IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/respol/v44y2015i6p1192-1206.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Protecting aesthetic innovations? An exploration of the use of registered community designs

Author

Listed:
  • Filitz, Rainer
  • Henkel, Joachim
  • Tether, Bruce S.

Abstract

A decade after their introduction, approximately three-quarters of a million European registered community designs (RCDs) have been filed, and recent court cases suggest firms regard them as important for competition. This paper reviews design protection in the European Union, discusses this legal instrument to protect designs and design innovations, and provides an overview of how RCDs are used by firms from different countries and industries. To develop a more detailed understanding of their usage, we also report an exploratory qualitative study on the use of RCDs by German firms in three industries: footwear, car manufacturing and tool-making. This revealed some important differences, notably between judicious filing and “all-you-can-file” strategies, which implies that future research using this instrument requires attention be paid to firm and industry level behaviors. We develop a set of propositions, and set out a research agenda.

Suggested Citation

  • Filitz, Rainer & Henkel, Joachim & Tether, Bruce S., 2015. "Protecting aesthetic innovations? An exploration of the use of registered community designs," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(6), pages 1192-1206.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:respol:v:44:y:2015:i:6:p:1192-1206
    DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2015.02.004
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048733315000323
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.respol.2015.02.004?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Graham, Stuart J.H. & Harhoff, Dietmar, 2006. "Can Post-Grant Reviews Improve Patent System Design? A Twin Study of US and European Patents," Discussion Paper Series of SFB/TR 15 Governance and the Efficiency of Economic Systems 38, Free University of Berlin, Humboldt University of Berlin, University of Bonn, University of Mannheim, University of Munich.
    2. Alfred Kleinknecht, 1993. "Why Do We Need New Innovation Output Indicators? An Introduction," Palgrave Macmillan Books, in: Alfred Kleinknecht & Donald Bain (ed.), New Concepts in Innovation Output Measurement, chapter 1, pages 1-9, Palgrave Macmillan.
    3. David J. TEECE, 2008. "Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: The Transfer And Licensing Of Know-How And Intellectual Property Understanding the Multinational Enterprise in the Modern World, chapter 5, pages 67-87, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    4. Stephanie Robson & Martin Kenchatt, 2010. "First findings from the UK Innovation Survey 2009," Economic & Labour Market Review, Palgrave Macmillan;Office for National Statistics, vol. 4(3), pages 28-35, March.
    5. Barlow, James & Köberle-Gaiser, Martina, 2008. "The private finance initiative, project form and design innovation: The UK's hospitals programme," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(8), pages 1392-1402, September.
    6. Gil, Nuno & Tether, Bruce S., 2011. "Project risk management and design flexibility: Analysing a case and conditions of complementarity," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(3), pages 415-428, April.
    7. Violina P. Rindova & Antoaneta P. Petkova, 2007. "When Is a New Thing a Good Thing? Technological Change, Product Form Design, and Perceptions of Value for Product Innovations," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 18(2), pages 217-232, April.
    8. Graham, Stuart J. H. & Hall, Bronwyn H. & Harhoff, Dietmar & Mowery, David C., 2002. "Post-Issue Patent "Quality Control": A Comparative Study of US Patent Re-Examinations and European Patent Oppositions," Department of Economics, Working Paper Series qt2qt097bd, Department of Economics, Institute for Business and Economic Research, UC Berkeley.
    9. repec:dau:papers:123456789/5000 is not listed on IDEAS
    10. Pavitt, Keith, 1984. "Sectoral patterns of technical change: Towards a taxonomy and a theory," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 13(6), pages 343-373, December.
    11. Sanderson, Susan & Uzumeri, Mustafa, 1995. "Managing product families: The case of the Sony Walkman," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 24(5), pages 761-782, September.
    12. Brouwer, Erik & Kleinknecht, Alfred, 1999. "Innovative output, and a firm's propensity to patent.: An exploration of CIS micro data," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 28(6), pages 615-624, August.
    13. Salter, Ammon & Gann, David, 2003. "Sources of ideas for innovation in engineering design," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(8), pages 1309-1324, September.
    14. Arundel, Anthony, 2001. "The relative effectiveness of patents and secrecy for appropriation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(4), pages 611-624, April.
