# C_2020271EN.01004301.xml

| 17.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 271/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 271/43

---

Action brought on 15 June 2020 — Framery v EUIPO — Smartblock (Transportable building)

(Case T-373/20)

(2020/C 271/54)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Framery Oy (Tampere, Finland) (represented by: P. Voutilainen, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Smartblock Oy (Helsinki, Finland)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the design at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Design at issue: European Union design 3 303 994-00001

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 April 2020 in Case R 616/2019-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision and reject the application for declaration of invalidity in its entirety; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision and reject the application for declaration of invalidity in its entirety;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 in conjunction with Article 25(1)(b) of that regulation, on the ground that the contested design has individual character and the Board of Appeal erred in the assessment of the individual character of the contested design; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 in conjunction with Article 25(1)(b) of that regulation, on the ground that the contested design has individual character and the Board of Appeal erred in the assessment of the individual character of the contested design;

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 on the ground that the Board of Appeal erroneously accepted a disclosure of an earlier design; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 on the ground that the Board of Appeal erroneously accepted a disclosure of an earlier design;

| — | Infringement of Article 62 of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 on the ground that the Board of Appeal failed to state their reasons concerning the acceptance of the disclosure of the earlier design; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 62 of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 on the ground that the Board of Appeal failed to state their reasons concerning the acceptance of the disclosure of the earlier design;

| — | Infringement of Article 63(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 on the ground that the Board of Appeal has based their decision to facts, evidence and argumentation especially concerning alleged features and disclosure of the earlier design, that were not provided by either of the parties. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 63(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 on the ground that the Board of Appeal has based their decision to facts, evidence and argumentation especially concerning alleged features and disclosure of the earlier design, that were not provided by either of the parties.

---