This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62016TA0760
Case T-760/16: Judgment of the General Court of 17 May 2018 — Basil v EUIPO — Artex (Baskets adapted for cycles) (Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Registered Community design representing baskets adapted for cycles — Ground for invalidity — Inadmissibility of the application for a declaration of invalidity — Article 52(3) and Article 86(5) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 — Disclosure of the earlier design — Individual character — Different overall impression — Article 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation No 6/2002)
Case T-760/16: Judgment of the General Court of 17 May 2018 — Basil v EUIPO — Artex (Baskets adapted for cycles) (Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Registered Community design representing baskets adapted for cycles — Ground for invalidity — Inadmissibility of the application for a declaration of invalidity — Article 52(3) and Article 86(5) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 — Disclosure of the earlier design — Individual character — Different overall impression — Article 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation No 6/2002)
Case T-760/16: Judgment of the General Court of 17 May 2018 — Basil v EUIPO — Artex (Baskets adapted for cycles) (Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Registered Community design representing baskets adapted for cycles — Ground for invalidity — Inadmissibility of the application for a declaration of invalidity — Article 52(3) and Article 86(5) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 — Disclosure of the earlier design — Individual character — Different overall impression — Article 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation No 6/2002)
OJ C 240, 9.7.2018, p. 36–36
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
Case T-760/16: Judgment of the General Court of 17 May 2018 — Basil v EUIPO — Artex (Baskets adapted for cycles) (Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Registered Community design representing baskets adapted for cycles — Ground for invalidity — Inadmissibility of the application for a declaration of invalidity — Article 52(3) and Article 86(5) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 — Disclosure of the earlier design — Individual character — Different overall impression — Article 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation No 6/2002)
Judgment of the General Court of 17 May 2018 — Basil v EUIPO — Artex (Baskets adapted for cycles)
(Case T-760/16) ( 1 )
‛(Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Registered Community design representing baskets adapted for cycles — Ground for invalidity — Inadmissibility of the application for a declaration of invalidity — Article 52(3) and Article 86(5) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 — Disclosure of the earlier design — Individual character — Different overall impression — Article 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation No 6/2002)’
2018/C 240/38Language of the case: GermanParties
Applicant: Basil BV (Silvolde, Netherlands) (represented by: N. Weber and J. von der Thüsen, lawyers)
Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: S. Hanne and D. Walicka, acting as Agents)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Artex SpA (San Zeno di Cassola, Italy) (represented by: J. Vogtmeier, lawyer)
Re:
Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 July 2016 (Case R 535/2015-3), relating to invalidity proceedings between Artex and Basil.
Operative part of the judgment
The Court:
|
1. |
The action is dismissed; |
|
2. |
Basil BV is ordered to pay the costs. |
( 1 ) OJ C 6, 9.1.2018.