EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62016TA0090
Case T-90/16: Judgment of the General Court of 4 July 2017 — Murphy v EUIPO — Nike Innovate (Electronic wristband) (Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Registered Community design representing an electronic wristband — Prior Community design — Ground for invalidity — Individual character — Different overall impression — Article 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 — Obligation to state reasons — Article 62 of Regulation No 6/2002)
Case T-90/16: Judgment of the General Court of 4 July 2017 — Murphy v EUIPO — Nike Innovate (Electronic wristband) (Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Registered Community design representing an electronic wristband — Prior Community design — Ground for invalidity — Individual character — Different overall impression — Article 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 — Obligation to state reasons — Article 62 of Regulation No 6/2002)
Case T-90/16: Judgment of the General Court of 4 July 2017 — Murphy v EUIPO — Nike Innovate (Electronic wristband) (Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Registered Community design representing an electronic wristband — Prior Community design — Ground for invalidity — Individual character — Different overall impression — Article 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 — Obligation to state reasons — Article 62 of Regulation No 6/2002)
OJ C 277, 21.8.2017, p. 39–40
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
21.8.2017 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 277/39 |
Judgment of the General Court of 4 July 2017 — Murphy v EUIPO — Nike Innovate (Electronic wristband)
(Case T-90/16) (1)
((Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Registered Community design representing an electronic wristband - Prior Community design - Ground for invalidity - Individual character - Different overall impression - Article 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 - Obligation to state reasons - Article 62 of Regulation No 6/2002))
(2017/C 277/58)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicant: Thomas Murphy (Dublin, Ireland) (represented by: N. Travers, SC, J. Gormley, Barrister, and M. O’Connor, Solicitor)
Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Gája, acting as Agent)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Nike Innovate CV (Beaverton, Oregon, United States) (represented by: C. Spintig, S. Pietzcker and M. Prasse, lawyers)
Re:
Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 November 2015 (Case R 736/2014–3), relating to invalidity proceedings between Mr Murphy and Nike Innovate.
Operative part of the judgment
The Court:
|
1. |
Dismisses the action; |
|
2. |
Orders Mr Thomas Murphy to pay the costs. |