A) The value of the subject of the legal activity is according to § 34a para. 5 Sentence 2 DesignG in connection with § 23 Abs. 3 Sentence 2 Halbsatz 1 and § 33 Abs. 1 RVG to determine at its reasonable discretion.
B) Decisive for the determination of the object value in the design nullity procedure is the economic interest of the design owner in maintaining his design.
C) In the design law nullity procedure, the determination of the object value corresponds to 50.000 € usually at its own discretion.
BGH DECISION I. For example, 25/18 from 28. More 2020 – Disputed amount of design nullity
in the design nullity matter
regarding design no. 40 2008 001 032-0001
…
DesignG § 34a Abs. 5 Sentence 2; RVG § 23 Abs. 3 Sentence 2 Halbsatz 1, § 33 Abs. 1
A) The value of the subject of the legal activity is according to § 34a para. 5 Sentence 2 DesignG in connection with § 23 Abs. 3 Sentence 2 Halbsatz 1 and § 33 Abs. 1 RVG to determine at its reasonable discretion.
B) Decisive for the determination of the object value in the design nullity procedure is the economic interest of the design owner in maintaining his design.
C) In the design law nullity procedure, the determination of the object value corresponds to 50.000 € usually at its own discretion.
BGH, Decision of 28. More 2020 – I ZB 25/18 – FEDERAL PATENT COURT
– 2 –
The I. Zivilsenat des Bundesgerichtshofs hat am 28. More 2020 by the presiding judge Prof. Dr. Koch, the judge Dr. Loeffler, Judge Dr. Schwonke, the judge Feddersen and the judge Dr. Schmaltz
decided:
The value of the subject matter of the lawyer's work for the legal complaint procedure is determined 50.000 € festgesetzt.
Reasons:
I. The Senate has decided by resolution of 12. December 2018 in response to the applicant's legal complaint, the decision of the Federal Patent Court dated 23. November 2017 overturned and the matter was referred back to the Federal Patent Court.
The applicant submitted a letter dated: 11. March 2020 requested the determination of the amount in dispute, without commenting on the amount in dispute. The design owner has not commented on this application.
The single judge decided the matter in accordance with § 33 Abs. 8 Sentence 2 RVG transferred to the Senate (Decision of 15. April 2020 – I ZB 25/18, juris).
II. At the applicant's request, the value of the subject matter of the lawyer's work for the legal appeal procedure in accordance with § 33 Abs. 1 RVG on 50.000 € to be set.
1. For the decision on the application according to § 33 Abs. 1 RVG, to determine the value of the object of the legal activity, if the fees are in legal proceedings – wie hier – not after the for the
1
2
3
4
5
– 3 –
court fees calculate the relevant value or there is no such value, is for the reasons of the decision of the single judge dated 15. April 2020 In principle, the single judge is also responsible at the Federal Court of Justice. In the event of a dispute, however, the Senate is called upon to decide, because the responsible single judge transferred the matter to the Senate because of its fundamental importance.
2. The value of the subject of the legal activity is according to § 34a para. 5 Sentence 2 DesignG in connection with § 23 Abs. 3 Sentence 2 Halbsatz 1 and § 33 Abs. 1 RVG to determine at its reasonable discretion. In the design law nullity procedure, the determination of the object value corresponds to 50.000 € usually at its own discretion.
A) The decisive factor for determining the value of the legal appeal in design invalidity proceedings is the design owner's economic interest in maintaining his design (on the trademark cancellation dispute: BGH, Decision of 24. November 2016 – I ZB 52/15, GRUR-RR 2017, 127 RN. 3; Decision of 29. March 2018 – I ZB 17/17, WRP 2018, 950 RN. 2).
B) In a trademark cancellation dispute, according to the case law of the Senate, the determination of the item value for the legal appeal procedure corresponds to 50.000 € usually at its own discretion (BGH, Decision of 24. November 2016 – I ZB 52/15, GRUR-RR 2017, 127 RN. 3; Büscher in Büscher/Dittmer/Schiwy, Intellectual property rights, copyright, media law, 3. Ed, § 90 Markeng Rn. 13). This also applies in the objection procedure (BGH, Decision of 18. October 2017 – I ZB 6/16, BrandsR 2018, 454 RN. 11).
C) The economic interest of the design owner in maintaining his design is to be assessed with the same value, if the design in question is either unused or – as in the case of a dispute – no determinations can be made regarding the type and extent of its use.
6
7
8
9
– 4 –
aa) However, the opinion is held, The subject value of an invalidity procedure under design law according to § 34a DesignG should be valued higher than that of a cancellation procedure under trademark law according to §§ 50, 54 Trademark, because a brand primarily has a function, to point out the origin of goods and services from a specific company, while the protection of the registered design relates to the appearance of a product and thus to the product itself. That's why invalidity proceedings under design law apply to designs, which are either unused or for which no determination can be made regarding the type and extent of use, regularly a doubling of the generally accepted item value in trademark cancellation proceedings 50.000 € and therefore an item value of 100.000 € appropriate (bpatg, Decision of 7. December 2017 – 30 In [pat] 801/16, juris; Resolution of 10. January 2019 – 30 In [pat] 802/17, juris Rn. 17 and 19; Resolution of 12. December 2019 – 30 In [pat] 802/15, juris Rn. 33 to 36; Resolution of 12. December 2019 – 30 In [pat] 803/15, juris Rn. 28 to 31; Küh-ne/Meiser in Eichmann/Jestaedt/Fink/Meiser, DesignG GGV, 6. Ed, § 34a De-signG Rn. 43).
bb) However, this cannot be agreed to. There is a lack of evidence for assessing the economic interest of the design owner in maintaining his design, The situation is comparable to that in the trademark cancellation process, if no special circumstances are apparent, that justify it, the economic interest of the brand owner in maintaining its brand is higher or lower than the generally appropriate value of 50.000 € to be set. After that, in the design invalidity process, the value of the item is also usually up 50.000 € to be set.
10
11
– 5 –
III. The decision is made without any court fees, Costs will not be reimbursed (§ 33 Abs. 9 RVG).