Plenary report, 30 October 2023
On the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the legal protection of designs (recast)
Report A-9-2023-0317 · (COM(2022)0667 – C9395/2022 – 2022/0392(COD))
Committee on Legal Affairs · Rapporteur: Gilles Lebreton
Full text
Jump to an amendment (21)
Text 0 paragraphs
Draft european parliament legislative resolution 111 paragraphs
on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the legal protection of designs (recast)
(COM(2022)0667 – C9395/2022 – 2022/0392(COD))
(Ordinary legislative procedure – recast)
The European Parliament,
–having regard to the Commission proposal to Parliament and the Council (COM(2022)0667),
–having regard to Article 294(2) and Article 114(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, pursuant to which the Commission submitted the proposal to Parliament (C9395/2022),
–having regard to Article 294(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
–having regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee of 22 March 2023,
–having regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 28 November 2001 on a more structured use of the recasting technique for legal acts,
–having regard to Rules 110 and 59 of its Rules of Procedure,
–having regard to the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs (A9-0317/2023),
A.whereas, according to the Consultative Working Party of the legal services of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission, the Commission proposal does not include any substantive amendments other than those identified as such in the proposal and whereas, as regards the codification of the unchanged provisions of the earlier acts together with those amendments, the proposal contains a straightforward codification of the existing texts, without any change in their substance;
1.Adopts its position at first reading hereinafter set out, taking into account the recommendations of the Consultative Working Party of the legal services of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission;
2.Calls on the Commission to refer the matter to Parliament again if it replaces, substantially amends or intends to substantially amend its proposal;
3.Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the national parliaments.
Amendment 1
Proposal for a directive
Recital 1
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (1) A number of amendments are to be made to Directive 98/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council22. In the interests of clarity, that Directive should be recast. | (1) A number of amendments are to be made to Directive 98/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council22. In the interests of clarity, legal certainty, streamlining and the updating of rules in relation to market developments brought about by the developments regarding information technology and artificial intelligence, that Directive should be recast. |
| 22 Directive 98/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 1998 on the legal protection of designs (OJ L 289, 28.10.1998, p. 28). | 22 Directive 98/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 1998 on the legal protection of designs (OJ L 289, 28.10.1998, p. 28). |
Amendment 2
Proposal for a directive
Recital 3
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (3) Design protection in national law of the Member States coexists with protection available at Union level through European Union designs (‘EU designs’) which are unitary in character and valid throughout the Union as laid down in Council Regulation (EC) No 6/200223. The coexistence and balance of design protection systems at national and Union level constitutes a cornerstone of the Union’s approach to intellectual property protection. | (3) Design protection in national law of the Member States coexists with protection available at Union level through European Union designs (‘EU designs’) which are unitary in character and valid throughout the Union as laid down in Council Regulation (EC) No 6/200223. The coexistence and balance of design protection systems at national and Union level provides an appropriate level of legal certainty and constitutes a cornerstone of the Union’s approach to intellectual property protection. |
| 23 Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 of 12 December 2001 on Community designs (OJ L 3, 5.1.2002, p. 1). | 23 Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 of 12 December 2001 on Community designs (OJ L 3, 5.1.2002, p. 1). |
Amendment 3
Proposal for a directive
Recital 5
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (5) In its conclusions of 11 November 2020 on intellectual property policy and the revision of the industrial design system in the Union25, the Council called on the Commission to present proposals for the revision of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 and Directive 98/71/EC. The revision was requested due to the need to modernise the industrial design systems and to make design protection more attractive for individual designers and businesses, especially small and medium-sized enterprises. In particular, that revision was requested to address and consider amendments aiming at supporting and strengthening the complementary relationship between the Union, national and regional design protection systems, and involve further efforts to reduce areas of divergence within the design protection system in the Union. | (5) In its conclusions of 11 November 2020 on intellectual property policy and the revision of the industrial design system in the Union25, the Council called on the Commission to present proposals for the revision of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 and Directive 98/71/EC. The revision was requested due to the need to modernise the industrial design systems, to update them in line with market developments regarding information technology and artificial intelligence and to make design protection more attractive for individual designers and businesses, especially small and medium-sized enterprises. In particular, that revision was requested to address and consider amendments aiming at supporting and strengthening the complementary relationship between the Union, national and regional design protection systems, and involve further efforts to reduce areas of divergence within the design protection system in the Union. |
