietor
ofanIndustrialDesigncanapplytotheCanadianIndustrialDesignOfficeto
registerthedesign,givingtheproprietorupto10yearsofamonopolyin
applyingthatdesigntoobjects.Adesign,inordertoberegistered,mustbe
“new”(i.e.notpreviously”published”inCanada)and”ornamental”(i.e.not
“functional”).Traditionallythethoughtwasthatadesignofthissortwas
somethingthatwas”appliedto”anarticleratherthanpartoftheshapeofan
article.ThisthinkingwaschangedbytheCimoncase(CimonLtd.v.Bench


MadeFurnitureCorp.)[1965]1Ex.Cr.811)wheretheExchequerCourtmade
itclearthatbothdesignsappliedto,andthoseformingpartoftheshapeof
anarticle,couldberegistered.
Acontroversypersistsastowhetheragivendesignis”functional”,hencenot
registrable,orwhetheritis”ornamental”,henceregistrable.Afewexamples
ofregistrationsrefusedareatiretreaddesign(GoodyearTire&Rubberv.
CommissionerofPatents[1979]2FC558(CA);aluminumextrusions(Gandyv.
CommissionerofPatents(1980)47C.P.R.(2d)118(FCA);andclotheshangers
(MainettiS.P.A.v.E.R.A.DisplayCo.80C.P.R.(2nd)206);whereasinearlier
decisionsregistrationswereallowedforarubberovershoe(KaufmanRubber
Co.v.MinorRubberCo.[1926]Ex.Cr.26);andabuildingblock(Angelstone
Ltd.v.ArtisticStrongLtd.[1960]Ex.Cr.286).
Priorto1988therewasanoverlapbetweenindustrialdesignandcopyright.
Anythingcapableofbeingregisteredasanindustrialdesignandmadein
over50copiesdidnotgetcopyrightprotection(e.g.BaylinerMarineCorp.v.
DoralBoatsLtd.[1986]3FC421(FCA)).Thus,itwasarguedthatifsomething
was”functional”itwasnot”capableofbeingregistered”asanindustrial
designandthereforegottheautomaticcopyrightprotectionwithout
registrationfortheauthor’slifetimeplus50years.
CanadianCourtsbegantofollowtheUnitedKingdomlawinthisrespect
sinceCanadianlawwasliketheUnitedKingdomlawpriorto1956.Since
manypersonsneglectedordeliberatelychosenottoregisterindustrial
designs,inordertoarguethatsuchobjectspossessedcopyrightprotection.
Thedefencewasthatifthedesignoftheobjectwas”capable”ofbeing
registeredasanindustrialdesignthencopyrightprotectionwaslost.The
CanadianCourtshadtodecidewhatwas”capable”ofbeingregistered.
Theydecidedthatthe”intent”ofthecreatormaymatter(CentralArtServices
v.SteinbergInc.(1987),12CIPR29(Que.)).
TheCourtshavebeendividedastowhetherpurelyfunctionalobjectsget
copyrightprotection;theFederalCourtofAppealsaidenigmatically”toask
thequestionistoanswerit”(presumablymeaningno!)BaylinerMarineCorp.
v.DoralBoatsLtd.[1986]3FC421whereastheBritishColumbiaCourts
suggeststhatcopyrightprotectiondoesexist(Spiro-FlexIndustriesLtd.v.
ProgressSealingInc.(1986),13C.P.R.(3d)311).TheBaylinercaseinthe
FederalCourtofAppealdidconcludethatifthedesignwasornamentaland
over50copieswereintendedtobeprovided,itwas”capable”ofbeing
registeredasanindustrialdesign,hencehadnocopyrightprotectionwas
available.Inthatcase,aseriesofpopularmotorboatshadbeencopiedby
apracticeknownas”flipping”whereacompetitor’sboatwaspurchased,
somechangesmadebycuttingoraddingmaterialandacompetitiveboat
couldbemadedirectlyfromthemodifiedboat.TheCourtheldthattheboat


designwaslargelyornamental,shouldhavebeenregisteredasanindustrial
designandhadnocopyrightprotection.
Stillleftopenisthequestionastowhetherpracticessuchas”flipping”could
representunfaircompetitionorotherformofcommonlawpassingoff(e.g.
BaylinersupraandGunnardCo.v.RegalHomeProductsInc.(1986),13C.P.R.
(3d)335(Ont.)).
In1988,theParliamentofCanadapassedamendmentstotheCopyrightAct
andtheIndustrialDesignActsothatitwouldnotbecopyrightorindustrial
designinfringementtocopyandfunctionalobject,oranyartisticobject
whichhadbeenproducedinnumbersgreaterthanfifty,unlesstheartistic
objectwasregisteredasanindustrialdesign.Ineffectthereafter,all
copyrightprotectionforobjectswasremoved,leavingonlyindustrialdesigns
protectionavailablefor”ornamental”features.
OthercountrieshavedesignlegislationsuchasUtilityModelsfor”less
inventive”objectsthanpatenteddevices,orintheUnitedKingdom,forall
objectscreatedbyitscategoriesthereexceptthosethatmust,ofnecessity,
fitonorinsomethingelse(e.g.alampbulb).Thereispresentlyavacuumin
Canadawithnostatutoryprotectionatall.Somecaseshavebeeninstituted
todeterminethelawfulnessofthechangestotheCanadianCopyrightAct
andIndustrialDesignAct,(IscarLtd.v.HertelGmbH(1988),23C.P.R.(3d)406)
aninterlocutorydecision.Thecasewassettledwithoutatrialonthemerits
andothershavesaidthatsomeformofcommonlawprotectionagainst
“passingoff”maybeavailable(OxfordPendaflexCanadaLtd.v.Korr
MarketingLtd.[1982]1SCR494).
Itistooearlytotellwhethertheserecentlegislativeamendmentshave
affectedCanada,whichinanyeventmaybetoosmallaplayeronthe
internationalscenetobenoticedmuch.Nomassivecopyingindustries
appeartohavebeenestablished.Nosubstantialcaseshavecomebefore
theCourtstotryothermeanssuchaspassingofftopreventcopying.While
somesmalllobbyingmayfromtimetotimehavebeenmadebysome
particularinterestgroups,nolargescaleconsensusseemstohavearisento
challengethemeritsofthisrecentchangeinourlaw.
D.1988AMENDMENTSTOTHECANADIANCOPYRIGHTACT
OnJune8,1988,RoyalAssentwasgiventoagreatmanychangestothe
CanadianCopyrightAct.ThisActhadbeeninforcesince1924withveryfew
changes,relevanttothistopic;the1924Actwasessentiallyacopyofthe
UnitedKingdomCopyrightActof1911.


Aspreviouslydiscussed,priortothechangesin1988thelawinCanada
relatingtocopyrightprotectionsinthreedimensionalobjectshadbeen
interpretedbytheFederalCourtofAppealintheBaylinercase(Bayliner
MarineCorp.v.DoralBoatsLtd.[1986]3FC421)tomeanthatnocopyright
protectionextendedto”ornamental”featuresandmostprobablynotto
“functional”featureseither,althoughthelatterfindingwasquestionedbya
BritishColumbiacourtindealingwithsewerpumpswheretheCourt
expressedaviewthatperhapsfunctionalobjectsdidenjoycopyright
protection(Spiro-FlexIndustriesLtd.v.ProgressiveSealingInc.(1986),13CPR
(3d)311).
The1988amendmentsareexpressedincomplexterms,butsimplystated,the
intentionappearstoremoveanyclaimtocopyright,andanyclaimfor
infringementofcopyright,infunctionalarticles.
TheamendmentsprovideinrespectofdesignscreatedafterJune8,1988,
thatwherecopyrightotherwisesubsistsinadesignappliedtoa”usefularticle”
oranartisticworkderivedfromthatdesignandtheowneroranyone
authorizedbytheCanadianoraforeignownerofcopyrightmakesfiftyor
morecopies(presumablyinCanadaorelsewhere)orifthearticleisaplate
andisusedtomakefiftyormoresuchcopies,thenitisnotaninfringementto
makethatarticleoranydrawingorotherreproductionofthearticleor
otherwisedowhatthecopyrightownercoulddo.
Certainexemptionsareprovidedsothatitremainsaninfringementofa
copyrightinaworkthatisusedasorfor:
(a)agraphicorphotographicrepresentationthatisappliedtothe
faceofanarticle;
(b)atrade-markorarepresentationthereoforalabel;
(c)materialthathasawovenorknittedpatternorthatissuitablefor
piecegoodsorsurfacecoveringsorformakingwearingapparel;
(d)anarchitecturalworkofartthatisabuildingormodelofa
building;
(e)arepresentationofarealorfictitiousbeing,eventorplacethatis
appliedtoanarticleasafeatureorshape,configuration,pattern
orornament;
(f)articlesthataresoldasaset,unlessmorethanfiftysetsare
made;or


(g)suchotherworkorarticleasmaybeprescribedbyregulationof
theGovernorinCouncil.

Notwithstandingtheabove,itisnotaninfringementofcopyrightormoral
rightstodocertainacts,namely:
(a)applyingtoausefularticlefeaturesthataredictatedsolelybya
utilitarianfunctionofthearticle;
(b)byreferencesolelytoausefularticle,makingadrawingorother
reproductioninanymaterialformofanyfeaturesofthearticle
thataredictatedsolelybyautilitarianfunctionofthearticle;
(c)doingwithausefularticlehavingonlyfeaturesdescribedin
paragraph(a)ordoingwithadrawingorareproductionthatis
madeasdescribedinparagraph(b)anythingthattheownerof
thecopyrighthasthesolerighttodowiththework;or
(d)usinganymethodorprincipleofmanufactureorconstruction.

