Talk:Design patent

Law High‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Industrial design High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Industrial design, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Industrial design on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Industrial designWikipedia:WikiProject Industrial designTemplate:WikiProject Industrial designIndustrial design articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

I'm surprised this wasn't created earlier. CoolGuy 05:33, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The hague agreement reference in the first paragraph is wrong

the reference should be to the hague convention of industrial design rights (part of WIPO agreements...) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.95.199.35 (talk) 11:53, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reference to the European Community

I'm not an expert on this topic, but much of the information in the first paragraph seems outdated. The European Community was replaced by the European Union, and Hungary is an EU member.Josef Horáček (talk) 21:47, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't make sense to me

"This is one of the reasons Apple was awarded a jury verdict in the US case of Apple v. Samsung. Apple's patent showed much of their iPhone design as broken lines. It didn’t matter if Samsung was different in those areas. The fact that the solid lines of the patent were the same as Samsung's design meant that Samsung infringed the Apple design patent." If Apple's patent showed broken lines, then why did they win the lawsuit? This explanation does not make sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.2.213.50 (talk) 19:45, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected photo caption

I made one small correction to the photo caption for the Coca-Cola bottle patent. The correct patent number is D48160, not 48160. The "D" indicates a design patent, as opposed to a new machine, or method of manufacturing. Without the "D", U.S. patent 48160 refers to something called a "Mode for Making Corundum Wheels", patented on June 13, 1865. Elsquared (talk) 08:12, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A citation is needed for the notion that the coca-cola bottle is still protected by trade dress after expiration of the design patent. There is a substantial question as to whether that is the case, because expiration of the design patent should allow anyone to practice it (as a matter of constitutional law) and allowing trade dress protection thereafter is akin to an extension of the patent rights after expiration. http://www.inta.org/TMR/Documents/Volume%2094/vol94_no5_a5.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.51.122.18 (talk) 14:54, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

History

This article could really use a history section explaining when design paptents started to become a thing (initially just in the U.S.). —ReadOnlyAccount (talk) 07:20, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]