    15. Wesley M. Cohen & Richard R. Nelson & John P. Walsh, 2000. "Protecting Their Intellectual Assets: Appropriability Conditions and Why U.S. Manufacturing Firms Patent (or Not)," NBER Working Papers 7552, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    16. Grid Thoma & Salvatore Torrisi & Alfonso Gambardella & Dominique Guellec & Bronwyn H. Hall & Dietmar Harhoff, 2010. "Harmonizing and Combining Large Datasets - An Application to Firm-Level Patent and Accounting Data," NBER Working Papers 15851, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    17. Matthew D. Henry & John L. Turner, 2006. "The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s Impact on Patent Litigation," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 35(1), pages 85-117, January.
    18. Moultrie, James & Livesey, Finbarr, 2014. "Measuring design investment in firms: Conceptual foundations and exploratory UK survey," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(3), pages 570-587.
    19. Keld Laursen & Ammon Salter, 2005. "My Precious. The Role of Appropriability Strategies in Shaping Innovative Performance," DRUID Working Papers 05-02, DRUID, Copenhagen Business School, Department of Industrial Economics and Strategy/Aalborg University, Department of Business Studies.
    20. Yen Tran, 2010. "Generating Stylistic Innovation: A Process Perspective," Industry and Innovation, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(2), pages 131-161.
    21. George P. Huber & Danial J. Power, 1985. "Retrospective reports of strategic‐level managers: Guidelines for increasing their accuracy," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 6(2), pages 171-180, April.
    22. Saviotti, P. P. & Metcalfe, J. S., 1984. "A theoretical approach to the construction of technological output indicators," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 13(3), pages 141-151, June.
    23. Isabelle Huault & V. Perret & S. Charreire-Petit, 2007. "Management," Post-Print halshs-00337676, HAL.
    24. Robertson, Paul & Smith, Keith & von Tunzelmann, Nick, 2009. "Innovation in low- and medium-technology industries," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(3), pages 441-446, April.
    25. Walsh, Vivien, 1996. "Design, innovation and the boundaries of the firm," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 25(4), pages 509-529, June.
    26. Cappetta, Rossella & Cillo, Paola & Ponti, Anna, 2006. "Convergent designs in fine fashion: An evolutionary model for stylistic innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(9), pages 1273-1290, November.
    27. Coombs, R. & Narandren, P. & Richards, A., 1996. "A literature-based innovation output indicator," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 25(3), pages 403-413, May.
    28. Harhoff, Dietmar & Scherer, Frederic M. & Vopel, Katrin, 2003. "Citations, family size, opposition and the value of patent rights," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(8), pages 1343-1363, September.
    29. James Bessen & Michael J. Meurer, 2008. "Introduction to Patent Failure: How Judges, Bureaucrats, and Lawyers Put Innovators at Risk," Introductory Chapters, in: Patent Failure: How Judges, Bureaucrats, and Lawyers Put Innovators at Risk, Princeton University Press.
    30. Ronald J. Mann & Marian Underweiser, 2012. "A New Look at Patent Quality: Relating Patent Prosecution to Validity," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 9(1), pages 1-32, March.
    31. Gallié, Emilie-Pauline & Legros, Diégo, 2012. "French firms’ strategies for protecting their intellectual property," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(4), pages 780-794.
    32. Emmanuelle Fauchart & Eric von Hippel, 2008. "Norms-Based Intellectual Property Systems: The Case of French Chefs," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 19(2), pages 187-201, April.
    33. Thomä, Jörg & Bizer, Kilian, 2013. "To protect or not to protect? Modes of appropriability in the small enterprise sector," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(1), pages 35-49.
    34. Santamara, Llus & Nieto, Mara Jess & Barge-Gil, Andrs, 2009. "Beyond formal R&D: Taking advantage of other sources of innovation in low- and medium-technology industries," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(3), pages 507-517, April.
    35. Jorge Alcaide-Marzal & Enrique Tortajada-Esparza, 2007. "Innovation assessment in traditional industries. A proposal of aesthetic innovation indicators," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 72(1), pages 33-57, July.
    36. Di Stefano , Giada & King , Andrew A. & Verona , Gianmario, 2013. "Kitchen Confidential? Norms for the Use of Transferred Knowledge in Gourmet Cuisine," HEC Research Papers Series 1002, HEC Paris.
    37. Ulrich, Karl, 1995. "The role of product architecture in the manufacturing firm," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 24(3), pages 419-440, May.
