Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2012:641
Date: 2012-10-18
Language of the case: Spanish
Court formation: Sixth Chamber
Subject matter: Intellectual, industrial and commercial property;Designs
Procedure: Action for annulment;Appeal - unfounded;Appeal - inadmissible
Origin: Spain

Summary – Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber), 18 October 2012 1. Community design – Appeals procedure – Action before the Courts of the Union – Jurisdiction of the General Court – Review of the lawfulness of decisions of the Boards of Appeal – Limits (Council Regulation No 6/2002, Art. 61) 2. Community design – Grounds for invalidity – Lack of individual character – Informed user – Definition (Council Regulation No 6/2002, Arts 6(1) and 25(1)(b)) 3. Appeals – Grounds of appeal – Mistaken assessment of the facts – Inadmissibility – Review by the Court of Justice of the assessment of the facts put before the General Court – Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted (Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, para. 1) 4. Appeals – Grounds of appeal – Plea submitted for the first time in the context of the appeal – Not admissible (Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 113(2)) 5. Appeals – Grounds of appeal – Inadequate statement of reasons – Scope of the obligation to state reasons (Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 36 and 53, para. 1; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 81) 1. In the context of an action for annulment brought against a decision of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), the General Court can carry out a full review of the legality of the decisions of OHIM’s Boards of Appeal, if necessary examining whether those boards have made a correct legal classification of the facts of the dispute or whether their assessment of the facts submitted to them was flawed. Where it is called upon to assess the legality of a decision of the Board of Appeal of OHIM, the General Court cannot be bound by an incorrect assessment of the facts by that board, since that assessment is part of the findings whose legality is being disputed before the General Court. However, the General Court may afford OHIM some latitude, in particular where OHIM is called upon to perform highly technical assessments, and restrict itself, in terms of the scope of its review of the Board of Appeal’s decisions in industrial design matters, to an examination of manifest errors of assessment. (see paras 39-41) 2. The concept of ‘informed user’ must be understood as lying somewhere between that of the average consumer, applicable in trade mark matters, who need not have any specific knowledge and who, as a rule, makes no direct comparison between the trade marks at issue, and the sectoral expert, who is an expert with detailed technical expertise. Thus, the concept of the ‘informed user’ may be understood as referring, not to a user of average attention, but to a particularly observant one, either because of his personal experience or his extensive knowledge of the sector in question. The very nature of the informed user means that, when possible, he will make a direct comparison between the earlier mark and the contested design. However, it cannot be ruled out that such a comparison may be impracticable or uncommon in the sector concerned, in particular because of specific circumstances or the characteristics of the items which the earlier mark and the contested design represent. There being no precise indications to that effect in the context of Regulation No 6/2002 on Community designs, the legislature of the European Union cannot be regarded as having intended to limit the assessment of potential designs to a direct comparison. (see paras 53, 54, 56) 3. See the text of the decision. (see para. 66) 4. See the text of the decision. (see para. 72) 5. See the text of the decision. (see paras 79, 80)