| 25 Council conclusions on intellectual property policy and the revision of the industrial designs system in the Union 2020/C 379 I/01 (OJ C 379I, 10.11.2020, p. 1). | 25 Council conclusions on intellectual property policy and the revision of the industrial designs system in the Union 2020/C 379 I/01 (OJ C 379I, 10.11.2020, p. 1). |
Amendment 4
Proposal for a directive
Recital 6
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (6) Based on the final results of the evaluation, the Commission announced in its communication of 25 November 2020 ‘Making the most of the EU’s innovative potential. An intellectual property action plan to support the EU’s recovery and resilience’27that it will revise the Union legislation on design protection, following the successful reform of the Union trade mark legislation. | (6) Based on the final results of the evaluation, the Commission announced in its communication of 25 November 2020 entitled ‘Making the most of the EU’s innovative potential. An intellectual property action plan to support the EU’s recovery and resilience’27 that it would revise Union legislation on design protection, following the successful reform of Union trade mark legislation, with a view to simplifying the system and making it more accessible and efficient, and with a view to updating the regulatory framework in the light of the developments in relation to new technologies on the market. |
| 27 Communication (COM/2020/760 final) from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on Making the most of the EU’s innovative potential. An intellectual property action plan to support the EU’s recovery and resilience. | 27 Communication (COM/2020/760 final) from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on Making the most of the EU’s innovative potential. An intellectual property action plan to support the EU’s recovery and resilience. |
Amendment 5
Proposal for a directive
Recital 7
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (7) In its report of 10 November 2021 on the intellectual property action plan28 the European Parliament welcomed the Commission’s willingness to modernise the Union legislation on design protection, called on the Commission to further harmonise the application and invalidation procedures in the Member States, and suggested to reflect upon aligning Directive 98/71/EC and Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 with a view to creating greater legal certainty. | (7) In its resolution of 11 November 2021 on an intellectual property action plan to support the EU’s recovery and resilience28 the European Parliament welcomed the Commission’s willingness to modernise the Union legislation on design protection in order to better support the transition to a sustainable and digital economy, called on the Commission to further harmonise the application and invalidation procedures in the Member States, and suggested to reflect upon aligning Directive 98/71/EC and Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 with a view to creating greater legal certainty. |
| 28 Report on an intellectual property action plan to support the EU’s recovery and resilience (2021/2007(INI)). | 28 European Parliament resolution of 11 November 2021 on an intellectual property action plan to support the EU’s recovery and resilience (2021/2007(INI)) (OJ C 205, 20.5.2022, p. 26). |
Justification
These are the terms used in paragraph 32 of the European Parliament resolution of 11 November 2021 on an intellectual property action plan to support the EU’s recovery and resilience.
Amendment 6
Proposal for a directive
Recital 8
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (8) Consultation and evaluation have revealed that, in spite of the previous harmonisation of national laws, there are still areas where further harmonisation could have a positive impact on competitiveness and growth. | (8) Consultation and evaluation have revealed that, in spite of the previous harmonisation of national laws, there are still areas where further harmonisation could have a positive impact on competitiveness and growth and, in particular, in terms of the increased accessibility SMEs would have to the design protection system. |
Amendment 7
Proposal for a directive
Recital 13
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (13) The attainment of the objectives of the internal market requires that the conditions for obtaining a registered design right be identical in all the Member States. | (13) The attainment of the objectives of the internal market requires that the conditions for obtaining a registered design right be harmonised in all the Member States. |
Amendment 8
Proposal for a directive
Recital 18
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (18) While design features do not need to be visible at any particular time or in any particular situation in order to benefit from design protection, as an exception to this principle, protection should not be extended to those component parts which are not visible during normal use of a complex product, or to those features of such part which are not visible when the part is mounted, or which would not, in themselves, fulfil the requirements as to novelty and individual character. Therefore, those features of design of component parts of a complex product which are excluded from protection for these reasons should not be taken into consideration for the purpose of assessing whether other features of the design fulfil the requirements for protection. | (18) While design features need to be visible to benefit from design protection, it is not necessary for those features to be visible at all times or in a particular situation in order to qualify for such protection; as an exception to this principle, protection should not be extended to those component parts which are not visible during normal use of a complex product, or to those features of such part which are not visible when the part is mounted, or which would not, in themselves, fulfil the requirements as to novelty and individual character. Therefore, those features of design of component parts of a complex product which are excluded from protection for these reasons should not be taken into consideration for the purpose of assessing whether other features of the design fulfil the requirements for protection. |
Justification
Linguistic clarification.