Therehavenotyetbeenanyreportedcasesdealingwiththesubstanceof
thesenewprovisions.Theseprovisionsaresaidtoberetroactive,thus
applyingtoanythingthathappenedbeforeJune1988aswellasafterward,
andsomelegalskirmisheshavehappenedinthisarea.Howeverthiswill
becomelessrelevantastimegoeson.Thereisathreeyearlimitationperiod
applicabletocopyrightactionssothatafterJune1991,theseretroactive
provisionsshouldbelessofanissue.
WhathashappenedsinceJune1988?Onthelegalfront,reallynothing.The
Baylinercasehasleftitopenfordeterminationinanothercasewhetherdirect
copyingbycreatingmouldsfromacompetitor’sproductmaybeaformof
“passingoff”or”unfaircompetition”.Thereisalonglineofcasestotheeffect
thatifaproductis”distinctive”,therebyacquiringareputationinthe
marketplacebecauseofitsappearance,thenthecourtswillpreventthose
whoseektocopyitorcreateasimilarappearance.Thereisalsothe
provisionsoftheIndustrialDesignActwhichcontinuestoprovideprotection
forupto10yearsforregisteredornamentaldesigns;andtheCopyrightAct
continuestoprotect”artistic”objectsmadeinlessthan50copies.However,
functionalobjectssuchasbolts,nails,exhaustpipes,sparemachineryparts
andthelikehavenocopyrightprotection,norindeedanyformofstatutory
protectioninCanada.
E.OVERLAPINCANADIANLEGISLATION


Notwithstandingthe1988amendmentstotheCanadianCopyrightAct,
supra,eliminatingcopyrightprotectionfortheappearanceoffunctional
articles,thereareseveralareasinwhichoverlapbetweendifferentformsof
industrialpropertyexists.
ThemostcloselyrelatedstatutesaretheIndustrialDesignActRSC1985,c.I-9
andtheCopyrightActRSC1985c.C-42.Priortotheamendmenttothe
CopyrightActofJune1988,Section46ofthatActstatedquiteclearlythat
rightsgrantedundertheCopyrightActandrightsgrantedundertheIndustrial
DesignActcouldonlyoverlapifthedesign,thoughcapableofbeing
registeredundertheIndustrialDesignAct,wasnotusedorintendedtobe
usedasamodelorpatterntobemultipliedbyanyindustrialprocess,which
meantaccordingtothegeneralrulesundertheIndustrialDesignAct,tobe
multipliedinquantitiesexceedingfifty.SincetheCopyrightActwas
amendedandtheprovisionsoftheoldSection46repealed,itcanstillbesaid
thattheoverlapcanonlyexistfordesignsappliedtousefularticles
reproducedinaquantityoflessthanfifty(seeSection64(2)oftheCopyright
Act).IfadesigncapableofbeingregisteredundertheIndustrialDesignAct
isnotappliedtoausefularticle(whichwouldnotbethecommoncaseofan
industrialdesign)andthedesignisreproducedinaquantityofmorethan
fifty,anoverlapbetweentheprotectiongrantedbytheCopyrightActand
theIndustrialDesignActcouldexist,whichwasnotthecasepriortothe
amendmentstotheCopyrightActofJune1988.Anexampleofsucha
designcouldbefoundinapurelyornamentalobjectmanufacturedand
multipliedbyanindustrialprocessinquantitiesexceedingfiftyandnot
appliedtousefularticle.
Therelationshipbetweenpatentrightsandcopyrighthasbeencommented
uponbyCanadianCourtsbutnotresolved.InthecaseofRuckerCo.v.
Gavel’sVulcanizingLtd.(1985),7CPR(3d)294,theTrialDecisionofthe
FederalCourtstatedthat”..[it]wasnottheintentionofParliamentnorfroma
practicalviewisitdesirablethatthePatentAct,theCopyrightAct,andthe
IndustrialDesignActshouldbeinterpretedsoastogiveoverlapping
protection(pp312-3)”andrefusedtogivecopyrightprotectiontoapatented
article.ThisdecisionmustbecontrastedwiththerecentcaseofEnergy
AbsorptionSystemsInc.v.Boissoneault&FilsInc.(1990),30CPR(3d)420
wherethesameCourt(butdifferentJudge)statedthataparty”…oughtnot
tolosecopyrightprotectionbecauseoftheexistenceofapatentthatitowns
(p.468).”
Trade-markprotectionisextendedtoadesignplacedupon,orformingthe
shapeofanarticle,ifitisshownthatsuchdesignisrecognizedbythepublic
asbeingdistinctiveofaparticularpersonororganization.TheCourts,
however,haverefusedtoextendsuchprotectionwherethedesignisseento
beessentiallyfunctionalsothat,forinstanceacoloredbandarounda


pharmaceuticalcapsulethatreallyservedtosealthecapsuleandidentify
themedicalingredientscannotalsobeatrade-mark;ParkeDavis&Co.v.
EmpireLaboratoriesLtd.[1964]SCR351.Howeveracoloredstrandwoven
intoarope,whichhasnorealfunctionalpurpose,washeldtobeagood
trade-mark;WrightsRopesLtd.v.BroderickandBascomRopeCo.[1931]Ex.
Cr.143;apinescentedairfreshenerintheshapeofapinetreeconstituteda
goodtrade-mark;Samannv.Canada’sRoyalGoldPinetreeMfg.Co.Ltd.
(1986),9CPR(2d)223(FCA).Themessagederivedfromthesedecisions,and
similardecisions,isthatitoftenbecomesarathersubjectiveissue,tobe
decidedineachcase,whetherornotadesignorshapeissofunctionalasto
bedeniedtrade-markprotection.
F.LEGISLATIVEEXPERIENCEINOTHERCOUNTRIES
1.INGENERAL
Protectionhasbeenextendedtotheshapeofordesignappliedtoobjects,in
avarietyofwaysinmanycountries.Traditionalwaysincludearegistered
designright,generallyapplicableonlytoornamentalfeatures;anotheristhe
UtilityModelconceptwhichisaformofpatentprotectiongiventothedesign
orshapeofobjectthatcannottrulybecalledinventive.Newerconcepts
haverecentlybeendevelopedintheUnitedKingdomanddiscussedinthe
UnitedStates,EuropeandSouthAfrica,wherebyalimitedformofprotection,
likecopyright,isavailableforashorttermsubjecttoextendedprotection
followingregistration.Areviewofthesetraditional,andsomeofthemore
progressive,conceptsfollows.Amoredetailedexaminationofthelegislation
incertaincountriesisappended.
2.REGISTEREDDESIGN
TheCanadianIndustrialDesignActRSC1985,c.I-9istypicaloflegislation
foundinmanycountrieswherebyatermofmonopolyisgiventonewdesigns
appliedtoorformingtheshapeofobjects,providedthedesignis
“ornamental”.AcopyofthisActisattached.ThesectionsoftheUnited
StatesPatentAct(Title35ofTheUnitedStatesCode)extendsimilarprotection
toanynew,originalandornamentaldesignforanarticleofmanufacture.It
isnottheintentionofthisformoflegislationtoprovideprotectionfordesigns
thatareconsideredtobe”functional”.
Generally,thereisprovidedsomeprocedureforapplyingforprotection,
examinationbygovernmentemployeesforthepurposeofensuringthatthe
designappearstobenewandnotpreviouslypublished,andregistration.A


monopolyinrespecttothatdesignisgiventotheregisteredownerforaterm
generallybetweenfiveandfifteenyears,thatis,lessthanthetermgivenfor
patentprotection(about17to20years)andmuchlessthancopyright(at
least50years).Forexample,aUnitedStatesDesignPatentprovidesfora
periodofexclusivityof14years.
3.UTILITYMODEL
SeveralcountriesinEuropeandtheFarEasthaveadoptedlegislation
affordingprotectionfornewdesignsofafunctionalnatureasappliedto
objects;Canadahasnot.
Thisformofprotectionissimilartothatofpatentandisoftenviewedasan
alternativeformofprotectionparticularlywhereitisbelievedthatthe
featuresofthedesignarenotsufficientlyneworinventivesoastomerit
patentprotection.Typically,protectionofthiskindissoughtfortools,partsof
machineryandarticlesofeverydayusewhichdemonstratesomeformof
noveltyandadegreeofinventivenessalthoughitisgenerallyconcededthat
thedegreeofinventiveness,requiredisnotashighasthatrequiredfora
patent.Somecountriesprovideforaperiodofoppositionwherebynew
applicationsarepublishedbeforeregistrationandmaybeopposedby
interestedmembersofthepublic.
Thetermofprotectionislessthanthatforapatent,generallyamaximumof
tenyears.
Thissystemhasadvantagesinthatittendstosupportahigherlevelof
inventivenessforapatentbyprovidinganalternativetoapatentforarticles
whichhavequestionableinventiveattributesandbyavoidingquestionable
endeavourstodescribeas”ornamental”thatwhichislargelyfunctional,when
onlyregistereddesignrightforornamentalobjectsareprovided.
Disadvantagesofthissystemarethatitrequirestheregistrationofdesignsin
orderthatprotectionbeaffordedanditdoesrequirethegovernmentto
establishandmaintainanexaminationandregistrationsystem.
Twoforeignjurisdictionswhichhaveimplementedutilitymodellegislationare
GermanyandJapan:
I.GERMANY
InWestGermany,twopossibilitiesexistforprotectingfunctionalobjects:firstly,
undertheUtilityModeland,secondly,undertheCopyrightLaw.Functional