    38. Richard C. Levin & Alvin K. Klevorick & Richard R. Nelson & Sidney G. Winter, 1987. "Appropriating the Returns from Industrial Research and Development," Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, Economic Studies Program, The Brookings Institution, vol. 18(3, Specia), pages 783-832.
    39. Stephanie Robson & Greg Haigh, 2008. "First findings from the UK Innovation Survey 2007," Economic & Labour Market Review, Palgrave Macmillan;Office for National Statistics, vol. 2(4), pages 47-53, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Tohru Yoshioka-Kobayashi & Tomofumi Miyanoshita & Daisuke Kanama, 2020. "Revisiting incremental product innovations in the food-manufacturing industry: an empirical study on the effect of intellectual property rights," Journal of Economic Structures, Springer;Pan-Pacific Association of Input-Output Studies (PAPAIOS), vol. 9(1), pages 1-19, December.
    2. Marcel Seip & Carolina Castaldi & Meindert Flikkema & Ard-Pieter de Man, 2019. "A taxonomy of firm-level IPR application practices to inform policy debates," LEM Papers Series 2019/03, Laboratory of Economics and Management (LEM), Sant'Anna School of Advanced Studies, Pisa, Italy.
    3. Carolina Castaldi & Sandro Mendonca, 2021. "Regions and trademarks. Research opportunities and policy insights from leveraging trademarks in regional innovation studies," Papers in Evolutionary Economic Geography (PEEG) 2138, Utrecht University, Department of Human Geography and Spatial Planning, Group Economic Geography, revised Dec 2021.
    4. Jussi Heikkilä, 2019. "IPR gender gaps: a first look at utility model, design right and trademark filings," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 118(3), pages 869-883, March.
    5. Barros, Henrique M., 2021. "Neither at the cutting edge nor in a patent-friendly environment: Appropriating the returns from innovation in a less developed economy," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(1).
    6. Castaldi, Carolina, 2018. "To trademark or not to trademark: The case of the creative and cultural industries," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(3), pages 606-616.
    7. Heikkilä, Jussi T.S. & Peltoniemi, Mirva, 2023. "The changing work of IPR attorneys: 30 years of institutional transitions," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 197(C).
    8. Andersson, David E. & Ekman, Anton & Huila, Anton & Tell, Fredrik, 2023. "Industrial design rights and the market value of firms," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 196(C).
    9. Ghisetti, Claudia & Montresor, Sandro & Vezzani, Antonio, 2021. "Design and environmental technologies: Does ‘green-matching’ actually help?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(5).
    10. Herz, Benedikt & Mejer, Malwina, 2021. "The effect of design protection on price and price dispersion: Evidence from automotive spare parts," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 79(C).
    11. Carolina Castaldi & Kyriakos Drivas, 2023. "Relatedness, Cross-relatedness and Regional Innovation Specializations: An Analysis of Technology, Design, and Market Activities in Europe and the US," Economic Geography, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 99(3), pages 253-284, May.
    12. Herz, Benedikt & Mejer, Malwina, 2019. "Effects of the European Union trademark: Lessons for the harmonization of intellectual property systems," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(7), pages 1841-1854.
    13. Herz, Benedikt & Mejer, Malwina, 2020. "The effect of design protection on price and price dispersion: Evidence from automotive spare parts," MPRA Paper 109645, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 01 Sep 2021.
    14. Heikkilä, Jussi & Peltoniemi, Mirva, 2019. "Great expectations: Learning the boundaries of design rights," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(9), pages 1-1.
    15. Filitz, Rainer & Henkel, Joachim & Ohnemus, Jörg, 2017. "Digital design protection in Europe: Law, trends, and emerging issues," ZEW Discussion Papers 17-007, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    16. Paulin Gohoungodji & Nabil Amara, 2023. "Art of innovating in the arts: definitions, determinants, and mode of innovation in creative industries, a systematic review," Review of Managerial Science, Springer, vol. 17(8), pages 2685-2725, November.
    17. Corradini, Carlo & D'Ippolito, Beatrice, 2022. "Persistence and learning effects in design innovation: Evidence from panel data," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(2).
    18. Li Zhang & Xiaoguang Shan, 2023. "The use of intellectual property right bundles and firm performance in China," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 10(1), pages 1-13, December.
