Choose the experimental features you want to try

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62019TJ0818

Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 15 October 2020.
Dvectis CZ s.r.o. v European Union Intellectual Property Office.
Community design – Invalidity proceedings – Registered community design representing a support pillow – Earlier Community design – Ground for invalidity – No individual character – Informed user – Degree of freedom of the designer – No different overall impression – Article 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 – Obligation to state reasons.
Case T-818/19.

ECLI identifier: ECLI:EU:T:2020:486

 Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 15 October 2020 –
Dvectis CZ v EUIPO – Yado (Support pillow)

(Case T‑818/19)

(Community design – Invalidity proceedings – Registered community design representing a support pillow – Earlier Community design – Ground for invalidity – No individual character – Informed user – Degree of freedom of the designer – No different overall impression – Article 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 – Obligation to state reasons)

1. 

Community designs – Grounds for invalidity – No individual character – Design not giving the informed user a different overall impression from that produced by the earlier design – Criteria for assessment – Freedom of the designer

(Council Regulation No 6/2002, Arts 6 and 25(1)(b))

(see paras 21, 46, 47)

2. 

Community designs – Application for registration – Conditions – Indication of the goods

(Council Regulation No 6/2002, Art. 36(2) and (6))

(see paras 30, 31)

3. 

Community designs – Grounds for invalidity – No individual character – Design not giving the informed user a different overall impression from that produced by the earlier design – Representation of a support pillow

(Council Regulation No 6/2002, Arts 6(1) and 25(1)(b))

(see paras 40, 44, 52, 67-69)

4. 

Community designs – Grounds for invalidity – No individual character – Design not giving the informed user a different overall impression from that produced by the earlier design – Informed user – Definition

(Council Regulation No 6/2002, Arts 6(1) and 25(1)(b))

(see paras 41, 42)

5. 

Community designs – Grounds for invalidity – No individual character – Design not giving the informed user a different overall impression from that produced by the earlier design – Global assessment of all the elements of the earlier design

(Council Regulation No 6/2002, Arts 6(1) and 25(1)(b))

(see paras 54-56, 61, 62)

6. 

Community designs – Procedural provisions – Statement of reasons for decisions – First sentence of Article 62 of Regulation No 6/2002 – Scope identical to that of Article 296 TFEU

(Art. 296 TFEU; Council Regulation No 6/2002, Art. 62, first sentence)

(see paras 73, 75)

7. 

Community designs – Appeals procedure – Action before the EU judicature – Decision of an EUIPO body forming part of the context of the decision of the Board of Appeal

(see para. 78)

8. 

Acts of the institutions – Statement of reasons – Obligation – Scope – Plea based on absence or inadequacy of the statement of reasons – Plea alleging incorrectness of the statement of reasons – Distinction

(Art. 296 TFEU)

(see para. 81)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 September 2019 (Case R 513/2018-3), relating to invalidity proceedings between Yado and Dvectis CZ.

Operative part

The Court:

1. 

Dismisses the action;

2. 

Orders Dvectis CZ s. r. o. to pay the costs.

Top