objectsarehoweverexcludedfromtheprotectionoftheModelandDesign
Act,sincedesignsareregistrableunderthisActonlysofarastheyarenot
functional.
(i)NatureandScopeofProtection
UtilityModelsubsistsinworkingtoolsandimplements,articlesofeverydayuse
orpartsthereof,whichshowanewconfiguration,arrangement,deviceor
circuit.
Tobeprotected,theUtilityModelmustberegistered.Itisgrantedaftera
formalexaminationonly,normallyaboutthree(3)monthsafterfiling.Ona
specialrequest,theGermanPatentofficecancarryoutasearchtoexamine
theprepublishedmatter.Thisrequestcanbemadebytheapplicant,the
ownerorathirdpersonatthetimeoffilingtheapplication.
Thereisnoexaminationastonoveltyandinventiveness,contrarytostandard
patents.Criteriaofnoveltyandinventivenessareexaminedonlyifadispute
ariseswithathirdparty.
NoregistrationcanbeallowedifaprioruseisknowninWestGermany.
However,theGermanUtilityModelislegallyvalidevenifitssubjecthas
alreadybeenmarkedinanothercountry.Noveltyisnotdestroyed,anda
legallyvalidUtilityModelcanstillbeobtainedfromanapplicationevenwhen
thesubjectmatteroftheUtilityModelispublishedorused,i.e.,broughtonto
themarketbytheapplicantorhispredecessorintitleorathirdpersonwho
hasobtainedknowledgeoftheinventionbythepredecessor,notmorethan
six(6)monthsbeforefilingdateorprioritydateofthisapplication.
TheinventivelevelrequiredforthegrantingofanUtilityModelislessthanthat
forapatent.AvalidUtilityModelcanbeobtainedforasubjectmatterfor
whichapatentcannotbegranted.Accordingly,itispossiblethatbecause
ofaparticularpriorartdeterminedaftergrant,apatentcanbenullifiedbut
theUtilityModelcannotbe.However,acertainlevelofinventivenessmust
befoundintheUtilityModelwhichmustconstituteanengineering
improvementinGermanyandelsewhere.Asinventiveachievement,itmust
surpassthecapabilityoftheaverageexpert.
(ii)Duration
ThetermforaUtilityModeliseight(8)yearsfromfilingdate,whichisshorter
thanthe20yearprotectionforapatentinWestGermany.


(iii)InfringementandRemedies
Thescopeofprotectionisaswideasforapatent.TheowneroftheUtility
Modelhastheexclusiverighttousethemodelandcanprohibitathirdparty
frommaking,offering,puttingonthemarketorusingaproductwhichisthe
subjectofthemodel,orimportingorpossessingtheproductforsuchpurpose.
Theprotectionisalsoextendedtotheinventiveideawhichresultsfromthe
UtilityModel.Thus,afterregistrationoftheUtilityModel,claimsforinjunction
anddamagesagainstinfringerstotherightsmentionedabovecanbemade.
II.JAPAN
(i)ScopeofProtection
UnderArticle1oftheJapaneseUtilityModelLaw,aUtilityModelisdefinedas
beingadevicerelatingtotheshapeorconstructionofanarticleortoa
combinationofarticles.
Toberegistrable,aUtilityModelmustbenovel,inventive,industrially
applicable,andmustrelatetotheshapeorconstructionofarticlesora
combinationthereof.Thus,processesarenotprotectablebywayofUtility
Modelregistration.Allotherclassificationsofdeviceswhichwouldbeproper
subjectmatterforpatent,arealsoprotectablebywayofUtilityModel.
Furthermore,JapaneseUtilityModelLawemploysmanyoftheprinciplesof
JapanesePatentLaw,intermsofbothsubstanceandprocedure.
TheinventivenessrequiredforaUtilityModelregistrationisofalesserdegree
thanthatrequiredforpatents.Specifically,UtilityModelsthatcould”very
easily”havebeenoriginatedbypersonsofordinaryskillintheartonthebasis
ofUtilityModelsknown,used,ordescribedinaprintedpublicationanywhere
intheworld,arenotregistrable.
ApplicationsforUtilityModelsmaybeconvertedtoapplicationsforpatents
(ordesigns)withinaprescribedtimeperiod.Furthermore,conversionsof
patentanddesignapplicationstoUtilityModelapplicationsarealsopossible
withinasetperiodoftime.
TheabsolutenoveltyprovisionsunderJapanesePatentLawareequally
applicabletoJapaneseUtilityModelLaw.Specifically,UtilityModelswhich
areknownorhavebeenusedinJapanordescribedinaprintedpublication
anywherepriortofiling,areunregistrable.


AswiththeJapanesePatentLaw,thereisanexemptionfordisclosure
contrarytotheapplicant’swill,orbyvirtueofexperiment.Thereisalsoan
exemptionwheretheUtilityModelhasbeendisclosedinapublicationor
displayatanofficiallyrecognizedexhibition,providedtheUtilityModel
applicationisfiledwithinsixmonthsofsuchdisclosureandastatementofthe
factsaccompaniestheapplication.
ItisimportanttonotethatmanyoftheprovisionsoftheJapanesePatentLaw
areappliedtoUtilityModelrights,mutatismutandis.
(ii)TermofProtectionandMarking
ThetermofaJapaneseUtilityModelregistrationis10yearsfromthedateof
publication,butmaynotexceed15yearsfromtheapplicationdate.There
arenoprovisionsforrenewal.
ProprietorsofregisteredUtilityModelsarerequiredtomarktheregistered
models.JapaneseUtilityModelLawalsoprovidesforcriminalsanctionsinthe
eventoffraudulentmarking.
(iii)InfringementandRemedies
ThetypesofactionsandremediesavailableunderJapaneseUtilityModel
Lawincludetemporaryinjunction(Kari-Shobun)fortemporarilyenjoiningany
infringingactivitiesuntildispositionattrial,andmainlawsuit(Honso)for
permanentlyenjoininginfringingactivitiesandobtainingcompensationfor
damagesincurredasaresultofinfringement.Japanesecourtsarereluctant
togranttemporaryinjunctionsinUtilityModelactionswherethecourt
determinesthatsomedelicateanddifficulttechnicalproblemisinvolved,
preferringinsteadtopostponethedecisionorurgetheplaintifftoinstitutea
mainlawsuit.
4.UNREGISTEREDDESIGNRIGHT
In1988,theUnitedKingdomadoptedchangestoitslegislation(the
Copyright,DesignsandPatentsAct)afterconsiderabledebate,directedto
providingaformofprotection,likecopyright,todesignsappliedtoobjects.
(Acopyisattached.)Inaddition,theUnitedKingdompreservedits
RegisteredDesignsActwithcertainchanges.
Protectionaffordedtounregistereddesignsisquiteparochial.Protectionis
affordedonlytooriginaldesignsandbeginsonlywhenthedesignhasbeen


fixedeitherinadrawingorinanarticlemadeinaccordancewiththedesign.
Thedesignmusthavebeenmadebyaqualifyingindividual(i.e.acitizenor
subjectof,orhabituallyresidentin,theUnitedKingdomorotherEuropean
EconomicCommunitycountryoranycountryinrespectofwhichanOrderin
Councilhasbeenmade),orunderacommissionoremploymentbya
qualifyingperson(i.e.aqualifyingindividualorabodyhavinglegal
personalityformedunderorhavingaplaceofbusinessatwhichsubstantital
businessactivityiscarriedoninaqualifyingcountry),orfirstmarketedinthe
UnitedKingdom,anotherEuropeanEconomicCommunitycountryora
countryinrespectofwhichanOrderinCouncilhasbeenmade,bya
qualifyingpersonwhoisexclusivelyauthorizedtoputsucharticlesonthe
market.Thetermofprotectionisfifteenyearsfromtheendofthecalendar
yearinwhichthedesignwasfirstrecordedinadocumentoranarticlewas
firstmadetothedesign;orifarticleswhicharemadetothedesign,aremade
availableforsaleorhirewithinthefirstfiveyearsofthatyear,tenyearsfrom
theendofthecalendaryearinwhichthatfirstoccurred.
TheRegisteredDesignActisstillmaintainedwitha25yeartermofprotection
beingavailable.Oneofthemaindistinctionsbetweenregisteredand
unregistereddesignisthatinfringementofanunregistereddesigncanonly
beprovediftheallegedinfringerisshowntohaveactually”copied”the
designwhereasifthedesignisregistered,itisonlynecessarytoprovethatthe
designissufficientlysimilar;itisnotnecessarytoprovecopying.
The1988legislationspecifiesthatdesignswhich”mustmatch”thatis,designs
encompassingafeaturewhichenablesthearticletobeconnectedto,
placedin,aroundoragainstanothertoperformitsfunctionorthatare
intendedtobeanintegralpartofanotherarticle,arenotprotectedbythe
Act.Thisisanattempttopreservetherighttoacquiresparepartsfroma
varietyofsources,consistentwiththeBritishLeylandv.Armstrongdecision
discussedearlier.
SimilarlegislationhasbeenproposedintheUnitedStatesbutnosuch
legislationhasbeenpassed.
5.REGISTEREDFUNCTIONALDESIGN
TheSouthAfricanGovernmentpublishedanewdraftbillonAugust24,1990
(copyattached)whichwouldrepealtheDesignsAct,1967,initsentirety.The
BillwouldreplacethepriorActbutwouldsubstantiallyretaintheexisting
systemfortheregistrationandprotectionofdesigns,andinaddition,would
providefortheprotectionofsocalled”functionaldesigns”.Aestheticdesigns
whicharepresentlycapableofregistrationundertheDesignAct,would
continuetoberegistrableunderthenewAct.Inaddition,a”functional


