In industrial design, there's no understanding between technology and law.
From the technical perspective, an industrial design is a contour meant to
Fulfill with a practical function, where form follows function. This precisely tells
design apart from the visuals. The artist, predicated on your own inspiration,
Creates a piece of work to respected, alien to practical although a beautiful object
The designer, however, pressed by a practical problem creates a useful
Contour to solve the difficulty. The purpose of art would be to create the awareness of
Beauty through contemplation that is passive, the goal of the design is to create
Ways that are useful to solve practical issues of everyday life, hence the artistic
Appearance of an industrial design allows for variations
not impact the functionality of the contour.
Unfortunately, the law will not cover the technical concept of a design
Industrial creations are divided by and into ornamental, with its legal system,
And functional or useful, with another regime that is legal. Fundamentally considering as
Staunton Chess Set simply because they tend not to solve practical problems, but works of art reproduced in series Let Us address this difference between specialized issues and law, particularly Present in the area of industrial property, to better comprehend our corpus of Study, the Staunton pattern Initially, in 1849, the Staunton design protected and were registered by pieces was shielded.
However, its success isn't due to its aesthetic look but to the fact
that they might satisfy the practical function for which they were created
pieces 90 years past.
Fortunately, the style of intangible cultural heritage is just not as
Restrictive as industrial property and legally covers all the formal and
Functional aspects of the Staunton chess pieces, using in its study the technical
A tasteful function: An attractive object that creates visual and
Psychological satisfaction, and
A symbolic function: giving it a sense of social belonging to the owner
Of the item, but in precisely the same time, some differentiation or singularity.
In the event of the Staunton chess set, these three functions complement
each other nicely, turning them into one of the most successful industrial
designs in the history of humankind.
When the 1843 Utility Designs Act and then the 1842 Ornamental Designs Act were passed probably, the problem of double legal systems to guard the kind or function of layouts dates back to the time under investigation. In the Most Popular Industrial Property Regime of the Andean Community, Decision 486 of 2000, which distinguishes industrial designs, which protects the outward look, of the utility models, which shields the practical functionality, this duality persists for all of us.
The Staunton chess set design was initially devised for wood pieces and is implemented in wood , as they apply for this substance, so we are going to describe its characteristics,
Yet this will not mean that most of the details may be existing in the plastic
ones as well. Nevertheless, remember the main object of the plastic
Quality surrenders to attain an affordable piece. This is the reason why such
Plastic pieces are unsuitable to explain the virtues of the Staunton design.
The main characteristics of the Staunton chess sets are- A simple, austere but elegant combination of its own purposeful aim (practical) and its aesthetic look, foregoing any unnecessary adornment that might hinder a practical use of such pieces.
So it was before, the chess pieces were often excessively decorated
Quite tough to manage them. This also prevented an affordable, mass, and