been very different approaches in EU Member States as to the level of originality required, because EU Design Regulations and Directives left much freedom for national laws and there are different traditions regarding this subject. The leading case on this subject is the Cofemel Case. However, the CJ didn’t solve the harmonization problem. The ruling was vague and somewhat contradictory regarding the harmonization of the protection of works of applied art and its relation to the overlapping of protections by design. Though the CJ considered that “originality” is the same for all types of works and partial cumulation ought to be adopted, it didn’t leave clear guidance to solve actual cases. Though “originality” and “work” were considered by the CJ harmonized concepts of the EU, one doesn´t understand why the G-Star designs were not considered to be “works”, but mere subjective impressions. There seems to be a somehow hidden subtext in the CJ ruling that even contradicts the concept of “originality” on which the CJ relied. That’s why after Cofemel courts of Member States of the EU still decided according to their national tradition. That is, no harmonization was until now reached. Not even in Portugal, where the Cofemel Case originated. Design protection can be very interesting for the protection of food plating, though the novelty and individual character requirements may be hard to fulfill, because cuisine is a mixture of tradition and innovation. The new Regulation on design doesn´t solve the problem left by Cofemel. Nor does the new Directive on the subject solve the question. However, the enlargement of the concepts of “design” and “product” allow the protection of virtual food presentation and of the interior of a restaurant or a bar by way of design. Three-dimensional trademarks, service trademarks, trade dress, rules against unfair competition, trade secrets, non-disclosure agreements and fiduciary duties can also be interesting ways of protecting food presentation. We must also consider the self-regulation codes of conduct, which play a very important role. Excessive protection, given the history and tradition of gastronomy, may harm creativity, innovation, and ultimately competition. Most chefs favour a more open approach, within certain boundaries, namely the granting of the credits. But that doesn’t mean that others don’t have the opposite view and prefer to rely on intellectual property, or other types of exclusive protection. The wanted type of protection required also has to do with the form of presentation to be protected (two-dimensional or three-dimensional), and to know whether the protection is required by chefs (or restaurant/bar owners) for signature dishes or by food industry companies. 261 HOW TO PROTECT FOOD PRESENTATION BY INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTE4NzM5Nw==