design”isdefinedunderthestatuteinthesamewayasanaestheticdesign,
exceptforremovaloftheprohibitionagainstthedesignbeingdictatedsolely
bythefunctionwhichthearticleisintendedtoperform.TheBillprovidesthat
aestheticdesignswouldberegistrableinPartAoftheregisterofdesigns,
whilefunctionaldesignswouldberegistrableinPartFoftheregister.Itis
contemplatedthatthesamedesigncanberegisteredinbothPartsAandF.
Thenoveltyrequirementsforaestheticdesignsremainthesame.However,
thenoveltyrequirementsforthefunctionaldesignsrequirethatthedesignbe
newatthetimeofapplicationforregistration,oratthetimewhenthedesign
wasfirstmadeavailabletothepublicbypublicdisclosureofit,orby
distribution,sale,ortheofferingorexposingfordistributionorsaleof
authorizedreproductionstothepublic(the”releasedate”)whicheveris
earlier.
Whereastheproprietorofanaestheticdesignisgiventheabsoluterightto
excludeothersfrommaking,importing,usingordisposingofanyarticle
embodyingtheregistereddesignorasubstantiallysimilardesign,the
proprietorofaregisteredfunctionaldesignwouldbegiventherightto
excludeothersfrom”reproducing”theregistereddesignorasubstantially
similardesignorfromusing,importingordisposingofanyarticleembodying
suchdesign.Thus,whereastheproprietorofaregisteredaestheticdesign
canpreventtheuseofsimilardesignsirrespectiveofwherethedesignwas
derived,theproprietorofaregisteredfunctionaldesignwouldonlybe
permittedtopreventtheuseofasimilardesignarrivedatbyactualcopying
oftheregisteredfunctionaldesign.
Theproposedtermofprotectionforaestheticdesignswouldremainthesame
(i.e.5years,subjecttotwofurther5yearrenewals).Durationofafunctional
designregistrationwouldsubsistforaperiodof10yearsfromthedateof
registrationorthereleasedate,whicheveristheearlier.
Afunctionaldesignwouldberegistrableatanytimewithin10yearsfromits
releasedate,providedthatthenoveltyrequirementshavebeenmet.
Thereisincludedaprovisionbywhichanypersonwhohasexpendedtimeor
moneypriortoregistrationofadesign,whichhasbeenassertedagainsthim
mayapplytotheCourtforreasonablecompensationfromtheproprietorin
respectofmoney,timeandlabourwhichheexpendedpriortoregistration.
Compulsorylicenseswillbeavailableintheeventoffailuretocommercially
exploitthedesigninSouthAfrica.
6.MIXTUREOFREGISTEREDANDUNREGISTEREDDESIGNRIGHTS


Aspreviouslydiscussed,theUnitedKingdomprovidesforparallelsystemsof
registeredandunregistereddesignrights.Latein1990,theMaxPlanck
InstituteinGermanyproposedadraftlawfortheEuropeanEconomic
Communityrelatingtodesign.(Acopyisattached.)Thislawwouldprovide
protectionfordesignsofatwo-dimensionalorthree-dimensionalform
“capableofhavinganeffectonthehumansensesofformand/orcolour”but
wouldnot
giveprotectiontodesigns”exclusivelycontingentupontheir
technicalfunctionfortheirintendeduse”.Inotherwords,thekindofdesign
protectedislikethe”ornamental”designprotectedunderCanada’sIndustrial
DesignAct.
Thisdraftproposesalimitedperiodofprotection(twoyears)without
registrationandalargerterm(twentyfiveyears)withregistration.Itis
interestingtonotethatatermofprotectionwithoutregistration(like
copyright)isprovided,followedbyalongertermavailableonlywith
registration(likeindustrialdesign),buttheconceptislimitedto”ornamental”
ratherthan”functional”designs.
Morerecently,theDirectorateGeneralIIIoftheEuropeanEconomic
CommunityCommissionhascommentedpubliclythatitisinfavourofan
extendedtermofprotectionfordesignsassuggestedbyTheMaxPlanck
Report.However,theDirectorateGeneralIIIhasindicatedthatitwould
preferonlyarequirementoforiginalityasaprerequisitetoregistrability,
insteadofthecombinednoveltyandoriginalityrequirementproposedbyThe
MaxPlanckInstitute.
TheviewsoftheDirectorateGeneralIIIareexpectedtobeelaboratedupon
inaEuropeanEconomicCommunitygreenpaperdueforpublicationinApril
1991.
G.COMMONLAW-UNFAIRCOMPETITION
Apartfromlegislation,thereexiststhecommonlawconceptsofunfair
competitionwhicharesaidtohavebeencodified,underSection7ofthe
Trade-marksActRSC1985,c.T-13,bytheFederalCourtofAppealinAsbjorn
HorgardA/Sv.Gibbs/NortacIndustriesLtd.[1987]3FC544(FCA).Usingthe
commonlawconceptswherebyatradermaybeprotectedagainstunfair
competition,theCanadiancourtshavestatedthatwheretheshapeor
appearanceofanarticle,commonlycalled”getup”hasbecomesufficiently
identifiedinthemindofthepublicastodistinguishthewaresofatrader,then
itwillpreventanotherfromusingconfusingordeceptivelysimilargetupon
similarwares.AgoodexampleisthecaseofOxfordPendaflexCanadaLtd.
v.KorrMarketingLtd.[1982]1SCR494,wheretheSupremeCourtofCanada



affirmedthatsucharightexistedinthiscaseinrespectofdesktraysbutthat
evidenceofpublicrecognition,sometimescalled”secondarymeaning”,was
required.
IntheBaylinerdecisionreferredtoearlier,thedefendantcompanyhad
purchasedanoutboardmotorboatoftheplaintiffandmodifiedittosome
extentandthenusedittoproduceboatsofitsown.Asearlierdiscussed,the
FederalCourtofAppealsaidthatnocopyrightclaimexistedbutexpressly
refrainedfromcommentingastowhethertheremayexistquestionsofunfair
competitionorcommercialmorality(10CPR(3d)289at297).Thereexist
cases,butnonereportedinCanada,ofsituationswheremoldsusedforthe
productionofarticleshavebeengiventoapersonforonepurposeand
misusedforanothertocreateunauthorizedarticlesfromthemold.These
casesappeartoturnontheconceptofexpressorimpliedcontractrather
thanunfaircompetition.
H.CONSIDERATIONSASTOLEGISLATION
1.LEGALISSUES
Inconsideringwhetherlegislationshouldbeadoptedsoastoafford
protectiontofunctionaldesigns,andifsowhetherapatenttypeprotection
withrequirementsastonoveltyandregistrationwouldbeappropriateor
whetheracopyrightformofprotectionrequiringonlythatthedesignbe
original(thatis,notcopiesfromanother)withoutrequirementofregistration,
asomewhatruminativeconsiderationofthelawmaybeappropriate.
Whenconsideringpatentabilityofaninventionorthevalidityofapatent,the
CommissionerofPatentsoracourtoflaw,respectively,mustconsider
whetherornotanallegedinventionisnew,useful,andinventive.Itisonly
afterhavingansweredintheaffirmativethosethreequestionsthattherewill
berecognizedtherightofaninventortoexerciseuptoatwenty-year
monopolywithrespecttotheuseofaninvention.Ifoneoftheabove
questionsisansweredinthenegative,nosuchmonopolywillbegranted.
Thereasonforsuchanattitudeisthatitwouldseemtobeextendingtheright
toamonopolybeyondreasonablelimitstogranttosomeonesuchaprivilege
whentheallegedinventioniseithernotnew,norusefulorobvious.Thisisat
leastwhatMacLeanJ.thoughtwhenhesaidinCrosleyRadioCorporation
andCanadaGeneralElectricCo.Ltd.[1935],Ex.C.R.190atpage196:
“IndecidingwhetherornotthereisinventioninWestwehaveto
decideaquestionoffact,andwecangetlittleornoassistancein
wanderingintoothercasestoseewhatquestionoffactwasthere


decided.Theauthoritiesgiveonelittleassistance,fortheymerely
illustratethedifficultieswhichariseinalmosteverypatentaction.The
linewhichseparatesthingsinventedfromthingsotherwiseproducedis
notcapableofbeingconciselydefinedandfrequentlyitisverydifficult
todecidewhetherornothereissubjectmatterinapatent.Here,Iam
notconvincedthatitiscalledfortheexerciseoftheinventivefacultyto
conceiveofWest.Howeverpopular,ornewandusefultheWestdoor
is,itseemstomethatitdoesnotmeritmonopoly,anditwouldseemto
beextendingtherighttoamonopolybeyondreasonablelimitstosay
thatnoonebutMrs.West,orherassignee,couldconstructa
refrigeratordoorofthetypedescribed.Arefrigerationchamberis
spaceenclosed,madeair-tightandinsulated,andofcourse,provided
withsomerefrigerant.ThedoorrefrigeratingspaceinWestis
constructedsubstantiallyinthesamewayasthespaceinthebody
proper,andthechiefdifferenceisastosize,andparticularlydepth.”

