An industrial component between appearance and function
DOCERAM owned registered designs for ceramic weld centring pins. CeramTec offered pins in the same variants and counterclaimed for invalidity when sued. The referring court in Düsseldorf identified other shapes performing the same function. The question concerned excluding appearance features solely dictated by technical function (paragraphs 10–17). [1]
The dispute is useful for manufacturers of components, packaging and tools because different geometric choices have different purposes. Designers may consider assembly tolerances, costs, ergonomics and appearance at the same time. The analytical question concerns how those considerations relate to a particular feature, rather than whether the product as a whole seems attractive.
The test established on 8 March 2018
The Court held that the decisive question is whether technical function was the only factor determining the features. Alternative designs are not decisive. Assessment requires all relevant objective circumstances and does not depend on the perception of a hypothetical objective observer (paragraphs 31–38). [1]
Article 8(1) of Regulation 6/2002 was the legal basis of the reference. Its test must be kept separate from novelty, individual character and overall impression. Passing one test does not replace the others. This is an analysis of a historical ruling; a new project requires checking the legislation applicable to its date and procedure. [2]
Editorial method: mapping design decisions
Start with a drawing whose features are numbered: outline, hole, contact surface, proportions and finish. Assign a function to each feature and identify records explaining why it was selected. Dated sketches, successive CAD models, test results and the brief accepted before the final version may be useful. Their significance must be evaluated within the evidence as a whole, without assuming that a single note decides the case.
The second stage examines alternatives. Compare two models performing the same function under the same parameters: loads, use, manufacturing constraints and assembly conditions. An alternative existing only on paper does not describe the same conditions as a working prototype. Conversely, a more expensive variant does not automatically disappear from the analysis just because the undertaking rejected it.
The third stage separates the document from its interpretation. An email using the word aesthetic proves that someone made a statement; its significance for the actual choice of a feature still needs assessment. In team projects, record the decision maker, the versions considered and the approval date. These are proposed documentation practices, not a mandatory catalogue of evidence for every dispute.
Example: a housing for measurement equipment
A hypothetical team in southern Poland develops a sensor housing. Hole spacing is determined by installation on an existing rail, ribs dissipate heat, and an asymmetric edge is intended to make the product visually distinctive. The working matrix should not label the entire device technical. Each feature receives a separate analysis of the circumstances influencing its selection.
If the team proposes another rib layout, it should explain whether the thermal tests are comparable. If it relies on the visual effect of the edge, earlier sketches are more informative than a project history reconstructed only after a dispute. The material helps formulate questions for the designer and technical specialist. It guarantees neither protection nor a finding that another housing infringes a right.
Using literature to test the reasoning
Tobias Endrich examined DOCERAM in the Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, 14(2), 156–167, DOI 10.1093/jiplp/jpy170. The publisher's public description identifies an examination of the test and weaknesses in the judgment's reasoning. We cite verified metadata and the accessible description, without attributing detailed propositions from an unavailable full text. [3]
An editorial reading exercise uses three columns: statutory wording, the Court's answer and the reader's own conclusion for project documentation. Then challenge each conclusion with a different explanation of the same feature. This makes the transition from an engineering observation to a legal assessment visible and checks whether merely listing variants has replaced analysis of the design choices.
A sound report also identifies features excluded from review and the reason for that limit. A single product view should not be supplemented with invented geometry of unseen surfaces. If a prototype was studied, record differences from the registered version. The reader can then check exactly which object and evidence support the conclusion.
Lessons from the analysis
- An alternative appearance alone does not settle the technical-function test.
- Link each relevant feature to objective evidence of its selection.
- Separate technical function from novelty and individual character.
Limits of interpretation
A historical interpretation of Article 8(1) of Regulation 6/2002, without assessing the present protection of any particular product. The sensor example and documentation matrix are editorial commentary. Designs, patents and trademarks are different forms of protection.
Sources and further reading
- 1CJEU, DOCERAM v CeramTec ↗
C-395/16; ECLI:EU:C:2018:172; 8.03.2018; CELEX:62016CJ0395
Primary source; facts paragraphs 10–17, test paragraphs 26–38 and operative part.
- 2Community Designs Regulation — historical text ↗
Regulation (EC) 6/2002, art. 4–8; CELEX:32002R0006
The legislation examined historically in the judgment. For new acts check the text applicable after EU design reform.
- 3Tobias Endrich, Pinning down functionality in EU design law – A comment on the CJEU’s DOCERAM judgment (C-395/16) ↗
Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice 14(2), 2019, 156–167; DOI:10.1093/jiplp/jpy170
Publisher metadata and public description verified. Online publication 18 December 2018; journal issue February 2019.