“Fire Rings”
摘要
It cannot be generally concluded that a minimalist design or a reduction to the essential establishes necessary individuality. What is decisive is that the work clearly stands out artistically in its overall impression from the then known set of forms for the product in question (here: barbecue devices), i.e. whether the artistic design within the scope of its purpose is so clearly distinguishable from the previously known forms that it appears to be unique or original. The fact that technical requirements do not play a role in copyright law is not true. However, there is a difference between compliance with the patent requirements and the question of whether the patent specifies a particular design. The scope of protection for a utility object is all the smaller, the less pronounced the individual character conferred on the work by the exploitation of the creative scope. Only a party whose sign has been in use for a longer period of time can invoke the unfair competition law protection of Art. 3(1)(d) Act against Unfair Competition. The decisive factor is an earlier proven, outwardly perceptible use in business transactions; the mere intention to use the sign is not sufficient.