IfinCanadaalegislationprotectingfunctionaldesignhadexisted,Mrs.West
wouldmostlikelyhaveenjoyedamonopolyonthemanufacturingof
refrigeratordoorofthetypedescribedinherdrawingsorplansduringthe
periodprescribedbythislegislation,whateverthatperiodmighthavebeen.
Dependingontheconditionsprescribedbythatlegislation,shemostlikely
wouldnothavehadtoestablishnovelty,usefulnessorlackofobviousnessto
thesameextentaswasrequiredbythePatentAct.Ifsuchlegislation
protectingfunctionalobjectshadcreatedarightsimilartocopyright,itis
likelythatMrs.Westwouldonlyhavehadtoprovethatherdrawingsorplans
wereoriginalworksofherowndoing.Hadsheobtainedregistrationofher
copyright,thecertificateofregistrationwouldhaveconstitutedprimafacie
evidenceofhercopyrightinthedrawingsorplans.WhatMrs.Westdidwas
toconceivearefrigeratordoorwithstorageplaceprovidedtherein.Itwould
seemthatnosuchdoorsforrefrigeratorshadeverbeendesignedbefore.
TheExchequerCourtconsideredherdesignnottomeetthethresholdof
patentability.Wouldithavemetthethresholdofalegislationprotecting
functionalobjects?ItwoulddefinitelyhavemetthecriteriaoftheCopyright
ActastheyexistedpriortoJune1988.Today,suchdesignswouldnotbe
protectedagainstinfringementbytheCopyrightAct.Theywouldnotbe
protectedbytheIndustrialDesignActbecauseoftheirfunctionality.
Iflegislationprotectingfunctionalobjectshadexisted,Mrs.Westwouldhave
hadamonopolyforacertainnumberofyearsandherdesignwouldhave
beencapableofbeingcopiedbyothersduringthattime.Hadshegranted
anexclusivelicensetoonerefrigeratormanufacturer,onlythatrefrigerator
manufacturerwhilethemonopolyexisted,couldhavemanufactured
refrigeratordoorswithstoragetherein.Wouldithavebeendetrimentaltothe
consumers,andwouldtheyhavehadtopaymoretogetarefrigeratorwitha


doorhavingstorage?Theseareallquestionswhichcanbeaskedbutwhich
noonecanreallyanswer.
InthecaseofCuisinairev.SouthWestImportsLtd.(1967),54C.P.R.1,NoëlJ.
oftheExchequerCourthadtodecidewhethercertainrodswhichwereused
fortheteachingofthescienceofarithmeticwereprotectedunderthe
CopyrightAct.Mr.JusticeNoëldecidedthatsuchrodswerenotprotected
undertheCopyrightActbecausehedidnotconsiderthemasbeingartistic
works.Hewrote:
“Anartisticwork,inmyview,musttosomedegreeatleast,beawork
thatisintendedtohaveanappealtotheaestheticsensesnotjustan
incidentalappeal,suchashere,butasanimportantoroneofthe
importantobjectsforwhichtheworkisbroughtintobeing.ThePlaintiff’s
rodsmayhaveacertainattractiontochildren,butthisinmyview,isa
verysecondarypurposewhich,Iamafraid,isnotasufficientbasisfora
findingthattherodsareartistic”.

Mr.JusticeNoëlinthiscase(whichwasconfirmedonappealtotheSupreme
Court(1968)57,C.P.R.76),refusedtoconsidertheserodsasprotectable
undertheCopyrightActbecausehefeltthattherehastobesomelimitation
towhatisprotectedbycopyright,asitcouldnothaveconceivablybeenthe
intentionofParliamenttoprotectbywayofcopyright,materialofanykindor
anytypeofobject.Heconsideredthattherodsweretoolsandnothing
more.
Hadthereexistedlegislationprotectingfunctionalobjects,itislikelythatthe
rods,whichMr.JusticeNoëlhadtodealwith,couldhavebeenprotected
undersuchlegislation.
Therodsinquestiondidnotmeetthethresholdofpatentability.Itdidnot
accordingtoMr.JusticeNoël,meetthethresholdoftheCopyrightAct.
Wouldithavemetthethresholdofalegislationonfunctionalobjects?It
obviouslydependsontheprovisionsofsuchalegislation.Aresuchrodsthe
kindofobjectsourCanadiansocietywishestoprotect?Ifaprotectionhad
beengranted,wouldithavebeenanencouragementtowouldbedesigners
ofsimilararticles?Wouldtheconsumingpublichavebeenaffectedinone
wayortheother?Again,thesequestionscannoteasilybeanswered,butin
thecontextofthisreport,theyareatleastworthbeingasked.
InthecaseofD.R.G.Inc.v.DatafileLtd.(1987),18C.P.R.(3d)538,Mdm.
JusticeReedhadtodecidewhetheraregistrationforcopyrightinaseriesof
colour-codednumericlabelshadtobeexpunged.Thelabelsweredesigned
tobeaffixedtofilefolderstoenableeasylocationofafileandeasy


identificationofanymisfilingwhichmaytakeplace.Theapplicationfor
expungementwasbasedonsixgrounds:
1)thedesignisnotapropersubject-matterforcopyrightbecauseit
lacksthecharacteristicsofanartisticwork;
2)thedesignisnotapropersubjectforcopyrightbecauseitis
essentiallyafunctionaltool;
3)theworkisnotsufficientlyoriginalbecauseitdoesnotconstitute
asubstantialmodificationofthepre-existingart;
4)theallegedauthorwasnottheauthorofthework;
5)the”work”wasdisclosedinpriorpatentsandassuchwas
dedicatedtothepublic;
6)thedesignwasregistrableundertheIndustrialDesignAct,and
therefore,isnotprotectablebycopyrightasaresultofthe
operationofs.46oftheCopyrightAct.

Allthegroundsrelieduponbytheplaintifffailedexceptthelastone,i.e.the
designwasregistrableundertheIndustrialDesignAct.
TheFederalCourtofAppealdismissedanappealfromthedecisionofReed
J.(D.R.G.Inc.v.DatafileLtd.(1991),117NR308perDecaryJ.A.fortheCourt).
TheCourtofAppealheldthat,undertheIndustrialDesignActa”design”while
notdefinedbythatActwas”somethingthatdeterminestheappearanceof
anarticle…andmusthaveasitsobjectivemakingtheappearanceofthe
articlemoreattractive”andthatadesign”cannotbesomethingthat
determinesthenatureofthearticleassuch…anditcannotdeterminehowan
articleistobecreated.”TheCourtofAppealrefusedtobeledintoa
determinationastowhetheran”ugly”designwouldobtainIndustrialDesign
protectionor,failingthat,copyrightprotectionforfiftyyears.Beautywassaid
tobeintheeyeofthebeholder.Thusanythingintendedto”ornament”
wouldrequireregistrationasanIndustrialDesignandnotobtaincopyright
protection.
Wedonotwishtocommentonthesedecisionsbutsimplypointoutthatasa
functionaldesignafterJune1988,thisdesignwouldprobablynothavebeen
protectableundertheCopyrightAct;itmayhavebeenthekindofdesign
protectedbylegislationonfunctionalobjects.Thequestionariseshereagain
whetherourCanadiansocietywouldwantsuchadesigntobeprotected
andwhatconsequenceswouldsuchprotectionhaveontheeconomyofour
country.


InthecaseofBaylinerMarineCorporationv.DoralBoatsLtd.(1986)10C.P.R.
(3d)289,theFederalCourtofAppealdecidedthattheplansoftheboatsin
questionweredesignscapableofbeingregisteredundertheIndustrialDesign
Actandwerenotsubjectofcopyright.Itwasobviouslyaborderlinecase
wherebyitwouldnothavetakenmuchmoreforthesedesignstobe
functionalandthereforenotprotectableundertheIndustrialDesignAct.
Haditbeenthatway,theownerofthedesignswouldhaveenjoyeda
monopolyformanyyearstocome.HadthedesignsbeencreatedafterJune
1988,thesedesignswouldthenhavefalleninthecurrent”noman’sland”.If,
ontheotherhand,legislationprotectingfunctionalobjectsexisted,these
designswouldlikelyhavebeenprotectedunderthatlegislation.Whatgood
wouldthathavedonetoCanada?
InthecaseofSpiro-FlexIndustriesLtd.etal.v.ProgressiveSealingetal.Inc.
(1986)13C.P.R.(3d)311,twoquestionswereaskedfromtheCourt,oneof
thembeing:
“whetherthemanufactureandsaleofafunctional,threedimensional
object,the”Circoflex”pumpcouplerreproducedfromthethree
dimensional”Spiro-Flex”pumpcouplerisaninfringementofthe
copyrightallegedtosubsistinthedrawingsandspecificationsthat
depictthe”Spiro-Flex”pumpcoupler”.

TheCourtconcluded,afterhavingreviewedtheDoralBoatcaseandother
cases,that:
“Themanufactureandsaleofafunctional,three-dimensionalobject,
theCircoflexpumpcoupler,reproducedfromthethree-dimensional
Spiro-Flexpumpcouplerisaninfringementofthecopyrightinthe
drawingsandspecificationsthatdepicttheSpiro-Flexpumpcoupler”.

SincetheamendmentofJune1988adifferentdecisionwouldhavebeen
rendered.However,iflegislationprotectingfunctionalobjectshadexisted,it
islikelythatthethree-dimensionalSpiro-Flexpumpcouplerwouldhavebeen
protectedagainstinfringement.Thisobviouslywouldhavedependedonthe
provisionsofsuchapieceoflegislation.Thequestionis,isthereaneedfora
legislationtoprotectobjectssuchasthethree-dimensionalSpiro-Flexpump
coupler?Weknowasamatteroffactthatthispumpcouplerbenefitted
fromtheprotectionoftheCopyrightAct,admittedlyforonlyashorttime.Did
thatprotectionencouragedesignerstobemorecreative?Diditcausethe
consumerpublictobedeprivedofcompetingproducts?Itiseasytoask,but
noteasytoanswer.


IntheBritishLeylandMotorCorp.case(1986)12F.S.R.221,thePrivyCouncil
decidedreluctantlythattheCopyrightActasitthenwas,protectedagainst
infringement,thedrawingsofamuffler.Thereproductionofthemuffler
constitutedaninfringementofthecopyrighteddrawings.
Atpage227LordScarmanwrote:
“Ifitberight,asmynobleandlearnedfriendLordTemplemanasserts
andasIalsothink,”thatParliamentdidnotintendtheprotection
affordedbycopyrighttoadrawingshouldbecapableofexploitation
soastopreventthereproductionofafunctionalobjectdepictedina
drawing”,thepresentreviewoflawshouldleadtolegislationtobring
thelawbackwithinthelimitsintendedbyParliament.Thiswould
involvealegislativerejectionoftheviewofthelawuponwhichthe
HouseactedindecidingL.B.(Plastics)Ltd.v.SwishProductsLtd.[1979]
R.P.C.551.
Butfurtheritwouldbehelpfulifthecurrentreviewofthelawcouldlead
toincorporatingintheCopyrightActtheprinciplelatentinourlawbut
notfullydiscussedorexpresseduntilthepresentcasethatthe
manufacturerofanarticlesuchasamotorvehicleorother”consumer
durable”cannotbytheexerciseofcopyrightprecludetheuserofthe
articlefromaccesstoafreemarketforsparesnecessarytomaintainit
ingoodworkingorder.”

