62020TO0682_INF
Order of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 15 December 2021 –Legero Schuhfabrik v EUIPO – Rieker Schuh (Shoe)
(Case T‑682/20)
(Community design – Invalidity proceedings – Registered Community design representing a shoe – Earlier national and Community designs produced after the filing of the application for a declaration of invalidity – Article 28(1)(b)(v) of Regulation (EC) No 2245/2002 – Grounds for invalidity – Lack of novelty – No individual character – Degree of freedom of the designer – Lack of a different overall impression – Articles 5 and 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 – Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)
1.
Community designs – Surrender and invalidity – Application for a declaration of invalidity based on the existence of an earlier design – Earlier designs relied on subsequent to the filing of the application for a declaration of invalidity – Not included
(Council Regulation No 6/2002, Arts 52(2) and 63(2); Commission Regulation No 2245/2002, Art. 28(1)(b)(i)(v) and (vi))
(see paras 30-32)
2.
Community designs – Procedural provisions – Examination of the facts of EUIPO’s own motion – Facts and evidence not submitted in time – Account taken – Earlier designs relied on subsequent to the filing of the application for a declaration of invalidity – Not included
(Council Regulation No 6/2002, Art. 63 (2))
(see paras 33, 34)
3.
Community designs – Grounds for invalidity – No individual character – Disclosure to the public – Proof of the disclosure
(Council Regulation No 6/2002, Art. 7(1))
(see paras 40, 42, 43)
4.
Community designs – Procedural provisions – Decisions of EUIPO – Observance of the rights of the defence – Scope of the principle
(Council Regulation No 6/2002, Art. 62, second sentence)
(see paras 49, 52)
5.
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 – Recourse by the Board of Appeal to implicit reasoning – Whether permissible – Conditions
(Art. 296 TFEU; Council Regulation No 6/2002, Art. 62, first sentence)
(see paras 57, 58)
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 – Creative licence
(Council Regulation No 6/2002, Arts 6 and 25(1)(b))
(see paras 68, 70-73)
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 shoe
(Council Regulation No 6/2002, Arts 6(1) and 25(1)(b))
(see paras 78, 85, 105-108)
8.
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 – Saturation of the state of the art – Relevance
(Council Regulation No 6/2002, Arts 6(1) and 25(1)(b))
(see paras 80, 82, 84)
9.
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 paras 86, 87)
10.
Community designs – Conditions for protection – Overlap of the conditions of novelty and individual character
(Council Regulation No 6/2002, Arts 5 and 6)
(see paras 112-114, 116, 118)
Re:
Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 September 2020 (Case R 1650/2019-3), relating to invalidity proceedings between Legero Schuhfabrik and Rieker Schuh.
Operative part
1.
The action is dismissed.
2.
Legero Schuhfabrik GmbH shall pay the costs.