Amendment 9
Proposal for a directive
Recital 19
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (19) Although product indications do not affect the scope of protection of the design as such, alongside the representation of the design they may serve to determine the nature of the product in which the design is incorporated or to which it is intended to be applied. Furthermore, product indications improve the searchability of designs in the register of designs kept by an industrial property office. Therefore, accurate product indications facilitating search and increasing the transparency and accessibility of a register should be ensured prior to registration without undue burden on applicants. | (19) Although product indications do not affect the scope of protection of the design as such, alongside the representation of the design they may serve to determine the nature of the product in which the design is incorporated or to which it is intended to be applied. Furthermore, product indications improve the searchability of designs in the register of designs kept by an industrial property office. Therefore, accurate product indications facilitating search and increasing the transparency and accessibility of a register should be ensured prior to registration without an undue administrative burden or additional costs for applicants. |
Amendment 10
Proposal for a directive
Recital 21
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (21) Technological innovation should not be hampered by granting design protection to designs consisting exclusively of features or the arrangement of features dictated solely by a technical function. It is understood that this does not entail that a design must have an aesthetic quality. A registered design right may be declared invalid where no considerations other than the need for that product to fulfil a technical function, in particular those related to the visual aspect, have played a role in the choice of the features of appearance. | (21) Technological innovation should not be hampered by granting design protection to designs consisting exclusively of features or the arrangement of features dictated solely by a technical function. It is understood that this does not entail that a design must have an aesthetic quality, and that designs with a technical function are not excluded from the design protection. A registered design right may be declared invalid where no considerations other than the need for that product to fulfil a technical function, in particular those related to the visual aspect, have played a role in the choice of the features of appearance. |
Justification
Often, designs are not mere design objects but are industrial products having a function. Design protection presents a major asset also for functional and technical products and should therefore enjoy protection.
Amendment 11
Proposal for a directive
Recital 27
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (27) The substantive grounds for non-registrability and the substantive grounds for the invalidation of registered design rights in all the Member States should be exhaustively enumerated. | (27) For reasons of legal certainty, the substantive grounds for non-registrability and the substantive grounds for the invalidation of registered design rights in all the Member States should be exhaustively enumerated. |
Justification
This reference to legal certainty underlines the importance of exhaustively listing the substantive reasons for such non-registrability and invalidation.
Amendment 12
Proposal for a directive
Recital 28
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (28) In view of the growing deployment of 3D printing technologies in diverse industries, and the resulting challenges for design right holders to effectively prevent the illegitimate, easy copying of their protected designs, it is appropriate to provide that the creation, downloading, copying and making available of any medium or software recording the design, for the purpose of reproduction of a product that infringes the protected design, amounts to use of the design being subject to the right holder’s authorisation. | (28) In view of the growing deployment of artificial intelligence and 3D printing technologies in diverse industries, and the resulting challenges for design right holders to effectively prevent the illegitimate, easy copying of their protected designs, it is appropriate to provide that the creation, downloading, copying and making available of any medium or software recording the design, for the purpose of reproduction of a product that infringes the protected design, amounts to use of the design being subject to the right holder’s authorisation. |
Amendment 13
Proposal for a directive
Recital 29
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (29) In order to strengthen design protection and combat counterfeiting more effectively, and in line with international obligations of the Member States under the World Trade Organisation (WTO) framework, in particular Article V to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade on freedom of transit, and, as regards generic medicines, the Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health, the holder of a registered design right should be entitled to prevent third parties from bringing products from third countries into the Member State where the design is registered without being released for free circulation there, where without authorisation the design is identically incorporated in or applied to these products, or the design cannot be distinguished in its essential aspects of the appearance from such products. | (29) In order to strengthen design protection and combat counterfeiting more effectively, as called for by the European Parliament in its resolution of 11 November 2021, and in line with international obligations of the Member States under the World Trade Organisation (WTO) framework, in particular Article V to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade on freedom of transit, and, as regards generic medicines, the Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health, the holder of a registered design right should be entitled to prevent third parties from bringing products from third countries into the Member State where the design is registered without being released for free circulation there, where without authorisation the design is identically incorporated in or applied to these products, or the design cannot be distinguished in its essential aspects of the appearance from such products. |
Justification
It is worth noting that this concern to combat counterfeiting more effectively has been expressed by the European Parliament previously.