WeallknowthatsincetheamendmentofJune1988,ajudgmentliketheone
intheBritishLeylandMotorCorp.casewouldnotbepossibleinCanada.The
questionbeingdiscussedhereiswhethersimilardrawingseitherofmufflersor
ofotherfunctionalobjectsshouldgetsomeprotectionandifso,atwhat
condition.But,evenbeforediscussingtheconditionswhichmightbe
prescribedbyanewpieceoflegislationfortheprotectionofsuchdrawings,
thefundamentalquestionhastobeanswered:Isthereaneedinour
Canadiansocietytoprotectdrawingssimilartothosewhichwereputinto
questionintheBritishLeylandMotorCorp.case?
Docarmanufacturers,orgenerallyspeakingmanufacturersofmachines,
needsuchprotectioninordertobeencouragedtomanufacturebettercars
orbettermachinesatbetterprices?Wouldtheconsumerpublicbebetter
servedbyhavingsuchprotectiongranted?
Inconsideringthesequestions,itisusefultonotethattheUnitedKingdom
MonopoliesandMergersCommission’sReportin1982onautobodyparts
concludedthattheuseofcopyrighttoprotectfunctionalobjectsamounted
toanunreasonablerestrictionofcompetition(HMSO,HC318,Session
1981/1982).


Likewise,heateddebatehasensuedintheUnitedStatesbeforetheHouseof
Representativesonthetopicofwhetherornotdesignprotectionshouldbe
expandedthroughnewlegislation(seetab#26oftheAnnextothisReport).
Autoinsurancespokesmenhavearguedthatextendingdesignprotectionto
autobodypartswouldincreaseinsurancecoststoconsumersandinterfere
withtheconsumer’srighttorepairtheirautomobiles.Fortheirpart,the
automotiveindustryrepresentativeshavearguedthatprotectionisrequired
fordesignswitheyeappealinordertostemtheflowofallegedlyinferior
copiesbeingimportedfromoffshore.
InthecaseofBeaverDeltaMachineryCorp.v.LumberlandBuildingMaterials
Ltd.etal.(1985)4C.P.R.(3d)545,Mr.JusticeMuldoonwasseizedwithan
applicationexpartefordefaultjudgmentagainsttheDefendant.Inthis
case,thePlaintiffwasseekingredressagainstacopyrightinfringementof
drawingsofcomponentpartsofcertainwoodcuttingmachines.Judgment
wasrenderedinfavourofPlaintiffbutnodamageswereawardeduntil
persuasiveevidencebepresentedtoarefereeonareference.Hadthis
casebeentriedandhaditbeentriedonitsmeritsafterJune1988,no
infringementofcopyrightcouldhavebeenfoundtoexist.Inthatcase,the
allegedinfringingwoodcuttingmachineswereimportedfromTaiwan.The
allegedcopyrightswereowneddirectlyorindirectlybyanAmerican
company.WoulditbetotheadvantageofCanada,itsbusinesscommunity
andits,consumerstoprohibittheimportationofsuchgoods?
Therearemanyothercaseswhichcouldhavebeencitedorgranced
throughinordertoappreciatethelegalconsequencesofprotectingornot
protectingfunctionalobjectswhichdonotmeetthethresholdof
patentability.However,thesampleofcaseswhichwehavereferredto
wouldseemtobesufficienttoappreciatethenatureoftheproblem
involved.
2.IMPLICATIONSARISINGFROMTREATIESANDINTERNATIONAL
CONVENTIONS
AnumberoftreatiesandconventionstowhichCanadaisasignatory,have
beenexaminedwithrespecttopossibleimplicationsastolegislation
respectingthedesignoffunctionalobjectsandtheseinclude:
1)ParisConventionofMarch20,1883,LondonText;
2)ParisConventionofMarch20,1883,StockholmTextdatedJuly
14,1967;

 
3)BerneConventionfortheProtectionofLiteraryandArtisticWorks
of1886,asamended;
4)ArrangementofMadridfortheInternationalRegistrationofMarks
ofApril14,1891,StockholmTextofJuly14,1967;
5)Pan-AmericanConvention,February11,1929;
6)ArrangementofNicefortheInternationalClassificationofGoods
andServices,ofJune15,1957;
7)TheAgreementConcerningAutomotiveProductsbetween
CanadaandtheUnitedStates(Autopact)ofJanuary16,1965;
8)UniversalCopyrightConventionasrevisedatParisonJuly24,
1971;
9)ViennaTradeMarkRegistrationTreatyof1973;and
10)TheCanada-UnitedStatesFreeTradeAgreement.

Oftheseonlyone,theParisConvention,appearstohaverelevance.This
Conventiondealswithallformsofintellectualproperty,includingUtility
Modelsandindustrialdesignsprovidingfor,interalia,priorityperiods,
compulsorylicensingandcancellationofregistrations;itprovidesfor
reciprocalrights,whereallcontractingstatesmustgranttonationalsofother
contractingstatesthesamescopeofprotectionasitdoestoitsown
nationals.
TheBerneConventionandUniversalCopyrightConventiondonotappearto
berelevanttotheprotectionoffunctionalarticles.TheBerneConvention
providesthat”worksofartappliedtoindustrialpurposesshallbeprotectedso
farasthedomesticlegislationofeachcountryallows”,whiletheUniversal
CopyrightConventionstipulatesthatifacontractingstateprotectsworksof
appliedart,thetermofregistrationmustbeatleast10years.
Astotrade-marks,Article5ofthePan-AmericanConventionprovides:
“Labels,industrialdesigns,slogans,prints,cataloguesoradvertisements
usedtoidentifyoradvertisegoods,shallreceivethesameprotection
accordedtotrademarksincountrieswheretheyareconsideredas
such,uponcomplyingwiththerequirementsofthedomestictrade
marklaw.”



However,neitherthePan-AmericanConventionnoranyotherConvention
requiresthatthedesignoffunctionalarticlesbeprotectedbythemember
states.
Therefore,Canadaisundernotreatyobligationtoprovideforprotectionfor
functionaldesignsbut,ifitdoes,itwouldappeartobeobligedtoprovide,
undertheParisConventionreciprocalbenefitstonationalsofothercountries
signatorytothatConvention.ItmaywellbethattheUnitedKingdom,asa
signatorytothatConvention,isincontraventioninthatitsnewdesignlawsdo
notprovideforbenefitsforthenationalsofallsignatorycountriesbutonlyto
thosecountrieshavingsimilarandreciprocallegislation.
TheHagueAgreementConcerningtheInternationalDepositofIndustrial
Designsasrevised,enteredintoforceonAugust1,1984,however,Canadais
notyetasignatorytothatAgreement.ThisAgreementprovidesthat
nationalsof,orpersonsdomiciledin,eachofthecontractingstatescan
protecttheirindustrialdesignsintheothercontractingstatesbydepositingan
internationalapplication.AnInternationalRegisteriscreatedforthispurpose.
Thetermofprotectionisatleastfiveyears,andcanberenewedforfurther
fiveyearterms.Nationallawsmustprovideforatleastonefive-yearrenewal
term.
AsofDecember1990,twenty-onecountriesaresignatoriesatvariouslevelsof
theAgreement.
3.PROPOSEDTREATIES
Therearenotreatiespresentlyproposedforinternationalconsiderationthat
woulddealdirectlywithprotectionoffunctionaldesigns.TheWorld
IntellectualPropertyOrganization(WIPO)in1970proposedaModelLawon
IndustrialDesigns(copyattached)whichrelatedonlytodesignshavingan
ornamentaloraestheticfeature.TheModelLawdefinesadesignas”any
compositionoflinesorcoloursoranythreedimentionalform,providedthat
suchcompositionalformgivesaspecialappearancetotheproduct”.
Exemptedaredesignsthatservesolelytoobtainatechnicalresult.
TheUnitedStatesGovernmenthasissuedaproposedAnnextotheGeneral
AgreementonTariffsandTrade(GATT)thatdealsspecificallywithintellectual
propertyrights.Article2oftheAnnexwouldprovideforreciprocity,where
nationalsofothercontractingpartiesaretreatednolessfavourablythan
nationalsoftheparty.Articles20,21and22oftheAnnexdealspeciallywith
IndustrialDesignsandModels.Protectionistobegivenfordesignsthatare
new,original,ornamental,andnonobvious.


