Information;Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2024:850
Date: 2024-11-20
Language of the case: German
Court formation: Sixth Chamber
Subject matter: Intellectual, industrial and commercial property;Designs
Procedure: Action for annulment - unfounded
Origin: Germany

Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 20 November 2024 – Lidl Digital International v EUIPO – Ningbo Hanyuan Lighting (Lamp) (Case T‑464/23) (1) ( Community design – Invalidity proceedings – Registered Community design representing a lamp – Grounds for invalidity – Individual character – Article 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 – Duty to state reasons – Article 62 of Regulation No 6/2002 ) 1. 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 paragraphs 17, 18) 2. 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 paragraphs 21, 47, 48, 55, 63, 64, 69) 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 – Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 6/2002, Arts 6(1) and 25(1)(b)) (see paragraph 29) 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 – Criteria for assessment – Sector concerned (Council Regulation No 6/2002, Arts 6, 25(1)(b) and 36(2)) (see paragraph 30) 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 – Informed user – Concept (Council Regulation No 6/2002, Arts 6(1) and 25(1)(b)) (see paragraphs 31, 32) 6. 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(2) and 25(1)(b)) (see paragraphs 35, 36, 42) 7. 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 lamp (Council Regulation No 6/2002, Arts 6(1) and 25(1)(b)) (see paragraphs 45, 46, 60, 66-68, 72-75, 86-88, 97, 107, 115, 125) 8. Community designs – Requirements for protection – Designs dictated by their technical function – Features of appearance of a product which are dictated solely by its technical function – Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 6/2002, Art. 8(1)) (see paragraphs 58, 59) 9. Community designs – Surrender and invalidity – Application for a declaration of invalidity based on the existence of an earlier design – Burden of proof (Council Regulation No 6/2002, Arts 4 to 9 and 25(1)(b)) (see paragraphs 61, 62) 10. Community designs – Requirements for protection – Design constituting a component part of a complex product – Component part having to remain visible during normal use of the product in order to be regarded as new and individual in character (Council Regulation No 6/2002, Arts 3(c) and 4(2) and (3)) (see paragraph 71) Operative part The Court: 1. Dismisses the action; 2. Orders Lidl Digital International GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs. 1 OJ C 329, 18.9.2023.