    19. Carolina Castaldi, 2024. "The geography of urban innovation beyond patents only: New evidence on large and secondary cities in the United States," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 61(7), pages 1248-1272, May.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Thomä Jörg & Zimmermann Volker, 2013. "Knowledge Protection Practices in Innovating SMEs," Journal of Economics and Statistics (Jahrbuecher fuer Nationaloekonomie und Statistik), De Gruyter, vol. 233(5-6), pages 691-717, October.
    2. Martine Gadille & Juan Ramón Gallego-Bono, 2021. "Rebuilding a Cluster While Protecting Knowledge within Low-Medium-Tech Supplier SMEs: A Spanish and French Comparison," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(20), pages 1-35, October.
    3. Andrew Eckert & Corinne Langinier, 2014. "A Survey Of The Economics Of Patent Systems And Procedures," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(5), pages 996-1015, December.
    4. Bos, Brenda & Broekhuizen, Thijs L.J. & de Faria, Pedro, 2015. "A dynamic view on secrecy management," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 68(12), pages 2619-2627.
    5. Barros, Henrique M., 2021. "Neither at the cutting edge nor in a patent-friendly environment: Appropriating the returns from innovation in a less developed economy," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(1).
    6. Capponi, Giovanna & Criscuolo, Paola & Martinelli, Arianna & Nuvolari, Alessandro, 2019. "Profiting from innovation: Evidence from a survey of Queen's Awards winners," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 155-169.
    7. Thomä, Jörg & Bizer, Kilian, 2013. "To protect or not to protect? Modes of appropriability in the small enterprise sector," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(1), pages 35-49.
    8. Crass, Dirk & Schwiebacher, Franz, 2013. "Do trademarks diminish the substitutability of products in innovative knowledge-intensive services?," ZEW Discussion Papers 13-061, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    9. Insu Cho & Heejun Park & Joseph Kim, 2012. "The moderating effect of innovation protection mechanisms on the competitiveness of service firms," Service Business, Springer;Pan-Pacific Business Association, vol. 6(3), pages 369-386, September.
    10. Nicolas van Zeebroeck & Bruno van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, 2011. "Filing strategies and patent value," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(6), pages 539-561, February.
    11. MahdaviMazdeh, Hossein & Saunders, Chad & Hawkins, Richard William & Dewald, Jim, 2021. "Reconsidering the dynamics of innovation in the natural resource industries," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 72(C).
    12. Bannò, Mariasole, 2016. "Propensity to patent by family firms," Journal of Family Business Strategy, Elsevier, vol. 7(4), pages 238-248.
    13. Hurmelinna-Laukkanen, Pia & Yang, Jialei, 2022. "Distinguishing between appropriability and appropriation: A systematic review and a renewed conceptual framing," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(1).
    14. Dan, Sujan M. & Spaid, Brian I. & Noble, Charles H., 2018. "Exploring the sources of design innovations: Insights from the computer, communications and audio equipment industries," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(8), pages 1495-1504.
    15. Chen, Min-Nan & Wu, Chia-Hung, 2020. "Complementary-in use appropriability in innovative service firms: An empirical study in Taiwan," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(7).
    16. Laursen, Keld & Salter, Ammon J., 2014. "The paradox of openness: Appropriability, external search and collaboration," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(5), pages 867-878.
    17. Chung, Jiyoon & Lorenz, Annika & Somaya, Deepak, 2019. "Dealing with intellectual property (IP) landmines: Defensive measures to address the problem of IP access," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(9), pages 1-1.
    18. Andersson, David E. & Ekman, Anton & Huila, Anton & Tell, Fredrik, 2023. "Industrial design rights and the market value of firms," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 196(C).
    19. Barros, Henrique M., 2008. "The interaction between patents and other appropriability mechanisms: firm-level evidence from UK manufacturing," Insper Working Papers wpe_105, Insper Working Paper, Insper Instituto de Ensino e Pesquisa.
    20. Marcel Seip & Carolina Castaldi & Meindert Flikkema & Ard-Pieter de Man, 2019. "A taxonomy of firm-level IPR application practices to inform policy debates," LEM Papers Series 2019/03, Laboratory of Economics and Management (LEM), Sant'Anna School of Advanced Studies, Pisa, Italy.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:respol:v:44:y:2015:i:6:p:1192-1206. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/respol .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.