4.THECANADIANCONSTITUTION
Itisappropriatetogiveatleastabriefviewoftheconstitutionalproprietyof
legislationrelatingtofunctionaldesigns.TheConstitutionalAct,1981,in
dividingpowersbetweentheFederalParliamentandProvincialLegislatures,
touchesuponpartoftheareasofindustrialproperty.Inparticular,thefederal
parliamentisgivenexclusivejurisdictioninsection91ofthatActinrespectof:
(2)RegulationofTradeandCommerce
(22)PatentsofInventionandDiscovery
(23)Copyright
aswellasa”residuary”powerwhichhasbeenthesubjectofsomejudicial
interpretation.
Theprovinciallegislatureshavebeengivenexclusivejurisdictioninsection92,
inrespectof:
(13)PropertyandCivilRights
ThefederalgovernmenthasenactedthePatentActandtheCopyrightAct.
ThePatentActhasonlybeenchallengedconstitutionallyastoaspects
relatingtolicencesforpharmaceuticalpatents,whiletheCopyrightActhas
notbeenconstitutionallychallengedintheCourts.TheTrade-marksActhas
beenthesubjectofchallenges.IthasbeenheldinGoodHumourCorp.of
Americav.GoodHumourFoodProductsLtd.[1937]Ex.C.R.61,A.G.(Ont.)v.
A.G.(Can.),[1937]A.C.405(P.C.),MacDonaldv.VapourCanadaLtd.,[1977]
2S.C.R.134,andAsbjornHorgardA/Sv.Gibbs/NortacIndustriesLtd.,[1987]3
F.C.544(F.C.A.),thattheFederalParliamentiscompetenttoenactlegislation
inrespectoftrade-marks.
TheIndustrialDesignActhasnotbeenthesubjectofaconstitutional
challenge.
InA.G.(Ont.)v.A.G.(Can.),supra.,theJudicialCommitteeofthePrivy
Councilheld,inrespectoftrade-markcases,thatthelegislativecompetence
oftheDominionParliamentshouldextendtothecreationofjuristicrightsin
novelfields,iftheycanbebroughtfairlywithintheclassesofsubjects
confinedtoParliamentbytheConstitution.TheTrade-marksAct,asawhole,
wassaidtofallwithintheclassofsubjectsenumeratedins.91(2),”The
RegulationofTradeandCommerce”,becauseitisalawofgeneral
applicationregulatingstandardsofbusinessconductinCanada.
Morerecently,theSupremeCourtofCanadainMacDonaldv.Vapour
CanadaLtd.,supraatp.28,alsoindicatedthatpossibleindiciaforavalid



exerciseofthegeneraltradeandcommercepowerincludethepresenceof
anationalregulatoryscheme,(asexemplifiedbysuchrelatedstatutesinthe
industrialpropertyfieldasthePatentAct,R.S.C.1970,c.P-4,theCopyright
Act,R.S.C.1970,c.C-30andtheIndustrialDesignAct,R.S.C.1970,c.I-8),the
oversightofaregulatoryagencyandaconcernwithtradeingeneralrather
thanwithanaspectofaparticularbusiness.
Itwouldappearthat,underthepresentconstitutionalsystem,theParliament
ofCanadahassufficientbasisunderoneormoreofsubsections2,22and23
ofsection91oftheConstitutionAct,1981,toenactlegislationtoprotectnon-
inventivefunctionalobjects.
5.ARGUMENTSPROANDCON
AtpresentCanadahasnoformoflegislationgivingprotectionfornew
designsofafunctional,non-inventivenature,asappliedtoobjects.Some
butnotallothercountriesdohavelegislationofsomekind(forinstance,the
UnitedStateshasnone).Somecountriesprotectdesignshavingsomelimited
formofinventivenessandsomeprotectanynewdesign.GreatBritainhas
mostrecentlyaddressedthisissuebyprovidingaformofcopyrighttooriginal
designsforaperiodof10to15years,withouttheneedforanyformof
registration.
A.INFAVOUR
Argumentsinfavourofsomeformofprotectionfornewdesignsofa
functional,non-inventivenatureinclude:
1)Thereisaninherent”unfairness”inprovidingautomaticcopyright
protectiontothatwhichis”artistic”butdenyingittothatwhichis
functional.Thereisasmucheffortandexpenseputforwardin
creatingafunctionalobjectasthereisinanartisticobject,and
eachisworthyofprotection.
2)Thelinebetweenthatwhichis”ornamental”or”inventive”and
thatwhichis”functional”or”notinventive”isquiteindistinctand
involvessubstantialgreyareas.Itisunreasonabletogive
protectiontoonebutnoprotectiontotheother.
3)Thereisinternationalprecedentforsuchaformofprotection,
e.g.GreatBritain,andatraditioninCanada,priortothe
amendmentstotheCopyrightActin1988,inappearingto
providesuchprotection.


4)Provisionofprotectionmayencourageinvestmentbyinnovators
infunctionaldesigns.
5)Someconsiderthatthelevelof”inventiveness”underourcurrent
patentsystemistoolow,andtheintroductionofaUtilityModel
mightbetheoccasiontoraisethestandardsunderthePatent
Actandaffordtothoseinventionshavinglessmeritalimited
protection.Thecostofobtainingthislimitedprotectionwould
probablybelessandthecostoflitigationsurroundingthelimited
rightsgrantedmayalsobeoflessimportance.Theintroduction
ofaUtilityModelactcouldhavetheeffectofputtingreal
inventionswheretheyreallybelongandlesserinventionsina
differentcategorybutatthesametimerecognizingthattheydo
serveapurposeanddeservelimitedprotection.

Agooddesignistheonewhichisfunctionalandperfectlyadaptedtoits
function.If,afterresearchortrialanderror,afunctionalobjectbecomes
perfectlyadaptedtoitsfunction,whyshouldthosewhohaveinvestedtheir
workandmoneyinproducingsuchanobjectnotbeinthesamepositionas
theprofessionaldesignersittinginthenextroomwhosetaskistowrapthis
functionalobjectinadesignwhichwillgiveitalookthatwillmakeitsell.The
designerworkingontheappearanceoftheobjectwillgetaprotection
undertheIndustrialDesignAct.Themechanicorengineerworkingonthe
functionoftheobjectwillgetnothing.Bothattributes(functionalityand
goodlooks)havethesamepurpose,i.e.,tomaketheobjectsaleable.Into
thiscompetitiveenvironment,anobjectwhichisnotfunctionalandugly,will
notsell.Ontheotherhand,anobjectwhichmeetsbothattributes,hasa
betterchanceofbeingabusinesssuccess.Inotherwords,bothhavetheir
ownmeritandshouldbeequallyprotected.
Itisfrequentlystated,whilethereisnotmuchstraightforwardevidenceto
supportthisstatement,thatcapitalwillbeinvestedinafriendlyenvironment.
ThisargumentwasraisedandputforwardinsupportofamendingthePatent
Actwithregardtopharmaceuticalproducts.Ifthereisanytruthinthis
statement,alegislationprotectingfunctionalobjectscouldhavetheresultof
creatingafriendlyenvironmentforahealthiermanufacturingindustryin
Canada.StatisticswillshowCanadaasbeingmainlyanexporterofraw-
goods;bycreatingafriendlyenvironment,Canadamaybeabletoattract
capitalinitsmanufacturingindustry.
B.AGAINST
Argumentsagainstaformofprotectionforfunctionalobjectsinclude:


1)Thecreationofmonopolyinafunctionaldesignrunscounterto
thegeneralpublicinterestinsecuringawidechoiceofproducts
atreasonableprices.Themarketforsparepartsinparticular
wouldbeunreasonablyrestricted.
2)CertainofCanada’smajortradingpartnerssuchastheUnited
States,JapanandsomeEuropeancountries,excludingthe
UnitedKingdom,donothavesuchprotection,althoughJapan
andsomeEuropeancountriesgive”UtilityModel”protectionto
designshavinglesserinventivenessthanpatentabledesigns.
3)Theabsenceofsuchprotectionmayencourageinvestmentby
thosecopyingdesignsofothersorprovidingspareparts.
4)ThecreationofaformofprotectionotherthanthatofaUtility
ModelmaybeincontraventionofCanada’streatyobligation
undertheParisCOnvention.IfCanadacreatesasystemoutside
thescopeofthattreaty,thenCanadianswouldnotreceive
reciprocalbenefitsabroad,unlesstheCanadiansystemclosely
copiedtheUnitedKingdomsysteminwhichcaseCanadian
wouldobtainreciprocalintreatmentthatcountryalone.

EdithPenroseintheEconomicsoftheInternationalPatentSystem(1951),at
page30,wrote:
“IfnationalPatentLawsdidnotexist,itwouldbedifficulttomakea
conclusivecaseforintroducingthem;butthefactthattheydoexist
shiftstheburdenofproofanditisequallydifficulttomakeareally
conclusivecaseforabolishingthem.”

Sincecurrentlynoprotectionexistsforfunctionalobjects,theeasyanswer
wouldseemtobetodonothingandnottointroduceanadditionalburden
onthedevelopmentofindustry,whichwillhavenoknownbenefitsbutmany
knowndisadvantages,ifitwereonlymanyuncertaintiesforbusinesspeople
andmanycostlylitigations.
RightsgrantedundertheCopyrightAct,theIndustrialDesignAct,theTrade-
marksActorthePatentAct,nomatterhowgeneroustheymaybe,will
generallyserveonlythosewhocanaffordtoavailthemselvesoftheirrights
andfightbeforethecourtsfortherespectoftheirrightsandthe
maintenanceoftheirrights.Itisnosecretthatonlyveryfewcanaffordsuch
litigationandthereforeinpracticesuchrightswillmainlybenefitthose
alreadywell-offandwell-established.Suchprotectionwoulddefinitelynot
increasecompetitionnorfavourthearrivalofnewplayersonthemarket


