EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62016TA0057

Case T-57/16: Judgment of the General Court of 18 July 2017 — Chanel v EUIPO — Jing Zhou and Golden Rose 999 (Ornamentation) (Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Registered Community design representing ornamentation — Earlier design — Ground for invalidity — No individual character — Product at issue — Degree of freedom of the designer — No different overall impression — Article 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002)

OJ C 283, 28.8.2017, p. 37–38 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

28.8.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 283/37


Judgment of the General Court of 18 July 2017 — Chanel v EUIPO — Jing Zhou and Golden Rose 999 (Ornamentation)

(Case T-57/16) (1)

((Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Registered Community design representing ornamentation - Earlier design - Ground for invalidity - No individual character - Product at issue - Degree of freedom of the designer - No different overall impression - Article 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002))

(2017/C 283/56)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Chanel SAS (Neuilly-sur-Seine, France) (represented by: C. Sueiras Villalobos, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: E. Zaera Cuadrado, acting as Agent)

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Li Jing Zhou (Fuenlabrada, Spain) and Golden Rose 999 Srl (Rome, Italy)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 November 2015 (Case R 2346/2014-3), relating to invalidity proceedings between, on the one hand, Chanel and, on the other hand, Mr Li Jing Zhou and Golden Rose 999.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.

Annuls the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 18 November 2015 (Case R 2346/2014-3);

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3.

Orders EUIPO to pay the costs.


(1)  OJ C 118, 4.4.2016.


Top