Amendment 14
Proposal for a directive
Recital 34
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (34) The differences in the laws of the Member States on the use of protected designs for the purpose of permitting the repair of a complex product so as to restore its original appearance, where the product incorporating the design or to which the design is applied constitutes a form-dependent component part of a complex product, directly affect the establishment and functioning of the internal market. Such differences distort competition and trade within the internal market and create legal uncertainty. | (34) The differences in the laws of the Member States on the use of protected designs for the purpose of permitting the repair of a complex product so as to restore its original appearance, in particular where the product incorporating the design or to which the design is applied constitutes a form-dependent component part of a complex product, directly affect the establishment and functioning of the internal market. Such differences distort competition and trade within the internal market and create legal uncertainty, as highlighted by the European Parliament in paragraph 33 of its resolution of 11 November 2021. The repairability of products is at the core of a sustainable economy, as highlighted in the European Green Deal and in the amendments of the European Parliament of 12 July 2023 to the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a framework for setting eco-design requirements for sustainable products and repealing Directive 2009/125/EC1a. |
| 1a Texts adopted, P9_TA(2023)0272. |
Amendment 15
Proposal for a Directive
Recital 35
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (35) It is therefore necessary for the smooth functioning of the internal market and in order to ensure fair competition therein to approximate the design protection laws of the Member States as concerns the use of protected designs for the purpose of repair of a complex product so as to restore its original appearance through the insertion of a repair clause similar to that already contained in Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 and applicable to EU designs at Union level but explicitly applying to form-dependent component parts of complex products only. As the intended effect of such repair clause is to make design rights unenforceable where the design of the component part of a complex product is used for the purpose of the repair of a complex product so as to restore its original appearance, the repair clause should be placed among the available defences to design right infringement under this Directive. In addition, in order to ensure that consumers are not mislead but are able to make an informed decision between competing products that can be used for the repair, it should also be made explicit in the law that the repair clause cannot be invoked by the manufacturer or seller of a component part who have failed to duly inform consumers about the origin of the product to be used for the purpose of the repair of the complex product. | (35) It is therefore necessary for the smooth functioning of the internal market and in order to ensure fair competition therein to approximate the design protection laws of the Member States as concerns the use of protected designs for the purpose of repair of a complex product so as to restore its original appearance through the insertion of a repair clause similar to that already contained in Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 and applicable to EU designs at Union level but explicitly applying to component parts of complex products only. As the intended effect of such repair clause is to make design rights unenforceable where the design of the component part of a complex product is used for the purpose of the repair of a complex product so as to restore its original appearance, the repair clause should be placed among the available defences to design right infringement under this Directive. In addition, in order to ensure that consumers are not mislead but are able to make an informed decision between competing products that can be used for the repair, it should also be made explicit in the law that the repair clause cannot be invoked by the manufacturer or seller of a component part who have failed to duly inform consumers with detailed information about the origin and identity of the producer of the product to be used for the purpose of the repair of the complex product. |
Amendment 16
Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – point 5 a (new)
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (5a) ‘manufacturer’ means manufacturer as defined in Article 3, point (8), of Regulation (EU) 2023/988 of the European Parliament and of the Council1a; | |
| 1a Regulation (EU) 2023/988 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 May 2023 on general product safety, amending Regulation (EU) No 1025/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Directive (EU) 2020/1828 of the European Parliament and the Council, and repealing Directive 2001/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Council Directive 87/357/EEC (OJ L 135, 23.5.2023, p. 1). |
Amendment 17
Proposal for a directive
Article 19 – paragraph 1
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 1. Protection shall not be conferred on a registered design which constitutes a component part of a complex product, upon whose appearance the design of the component part is dependent, and which is used within the meaning of Article 16(1) for the sole purpose of the repair of that complex product so as to restore its original appearance. | 1. Protection shall not be conferred on a registered design which constitutes a component part of a complex product, which is used within the meaning of Article 16(1) for the sole purpose of the repair of that complex product so as to restore its original appearance. The use of such a component part for the aforementioned repair purpose shall be presumed. |
