This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62021CA0684
Case C-684/21, Papierfabriek Doetinchem: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 2 March 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Papierfabriek Doetinchem BV v Sprick GmbH Bielefelder Papier- und Wellpappenwerk & Co. (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Intellectual property — Community designs — Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 — Article 8(1) — Features of appearance of a product dictated solely by its technical function — Criteria for assessment — Existence of alternative designs — Proprietor also holding a multitude of alternative protected designs — Multicolour appearance of a product not reflected in the registration of the design concerned)
Case C-684/21, Papierfabriek Doetinchem: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 2 March 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Papierfabriek Doetinchem BV v Sprick GmbH Bielefelder Papier- und Wellpappenwerk & Co. (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Intellectual property — Community designs — Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 — Article 8(1) — Features of appearance of a product dictated solely by its technical function — Criteria for assessment — Existence of alternative designs — Proprietor also holding a multitude of alternative protected designs — Multicolour appearance of a product not reflected in the registration of the design concerned)
Case C-684/21, Papierfabriek Doetinchem: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 2 March 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Papierfabriek Doetinchem BV v Sprick GmbH Bielefelder Papier- und Wellpappenwerk & Co. (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Intellectual property — Community designs — Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 — Article 8(1) — Features of appearance of a product dictated solely by its technical function — Criteria for assessment — Existence of alternative designs — Proprietor also holding a multitude of alternative protected designs — Multicolour appearance of a product not reflected in the registration of the design concerned)
OJ C 155, 2.5.2023, p. 19–20
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, GA, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
2.5.2023 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 155/19 |
Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 2 March 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Papierfabriek Doetinchem BV v Sprick GmbH Bielefelder Papier- und Wellpappenwerk & Co.
(Case C-684/21, (1) Papierfabriek Doetinchem)
(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Intellectual property - Community designs - Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 - Article 8(1) - Features of appearance of a product dictated solely by its technical function - Criteria for assessment - Existence of alternative designs - Proprietor also holding a multitude of alternative protected designs - Multicolour appearance of a product not reflected in the registration of the design concerned)
(2023/C 155/22)
Language of the case: German
Referring court
Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: Papierfabriek Doetinchem BV
Defendant: Sprick GmbH Bielefelder Papier- und Wellpappenwerk & Co.
Operative part of the judgment
|
1. |
Article 8(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 of 12 December 2001 on Community designs must be interpreted as meaning that the assessment as to whether the features of appearance of a product are dictated solely by its technical function, within the meaning of that provision, must be made having regard to all of the objective circumstances relevant to each case, inter alia those dictating the choice of features of appearance, the existence of alternative designs which fulfil the same technical function, and the fact that the proprietor of the design in question also holds design rights for numerous alternative designs, although that latter fact is not decisive for the application of that provision. |
|
2. |
Article 8(1) of Regulation No 6/2002 must be interpreted as meaning that, in the assessment as to whether the appearance of a product is dictated solely by its technical function, the fact that the design of that product allows for a multicolour appearance cannot be taken into account in the case where that multicolour appearance is not apparent from the registration of the design concerned. |