Order — ECLI:EU:C:2014:2124
Date: 2014-07-17
Language of the case: German
Court formation: Second Chamber
Subject matter: General provisions;Intellectual, industrial and commercial property;Designs
Procedure: Action for annulment;Appeal - unfounded;Appeal - inadmissible
Origin: Germany

Appeal brought on 2 August 2013 by Erich Kastenholz against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 6 June 2013 in Case T-68/11 Erich Kastenholz v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (Case C-435/13 P) Language of the case: German Parties Appellant: Erich Kastenholz (represented by: L. Acker, lawyer) Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Qwatchme A/S Form of order sought The appellant claims that the Court should: set aside the judgment of the General Court; uphold his application for annulment of the contested decision, or, alternatively, refer the case back to the General Court for reconsideration; and order the Office for Harmonisation to pay the applicant’s costs incured at first instance and on appeal. Pleas in law and main arguments In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on three grounds of appeal: Infringement of Article 5(1)(a) together with Article 5(2) of Regulation No 6/2002 1 This infringement consists of two parts: failure to draw a distinction between the criteria of novelty and individual character; inadmissible consideration of the colour of the design in assessing the novelty due to the registration made in black and white. Infringement of Article 6(1)(b) together with Article 2 of Regulation No 6/2002 This infringement consists of three parts: inadequate determination of the similarities and differences of the conflicting designs; inadequate weighting of the matching characteristics and of the differing characteristics; inadequate reasoning of the question of individual character of the contested Community design. Infringement of Article 25(1)(f) of Regulation No 6/2002 and of the obligation of inquiry under the first and second sentences of Article 63(1) of Regulation No 6/2002 This infringement consists of the following four parts: incorrect finding of the General Court that an expert’s report submitted during the administrative procedure could be disregarded; inadequate consideration of the expert’s report and the statement of facts to the expert’s report in the decisions of the Board of Appeal and of the General Court; failure to properly provide a statement of reasons in the decisions of the Board of Appeal and of the General Court in relation to the infringement of national copyright, in particular insufficient determination of the scope of national copyright protection; inadequate finding by the Board of Appeal and by the General Court that it was for the applicant to explain the nature of the relevant national copyright protection in the context of Article 25(1)(f) of Regulation No 6/2002, and at the same time misinterpretation of the scope of the duties of the Board of Appeal and of the Office for Harmonisation as regards the obligation to clarify of their own motion facts and the legal situation pursuant to the first and second sentences of Article 63(1) of Regulation No 6/2002. ____________ 1 Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 of 12 December 2001 on Community designs (OJ 2002 L 3, p. 1).