37 C.F.R. § 1.153
Title, description and claim, oath or declaration
(a) The title of the design must designate the particular article. No description, other than a reference to the drawing, is ordinarily required. The claim shall be in formal terms to the ornamental design for the article (specifying name) as shown, or as shown and described. More than one claim is neither required nor permitted.
(b) The inventor's oath or declaration must comply with the requirements of § 1.63, or comply with the requirements of § 1.64 for a substitute statement.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 37
cases (7 in the last 5 years), 1968–2025 · leading case: Curver Luxembourg, Sarl v. Home Expressions Inc., 938 F.3d 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2019).
Curver Luxembourg, Sarl v. Home Expressions Inc., 938 F.3d 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2019). “The examiner stated that under 37 C.F.R. § 1.153 and the Patent Office’s Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) § 1503(I), the title must des- ignate a “particular article” for the design.”
Reddy v. Lowe's Companies, Inc., 60 F. Supp. 3d 249 (D. Mass. 2014). “” 37 C.F.R. § 1.153 (a); see also MPEP § 1503.”
In re Zahn, 617 F.2d 261 (C.C.P.A. 1980). “It is required in 37 C.F.R. 1.153 that “[t]he title of the design must designate the particular article.”
L.A. Gear, Inc., Plaintiff/cross-Appellant v. Thom McAn Shoe Co. & Melville Corp. & Pagoda Trading Co., Inc., 988 F.2d 1117 (Fed. Cir. 1993). “37 C.F.R. § 1.153 (a). The title of the design must designate the particular article.”
Robert W. Lee D/B/A Rollo-Laxer v. Dayton-Hudson Corp. D/B/A Target Stores & Matrix Int'l, Inc., 838 F.2d 1186 (Fed. Cir. 1988). “Design patents do not and cannot include claims to the structural or functional aspects of the article: 37 C.F.R. § 1.153 (a) ... The claim shall be in formal terms to the ornamental design for the article (specifying name) as shown, or as shown and described.”
Mark R. Hoop & Lisa J. Hoop v. Jeffrey W. Hoop, Stephen E. Hoop, & Hoopsters Accessories, Inc., 279 F.3d 1004 (Fed. Cir. 2002). “37 C.F.R. § 1.153 (a) (2001). Contrary to the conclusion of the district court, as the invention is not the concept of an eagle design, but only the specific claimed representation of that eagle, the “concept” of the design is not what one must look at in determining whether the…”
The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. The Hercules Tire & Rubber Co., Inc., 162 F.3d 1113 (Fed. Cir. 1998). “The claim shall be in formal terms to the ornamental design for the article (specifying name) as shown, or as shown and described. More than one claim is neither required nor permitted.”
Berry Sterling Corp., Plaintiff-Cross v. Pescor Plastics, Inc., 122 F.3d 1452 (Fed. Cir. 1997). “As can be seen from the exemplary Figure 3 of the patent, the patented design includes the following four discernible, possibly ornamental, features: (1) a rolled lip; (2) tapered upper portion; (3) a fluted lower portion; and (4) a rounded shoulder transition.”
Klock v. Kappos, 731 F. Supp. 2d 461 (E.D. Va. 2010). “” 37 C.F.R. § 1.153 . The Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (“MPEP”) states that the proper form of a claim is: “I claim: The ornamental design for [invention] as shown.”
Finkelstein v. Mardkha, 495 F. Supp. 2d 329 (S.D.N.Y. 2007). “Mardkha argues that the design patent protects the design “in a broad way” and is properly constructed as a cushion-shaped diamond with “brilliant cut crown facets and step cut pavilion facets.” (Defs.”
Safco Prods. Co. v. Welcom Prods., Inc., 799 F. Supp. 2d 967 (D. Minnesota 2011). “See 37 C.F.R. § 1.153 (a) (“No description, other than a reference to the drawing, is ordinarily required.”
Best Lock Corp. v. Ilco Unican Corp., 94 F.3d 1563 (Fed. Cir. 1996). “2 See 37 C.F.R. § 1.153 (1995) (The claim of a design patent “shall be in formal terms to the ornamental design for the article .”
— 37 C.F.R. § 1.153(a) — 4 cases
In re Zahn, 617 F.2d 261 (C.C.P.A. 1980). “It is required in 37 C.F.R. 1.153 that “[t]he title of the design must designate the particular article.”
In Re John R. Klein (Deceased) by Helen B. Klein, Michael J. Noone & Kermit E. Stahl, 987 F.2d 1569 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Racing Strollers, Inc. v. Tri Indus., Inc., Jay Paulson, Paulson Mktg. & Tim Galligan, 878 F.2d 1418 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
Lentek Int'l, Inc. v. Sharper Image Corp., 164 F. Supp. 2d 1302 (N.D. Fla. 2001).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.