Changes from report parliamentary committee draft to plenary report

RemovedThe wording ‘upon whose appearance the design of the component part is dependent’ is unclear and creates uncertainty as to the scope of the repair clause.

RemovedArticle 19 – paragraph 2: 2. Paragraph 1 cannot be invoked by the manufacturer or the seller of a component part of a complex product who have 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 address of his registered place of business and his nationality.

RemovedAs described, the concept of ‘identity of the manufacturer’ is clearer than the concept of ‘origin’ of the product.

RemovedArticle 19 – paragraph 3: 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 = three 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.

RemovedThe 10-year period appears disproportionate to the stated objective of legal certainty for designs for which registration was sought before the entry into force of this Directive;