Amendment 18
Proposal for a directive
Article 19 – paragraph 2
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 2. Paragraph 1 cannot be invoked by the manufacturer or the seller of a component part of a complex product who failed to duly inform consumers, through a clear and visible indication on the product or in another appropriate form, about the origin of the product to be used for the purpose of the repair of the complex product, so that they can make an informed choice between competing products that can be used for the repair. | 2. Paragraph 1 cannot be invoked by the manufacturer or the seller of a component part of a complex product who failed to duly inform consumers, through a clear and visible indication on the product or in another appropriate form, about the identity of the manufacturer of the product to be used for the sole purpose of the repair of the complex product, so that they can make an informed choice between competing products that can be used for the repair. This indication of the manufacturer’s identity shall include at least the name of the manufacturer, the geographical address of his registered place of business and, where appropriate, his telephone number or e-mail address. |
Amendment 19
Proposal for a directive
Article 19 – paragraph 3
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 3. Where at the time of adoption of this Directive the national law of a Member State provides protection for designs within the meaning of paragraph 1, the Member State shall, by way of derogation from paragraph 1, continue until …[OP please insert the date = ten years from the date of entry into force of this Directive] to provide that protection for designs for which registration has been applied before the entry into force of this Directive. | 3. Where at the time of adoption of this Directive the national law of a Member State provides protection for designs within the meaning of paragraph 1, the Member State may, by way of derogation from paragraph 1, continue to provide that protection for designs for which registration has been applied before the entry into force of this Directive. That protection shall last 10 years from the date of entry into force of this Directive, unless that Member State prefers to opt for a shorter period of at least three years. |
Amendment 20
Proposal for a directive
Article 24
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| The holder of a registered design right may inform the public that the design is registered by displaying on the product in which the design is incorporated or to which it is applied the letter D enclosed within a circle. Such design notice may be accompanied by the registration number of the design or hyperlinked to the entry of the design in the register. | The holder of a registered design right may inform the public that the design is registered by displaying on the product in which the design is incorporated or to which it is applied the letter R enclosed within a circle. Such design notice may be accompanied by the registration number of the design or hyperlinked to the entry of the design in the register. Any misuse of this indication may lead to legal proceedings. |
Amendment 21
Proposal for a directive
Article 31 – paragraph 1
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 1. Without prejudice to the right of the parties to appeal to the courts, Member States shall provide for an efficient and expeditious administrative procedure before their offices for the declaration of invalidity of a registered design right. | 1. Without prejudice to the right of the parties to appeal to the courts, Member States may provide for an efficient and expeditious administrative procedure before their offices for the declaration of invalidity of a registered design right. |
Justification
A mandatory administrative system for invalidity would lead to an increase in workload and in public expenditure and investments in the National IP Offices, because (1) conflicts in the field of design are less than in the field of trademark, and putting the system into force would be useless and onerous; and (2) if the rightholder pays the renovation timely, the legal life of a trademark could last forever, while, the legal life of a design is restricted to maximum 25 years -yet designs are often protected from 5 to 10 years-.
Explanatory statement 2 paragraphs
The Rapporteur takes a generally favourable view of the Commission’s proposal, which repeals and replaces the existing Directive 98/71/EC. It has the merit of adapting design protection to the evolution of digital technologies, in particular the appearance of 3D printers. It also seeks to further align national laws in order to enhance their interoperability and complementarity with the Community design system. Finally, it aims to complete the single market in repair spare parts by introducing a repair clause into the Directive as already contained in the Regulation.
The proposed changes are guided by two general objectives: enhancing legal certainty and reiterating positions previously expressed by the European Parliament. The most important concern the replacement of the concept of ‘origin’ of the product, which is too vague, with the concept of ‘identity of the manufacturer’ of the product (Nos 8 and 14), and the relaxation of the ten-year period for the application of the repair clause to designs for which registration was sought before the entry into force of the new Directive, which was considered excessively rigid (No 15).
Minority position 4 paragraphs
24/10/2023
Rule 55(4) of Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament
As pro-European and democratic political group, committed to the improvement and modernisation of the EU legal framework on industrial design protection, Renew Europe fully supports the revision of the Regulation on Community designs introduced by the European Commission and amended by Members of this Parliament.
