# C_2019423EN.01002701.xml

| 16.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 423/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 423/27

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (Chancery Division) (United Kingdom) made on 2 October 2019 – Beverly Hills Teddy Bear Company v PMS International Group

(Case C-728/19)

(2019/C 423/33)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

High Court of Justice (Chancery Division)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Beverly Hills Teddy Bear Company

Defendant: PMS International Group

Questions referred

| 1. | For the protection of an unregistered Community design to come into being under art. 11 of Council Regulation (EC) No. 6/2002 (1) of 12 December 2001 (‘the Regulation’), by the design being made available to the public within the meaning of art. 11(1), must an event of disclosure, within the meaning of art.11(2), take place within the geographical confines of the Community, or is it sufficient that the event, wherever it took place, was such that, in the normal course of business, the event could reasonably have become known to the circles specialised in the sector concerned, operating within the Community (assuming the design was not disclosed in confidence within the terms of the final sentence of art.11(2))? |
| --- | --- |

1.

For the protection of an unregistered Community design to come into being under art. 11 of Council Regulation (EC) No. 6/2002 (1) of 12 December 2001 (‘the Regulation’), by the design being made available to the public within the meaning of art. 11(1), must an event of disclosure, within the meaning of art.11(2), take place within the geographical confines of the Community, or is it sufficient that the event, wherever it took place, was such that, in the normal course of business, the event could reasonably have become known to the circles specialised in the sector concerned, operating within the Community (assuming the design was not disclosed in confidence within the terms of the final sentence of art.11(2))?

| 2. | Is the date for assessing the novelty of a design for which unregistered Community design protection is claimed, within the meaning of art.5(l)(a) of the Regulation, the date on which the unregistered Community design protection for the design came into being according to art.11 of the Regulation, or alternatively the date on which the relevant event of disclosure of the design, within the meaning of art.7(1) of the Regulation, could reasonably have become known in the normal course of business to the circles specialised in the sector concerned, operating within the Community (assuming that the design was not disclosed in confidence within the terms of the final sentence of art.7(1)), or alternatively some other, and if so, which date? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is the date for assessing the novelty of a design for which unregistered Community design protection is claimed, within the meaning of art.5(l)(a) of the Regulation, the date on which the unregistered Community design protection for the design came into being according to art.11 of the Regulation, or alternatively the date on which the relevant event of disclosure of the design, within the meaning of art.7(1) of the Regulation, could reasonably have become known in the normal course of business to the circles specialised in the sector concerned, operating within the Community (assuming that the design was not disclosed in confidence within the terms of the final sentence of art.7(1)), or alternatively some other, and if so, which date?

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 of 12 December 2001 on Community designs (OJ 2002, L 3, p. 1).

---