placebutwillencouragemainlythosealreadytheretoholdontotheirshare
ofthemarket.Thereisnoevidencethatsuchprotectionoffunctionalobjects
wouldencourageanyonetodevelopnewproductsfortheimprovementof
thewell-beingoftheCanadiansociety.Havingtochoosebetweenthe
uncertaintyofthedevelopmentofnewfunctionalproductsandthecertainty
oflesscompetitionandlesspossibilityfornewcomerstoenterasplayerson
themarketplace,thechoiceshouldgoinfavourofcertainty.
I.RECOMMENDATIONS
Canada,atpresent,offersnoformoflegislationwhichwouldafford
protectionfornon-inventivefunctionalobjects.Canadaisnotuniqueinthis
position.Othercountries,suchastheUnitedStates,donotoffersuch
protectioneither.
Fromaneconomicpointofview,asseenthroughtheeyesoftheauthorswho
practiceaslawyersinthearea,thereseemstobelittleclamourforprotection
ofthiskind.Thoseorganizationswhodocreatesuchobjectsandmaywithto
claimprotectionareatleastbalancedbythosewhowishtohaveachoice
ofsuppliersorbeunrestrainedintheirabilitytomanufactureobjectsthatfit
onorwithorreplaceothers.Litigationpriortothe1988amendmentswas
sporadicandaftertherepealofanycopyrightasmanyhavearguably
existed,nolargeoutcrywasapparent.
Asanindustrializedcountry,Canadamustplayaharmoniousroleintheworld
communityofindustrializedplayers,however,thereexistsnotreatyor
conventionobligationtoimplementlegislationaffordingprotectiontonon-
inventivefunctionalobjects.Ifthereisapolicyelementtosuchprotectionitis
tostemtheflowof”counterfeit”goods,oftensoldasreplacementpartsand
saidtobeofinferior,andperhapsevenunsafequality.Muchofsuch
argumentwouldappear,howevertobemetbythemaintenanceof
enforceablegovernmentstandardsforreplacementpartsofacriticalnature
andthepolicyofmarkingsuchgoodswithanappropriatetrade-markand
thereafterpolicingagainstcounterfeitsthroughtrade-markforgery,or
infringement,orpassingoff.
Legislation,bywayof”UtilityModel”or”pettypatent”isofferedinmost
industrializedcountries,withthenotableexceptionofCanada’slargest
tradingpartner,theUnitedStates,wherebyfunctionalobjectsexhibitingsome
minimuminventivenessaregivenanarrowscopeofprotectionforalimited
numberofyears.Thisformofprotectionofferstwobenefitswhichtheauthors
believetobeworthwhile;thefirstisthatthedemandsofthoseseekingsome
formofprotectionfornewlydevisedobjectscanbemetbytheintroduction
ofaminimumlevelofinventivenesssoastoeliminatethemerely


commonplaceortrivialvariantsthereof;secondly,itwouldservetoraisethe
standardsfortrue”inventiveness”forthoseseekingpatentprotectionbyway
ofaffordingareasonablealternativeratherthannoalternativeatall.We
believethatCanada’sstandardsfor”inventiveness”forpatentspresentlyfall
wellbelowthosefoundacceptableinmostotherindustrializedcountries;this
mayinpartbeduetothefactthatnoalternativeisavailable.
TheamendmentsbroughttotheCopyrightActasofJune1988excluded
fromtherealmofcopyrightinfringementthefactofreproducingincertain
circumstancesdesignsappliedtousefularticles.Itwouldbe
counterproductivetogobacktothesituationwherewewerepriortothose
amendmentsandreintroducetheconceptofcopyrightinfringementof
designsappliedtousefularticlesbeitforashortperiodtotime.Copyright
wouldnotseemtobetherightroutetofollowtoprotectdesignsappliedto
usefularticleifitwereonlybecauseoftherelativelylowstandardsor
prerequisitesimposedbytheCopyrightAct.
Theproblemwouldnotbesolvedbyshorteningtheperiodofprotection.The
mainproblemwouldbetojustifythe”raisond’être”ofsuchaprotectionfor
designswhichdonothavetobeuseful,whichdonothavetobenew,and
whichcouldbeobvious,theironlyqualitybeingoriginalityinthesenseof
havingbeenindependentlycreated.
Economically,morallyandpolitically,itwouldseemhardtojustify.Thisisthe
reasonwhyweareoftheopinionthatifalegislationprotectingfunctional
objectshasanymerit,itwouldhavetobetoprotectthoseobjectswhich
havesomeusefulness,somenoveltyandarenottotallyobvious.
Thereareauthorswhoalreadycomplainedthattheprerequisitescurrently
imposedunderthePatentActaresotritethatapatentcanbeobtainedon
almostanything.DavidVaverinanarticleentitled:IntellectualProperty
Today:OfMythsandParadoxes(1990)vol.69TheCanadianBarReviewat
page118wrote:
“Inotherrespects,thestandardofinventionissettoolow.Patent
lawyersadvisethatvirtuallyanynewgadgetorwayofdoingthingsis
patentable:itisjustaquestionofskillfuldrafting.Thereis,ofcourse,an
elementofdrummingupbusinessinsuchadvice,butthereisalsosome
truth.Manypatentsareknowntobeinvalid,buttochallengethemby
litigationisabusinessdecision:arethecostsoftakingalicenceona
perunitroyaltylowerthanthecostsanduncertaintiesoflitigating
invalidity?Ifso,bettertobelicensedthantofight.”

IfthereisanytruthinwhatDavidVaverdescribesasthelowstandardsof
inventionunderourPatentAct,themerepresenceoforiginalityunder


CopyrightLawwoulddefinitelynotonlybetoolowbutcouldbe
characterizedasafree-for-allaswasthecasepriortoJune1988.Tomeetthis
objection,someconsiderationmaybegiventotheimplementationofa
UtilityModelschemeforobjectshavingatleastsomelevelofinventiveness.
ITISTHEREFORETHERECOMMENDATIONoftheauthorsofthisReportthat,in
viewofthelackofspecifictreatyobligations,andinviewofthelackofan
internationalconsensusandinviewofthelackofanycleardemandfromthe
businesscommunitythereisnoneedforCanada,atpresent,tomoveto
adoptlegislationthatwouldaffordprotectionforfunctionobjectsthatlack
inventivequalities.IfconsiderationistobegiventoimplementingaUtility
Model,suchaschemeshouldgrantonlyalimitedtermandscopeof
protectionfornewlydevisedfunctionalobjectshavingsomeminimumlevel
ofinventivequality.





ROBIC,ungrouped’avocatsetd’agentsdebrevetsetdemarquesdecommercevoué
depuis1892àlaprotectionetàlavalorisationdelapropriétéintellectuelledanstousles
domaines:brevets,dessinsindustrielsetmodèlesutilitaires;marquesdecommerce,marques
decertificationetappellationsd’origine;droitsd’auteur,propriétélittéraireetartistique,droits
voisinsetdel’artisteinterprète;informatique,logicielsetcircuitsintégrés;biotechnologies,
pharmaceutiquesetobtentionsvégétales;secretsdecommerce,know-howet
concurrence;licences,franchisesettransfertsdetechnologies;commerceélectronique,
distributionetdroitdesaffaires;marquage,publicitéetétiquetage;poursuite,litigeet
arbitrage;vérificationdiligenteetaudit;etce,tantauCanadaqu’ailleursdanslemonde.La
maîtrisedesintangibles.
ROBIC,agroupoflawyersandofpatentandtrademarkagentsdedicatedsince1892tothe
protectionandthevalorizationofallfieldsofintellectualproperty:patents,industrialdesigns
andutilitypatents;trademarks,certificationmarksandindicationsoforigin;copyrightand
entertainmentlaw,artistsandperformers,neighbouringrights;computer,softwareand
integratedcircuits;biotechnologies,pharmaceuticalsandplantbreeders;tradesecrets,
know-how,competitionandanti-trust;licensing,franchisingandtechnologytransfers;e-
commerce,distributionandbusinesslaw;marketing,publicityandlabelling;prosecution
litigationandarbitration;duediligence;inCanadaandthroughouttheworld.Ideaslive
here.
COPYRIGHTER
IDEASLIVEHERE
ILATOUTDEMÊMEFALLUL’INVENTER!
LAMAÎTRISEDESINTANGIBLES
LEGERROBICRICHARD
NOSFENÊTRESGRANDESOUVERTESSURLEMONDEDESAFFAIRES
PATENTER
R
ROBIC
ROBIC+DROIT+AFFAIRES+SCIENCES+ARTS
ROBIC++++
ROBIC+LAW+BUSINESS+SCIENCE+ART
THETRADEMARKERGROUP
TRADEMARKER
VOSIDÉESÀLAPORTÉEDUMONDE,DESAFFAIRESÀLAGRANDEURDELAPLANÈTE
YOURBUSINESSISTHEWORLDOFIDEAS;OURBUSINESSBRINGSYOURIDEASTOTHEWORLD


ReportPreparedforthe
DepartmentofConsumerandCorporateAffairs
ofCanada

MAY1991

 

HuguesG.Richardetal.158
LEGERROBICRICHARD,Lawyers
ROBIC,Patent&TrademarkAgents
55StJacques
Montreal(Quebec)
CanadaH2Y3X2
Tel.(514)987-6242
Fax(514)845-7874
E-mail:marion@robic.com
WebSite:www.robic.ca




ROBIC,ungrouped’avocatsetd’agentsdebrevetsetdemarquesdecommercevouédepuis1892àlaprotectionet
àlavalorisationdelapropriétéintellectuelledanstouslesdomaines:brevets,dessinsindustrielsetmodèlesutilitaires;
marquesdecommerce,marquesdecertificationetappellationsd’origine;droitsd’auteur,propriétélittéraireet
artistique,droitsvoisinsetdel’artisteinterprète;informatique,logicielsetcircuitsintégrés;biotechnologies,
pharmaceutiquesetobtentionsvégétales;secretsdecommerce,know-howetconcurrence;licences,franchiseset
transfertsdetechnologies;commerceélectronique,distributionetdroitdesaffaires;marquage,publicitéet
étiquetage;poursuite,litigeetarbitrage;vérificationdiligenteetaudit;etce,tantauCanadaqu’ailleursdansle
monde.Lamaîtrisedesintangibles.
HUGUESHUGHESRICHARDHUGUESHUGHESRICHARDHUGUESHUGHESRICHARDHUGUESHUGHESRICHARD
ROBIC,agroupoflawyersandofpatentandtrademarkagentsdedicatedsince1892totheprotectionandthe
valorizationofallfieldsofintellectualproperty:patents,industrialdesignsandutilitypatents;trademarks,certification
marksandindicationsoforigin;copyrightandentertainmentlaw,artistsandperformers,neighbouringrights;
computer,softwareandintegratedcircuits;biotechnologies,pharmaceuticalsandplantbreeders;tradesecrets,
know-how,competitionandanti-trust;licensing,franchisingandtechnologytransfers;e-commerce,distributionand
businesslaw;marketing,publicityandlabelling;prosecutionlitigationandarbitration;duediligence;inCanadaand
throughouttheworld.Ideaslivehere.