# C_2016296EN.01002601.xml

| 16.8.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 296/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.8.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 296/26

---

Action brought on 13 June 2016 — Gamet v EUIPO — ‘Metal-Bud’ Robert Gubała (Door handle)

(Case T-306/16)

(2016/C 296/35)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Gamet S.A. (Toruń, Poland) (represented by: A. Rolbiecka, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Firma produkcyjno-handlowa ‘Metal-Bud’ Robert Gubała (Świątniki Górne, Poland)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the design at issue: Applicant

Proprietor of the design at issue:

Design at issue: Community design ‘Door handle’ — Community design No 2 208 066-0001

Design at issue:

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 17/03/2016 in Case R 2040/2014-3

Contested decision

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO dated 17 march 2016 given in case R 2040/2014-3, concerning proceedings for a declaration of invalidity of the RCD 002208066-0001; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO dated 17 march 2016 given in case R 2040/2014-3, concerning proceedings for a declaration of invalidity of the RCD 002208066-0001;

| — | order the EUIPO and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to bear the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the EUIPO and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to bear the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 63(2) of Regulation No 6/2002 by accepting belated evidence — a declaration of the representative of the undertaking Klamex, regardless of the fact that the subject evidence contained information strictly new for the proceedings, not confirmed by evidence presented before the Invalidity Division; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 63(2) of Regulation No 6/2002 by accepting belated evidence — a declaration of the representative of the undertaking Klamex, regardless of the fact that the subject evidence contained information strictly new for the proceedings, not confirmed by evidence presented before the Invalidity Division;

| — | Infringement of Article 63(1) of Regulation No 6/2002 by incorrect and arbitrary finding that evidence presented by the other party confirmed that there were no material differences between the RCD and the design of the ‘DORA’ handle in:






  — | the shape and the proportions of the shaft, |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 63(1) of Regulation No 6/2002 by incorrect and arbitrary finding that evidence presented by the other party confirmed that there were no material differences between the RCD and the design of the ‘DORA’ handle in:

—

the shape and the proportions of the shaft,

| — | the proportions of the shaft and grip part, |
| --- | --- |

—

the proportions of the shaft and grip part,

| — | the depth of the grip handle, |
| --- | --- |

—

the depth of the grip handle,

| — | the degree of beveling of the grip handle, |
| --- | --- |

—

the degree of beveling of the grip handle,

| — | rounding of the edges of handle. |
| --- | --- |

—

rounding of the edges of handle.

| — | Infringement of Articles 4 and 6(2) of Regulation No 6/2002, read in conjunction with Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation No 6/2002 through incorrect assessment of freedom in designing door handles by stating that the designer’s degree of freedom in designing door handles was almost unlimited and resulted from the fact that the Board had not taken into consideration features which a designer should have taken into consideration by designing the door handle; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Articles 4 and 6(2) of Regulation No 6/2002, read in conjunction with Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation No 6/2002 through incorrect assessment of freedom in designing door handles by stating that the designer’s degree of freedom in designing door handles was almost unlimited and resulted from the fact that the Board had not taken into consideration features which a designer should have taken into consideration by designing the door handle;

| — | Infringement of Articles 4 and 6 of Regulation No 6/2002 by incorrect finding that the RCD does not produce an overall impression on the informed user that is different from the impression produced by the ‘DORA’ handle. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Articles 4 and 6 of Regulation No 6/2002 by incorrect finding that the RCD does not produce an overall impression on the informed user that is different from the impression produced by the ‘DORA’ handle.

---