For this reason, our political group will support the legislative report attributed to Mr LEBRETON from ID Group. Nevertheless, our support can in no way link us to this political group and the Eurosceptic positions it conveys, which we firmly oppose.
Annex: opinion of the consultative working party of the legal services of the european parliament, the council and the commission 15 paragraphs
| CONSULTATIVE WORKING PARTY OF THE LEGAL SERVICES |
Brussels, 23 June 2023
OPINION
FOR THE ATTENTION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
THE COUNCIL
THE COMMISSION
Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the legal protection of designs (recast)
COM(2022)667 final of 28.11.2022 – 2022/0392(COD)
Having regard to the Inter-institutional Agreement of 28 November 2001 on a more structured use of the recasting technique for legal acts, and in particular to point 9 thereof, the Consultative Working Party consisting of the respective legal services of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission met on 12 May 2023 for the purpose of examining the aforementioned proposal submitted by the Commission.
At that meeting, an examination of the proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council recasting Directive 98/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 1998 on the legal protection of designs resulted in the Consultative Working Party’s establishing, by common accord, that the following should have been marked with the grey-shaded type generally used for identifying substantive amendments:
- the entire text of recital 6 of Directive 98/71/EC;
- in Article 23, the deletion of the words ‘of that State’.
In consequence, examination of the proposal has enabled the Consultative Working Party to conclude, without dissent, that the proposal does not comprise any substantive amendments other than those identified as such. The Working Party also concluded, as regards the codification of the unchanged provisions of the earlier act with those substantive amendments, that the proposal contains a straightforward codification of the existing legal text, without any change in its substance.
F. DREXLER E. FINNEGAN D. CALLEJA CRESPO
Jurisconsult Jurisconsult Director-General
Procedure pages
How the committees handled the text, and how their members voted on it.
Procedure – committee responsible 1 paragraph
| Title | Legal protection of designs (recast) | ||
| References | COM(2022)0667 – C9-0395/2022 – 2022/0392(COD) | ||
| Date submitted to Parliament | 28.11.2022 | ||
| Committee responsible Date announced in plenary | JURI 12.12.2022 | ||
| Committees asked for opinions Date announced in plenary | ECON 12.12.2022 | IMCO 12.12.2022 | |
| Not delivering opinions Date of decision | ECON 25.1.2023 | IMCO 24.1.2023 | |
| Rapporteurs Date appointed | Gilles Lebreton 28.2.2023 | ||
| Discussed in committee | 25.4.2023 | 3.7.2023 | 7.9.2023 |
| Date adopted | 24.10.2023 | ||
| Result of final vote | +: –: 0: | 17 2 6 | |
| Members present for the final vote | Pascal Arimont, Geoffroy Didier, Ibán García Del Blanco, Pierre Karleskind, Gilles Lebreton, Maria-Manuel Leitão-Marques, Sabrina Pignedoli, Jiří Pospíšil, Franco Roberti, Raffaele Stancanelli, Adrián Vázquez Lázara, Axel Voss, Marion Walsmann | ||
| Substitutes present for the final vote | Alessandra Basso, Caterina Chinnici, Heidi Hautala, Antonius Manders, Catharina Rinzema, Kosma Złotowski | ||
| Substitutes under Rule 209(7) present for the final vote | Clara Aguilera, Andrus Ansip, Estrella Durá Ferrandis, Katrin Langensiepen, Philippe Olivier, Anne-Sophie Pelletier | ||
| Date tabled | 30.10.2023 |
Final vote by roll call in committee responsible 3 paragraphs
17 · For
- ECR
- Raffaele Stancanelli, Kosma Złotowski
- ID
- Alessandra Basso, Gilles Lebreton, Philippe Olivier
- No group
- Sabrina Pignedoli
- EPP
- Pascal Arimont, Caterina Chinnici, Geoffroy Didier, Antonius Manders, Jiří Pospíšil, Axel Voss, Marion Walsmann
- Renew
- Andrus Ansip, Pierre Karleskind, Catharina Rinzema, Adrián Vázquez Lázara
2 · Against
- The Greens/EFA
- Heidi Hautala, Katrin Langensiepen
6 · Abstained
- S&D
- Clara Aguilera, Estrella Durá Ferrandis, Ibán García Del Blanco, Maria-Manuel Leitão-Marques, Franco Roberti
- The Left
- Anne-Sophie Pelletier