expression. For something to be “work,” it must be expressed in a way that makes it identifiable with sufficient precision and objectivity. Ideas are not protected, but only the expression of those ideas. But not all exteriorization can be protected. If we are before a striking visual effect, but it is subjective, it cannot be considered a “work”. The “work” must have a precise and identifiable form (which was not the case, according to the CJ). The decision of the CJ was not clear in many aspects, but it established the unequivocal solution of partial cumulation of protections.49 For some scholars, the indication that cumulation can only occur in “certain cases” seems too vague. A total overlap of protections between design and copyright of a certain subject matter is precluded by the structural diversities between those fields. The author-centered concept of originality in copyright law entails the concept of subjective novelty and the possibility of protecting parallel creations. Copyright protects a design against acts of copying, while design law grants absolute protection against any new design producing the same overall impression (though nonregistered EU designs have a “copyright approach” protection). Differences between design law and copyright law are conceptual, not gradual. Partial cumulation exists independently of the “level” of originality required for the protection of designs. Partial cumulation is a description, not a goal that must be achieved by applying the criterion of “originality” (Paragraphs 50 to 52 of the CJ ruling regarding copyright/design interface are merely descriptive statements).50 Other scholars consider that paragraphs 51 and 52 of the CJ decision formulate rules or guiding principles for interpreting copyright law. Since copyright lasts longer, copyright protection is broader and must be limited to certain designs that are particularly worthy of protection. Total cumulation, by granting longer copyright protection to designs, would undermine the still nuanced legislative decisions regarding design law with its narrower scope of protection (namely, defined by its length, the need to register, and stricter exceptions or limitations). From this could follow a rule-exception ratio that seeks to limit cumulative protection.51 We agree with the authors that believe the CJ was clear in requiring a restricted partial cumulation of protections. The CJ made clear that not all types of exteriorization are enough for a “work” 49 Paragraph 42 mentions C-310/17, Levola Hengelo, EU :C:2018:899, para. 38. 50 See ENDRICH-LAIMBÖCK, op. cit., p. 267 ; KUR, op. cit., pp. 10–11. 51 CARBAJO CASCON, “Objetos industriales…” cit., pp. 925-933 and “La protección de los diseños de moda en la Union Europea” cit., pp. 148-156; SILVA, P. SOUSA e, “Tutela Jusautoral…”, cit., pp. 179-182; 239 HOW TO PROTECT FOOD PRESENTATION BY INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTE4NzM5Nw==