Industrial Design Licensing And Commercial Exploitation
Industrial Design Licensing and Commercial Exploitation
Industrial designs refer to the aesthetic or ornamental aspects of a product—its shape, pattern, color, or configuration—which give it a unique appearance. Industrial designs do not protect function (that is the realm of patents), but they can be a major commercial asset when exploited through licensing or other forms of commercialization.
Licensing allows third parties to use the design legally in exchange for royalties or fees, while commercial exploitation includes manufacturing, marketing, and selling products incorporating the protected design.
1. Industrial Design Licensing: Key Concepts
Exclusive vs. Non-Exclusive License:
Exclusive licenses prevent the licensor from licensing to others; non-exclusive licenses allow multiple licensees.
Territorial Restrictions:
Licenses may be limited to a country, region, or global market.
Royalty Structures:
Licensing agreements can include fixed fees, percentage of sales, or milestone payments.
Duration and Renewal:
Licenses typically run for the term of the design protection (often 15–25 years depending on jurisdiction).
Assignment vs. License:
Assignment transfers ownership; licensing only grants usage rights.
2. Commercial Exploitation
Industrial designs are often commercially exploited in:
Fashion and apparel
Consumer electronics
Furniture and décor
Automobile design
Packaging and branding
Commercial exploitation involves manufacturing, marketing, and sales, and can be expanded via cross-licensing, franchising, or strategic partnerships.
3. Case Laws on Industrial Design Licensing and Exploitation
Here are more than five notable cases illustrating principles of licensing and commercial use of industrial designs:
Case 1: Louboutin v. YSL (France / UK / USA, 2012–2018)
Facts:
Christian Louboutin, known for red-soled shoes, sued Yves Saint Laurent (YSL) for selling shoes with red soles.
Legal Issues:
Whether the red sole constituted a protectable design or trademark.
Enforcement against commercial exploitation by a competitor.
Decision:
US courts recognized the red sole as a distinctive design element that could be protected.
Licensing agreements and commercial use must respect exclusivity.
Significance:
Demonstrates that aesthetic features of fashion products can be licensed and enforced commercially.
Highlights cross-border enforcement and the importance of design registration for licensing.
Case 2: Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics (USA, 2012–2016)
Facts:
Apple sued Samsung for copying the design of the iPhone and iPad, including rounded corners, bezel design, and icon layout.
Legal Issues:
Industrial design infringement.
Damages based on lost licensing revenue and unfair commercial advantage.
Decision:
Jury awarded Apple substantial damages, including profits attributable to design infringement.
Licensing and commercial exploitation calculations were central to damages.
Significance:
Established that industrial designs have tangible commercial value.
Licensing revenue streams and potential loss must be considered in infringement litigation.
Case 3: Philips v. Remington (Europe, 2000s)
Facts:
Philips claimed that Remington’s shavers copied its registered industrial designs.
Legal Issues:
Enforcement of design rights across the EU.
Whether licensing arrangements or commercial exploitation without consent violated design law.
Decision:
European courts upheld Philips’ rights and prevented commercial exploitation by Remington.
Licensing terms must be explicitly respected.
Significance:
Shows that design licensing agreements are binding and enforceable across jurisdictions.
Courts assess actual commercial exploitation in infringement cases.
Case 4: Coca-Cola Bottle Shape Case (USA, 1998)
Facts:
Coca-Cola sued competitors for copying the contour bottle design, a registered design and trade dress.
Legal Issues:
Distinguishing between functional and ornamental aspects.
Enforcement against commercial exploitation via manufacturing and sale.
Decision:
Courts confirmed that the contour design is protectable.
Licensing and assignment agreements respect the original design.
Significance:
Demonstrates that industrial designs tied to brand identity can be monetized through licensing.
Courts recognize profit sharing for unauthorized commercial exploitation.
Case 5: Black & Decker v. Positec (USA / EU, 2010)
Facts:
Black & Decker accused Positec of copying the design of power tools.
Legal Issues:
Industrial design infringement.
Calculating damages based on lost licensing revenue and market impact.
Decision:
Settlement favored Black & Decker; Positec agreed to cease production and pay royalties.
Significance:
Highlights the importance of licensing negotiations as a tool for commercial resolution.
Reinforces that industrial designs can be monetized through licensing and litigation.
Case 6: Gucci v. Guess (USA, 2009–2012)
Facts:
Gucci sued Guess for selling bags and accessories imitating Gucci’s design patterns and ornamentation.
Legal Issues:
Industrial design vs. trademark infringement.
Enforcement against unauthorized commercial use.
Decision:
US courts awarded Gucci damages and injunctions against Guess.
Licensing agreements must clearly outline allowed commercial uses.
Significance:
Reinforces strategic licensing as a way to prevent infringement.
Commercial exploitation without consent leads to heavy liability.
Case 7: Nokia v. Apple (EU / Germany, 2009) (Focus on Design Rights in Electronics)
Facts:
Nokia alleged that Apple copied the industrial design of Nokia phones.
Legal Issues:
Design infringement in mobile devices.
Licensing as a defense or as an enforcement tool.
Decision:
Courts emphasized scope of registered design and protected features.
Licensing negotiations often occur to avoid prolonged litigation.
Significance:
Shows that in electronics, industrial designs are crucial commercial assets.
Licensing agreements can prevent infringement and promote revenue sharing.
4. Licensing Models and Commercial Strategies
Exclusive Licensing:
Used for premium or high-end products to control market perception (e.g., luxury fashion).
Non-Exclusive Licensing:
Suitable for mass-market products with multiple partners, e.g., consumer electronics.
Cross-Licensing:
Companies exchange rights to expand product lines without litigation, often in technology-heavy sectors.
Royalty-Based Exploitation:
Royalties are calculated as a percentage of sales revenue or per unit sold, incentivizing commercial expansion.
Franchising & Merchandising:
Brands with iconic designs can expand commercially through franchise licensing while retaining design ownership.
5. Key Lessons from Case Law
Design registration is critical for licensing and enforcement.
Licensing enables monetization of aesthetic and ornamental value.
Global enforcement requires alignment with regional IP laws.
Commercial exploitation without consent leads to damages or injunctions.
Cross-licensing and settlements are common tools to manage industrial design disputes.
6. Conclusion
Industrial designs are powerful commercial assets that can be licensed to generate revenue while controlling market use. Landmark cases in fashion, electronics, consumer goods, and packaging show that:
Courts recognize the monetary and strategic value of designs.
Licensing agreements define scope, territory, duration, and royalties.
Effective commercial exploitation requires careful legal and business planning.
RELATED Blog
comments