62023TJ0610_INF
Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 26 March 2025 –Hamster Polska v EUIPO – Budotechnika (Public toilets)
(Case T‑610/23)
(Community design – Invalidity proceedings – Registered Community design representing public toilets – Grounds for invalidity – Features of appearance of a product solely dictated by its technical function – Article 8(1) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 – Disclosure of earlier designs – Degree of freedom of the designer – Informed user – Different overall impression – Articles 5 to 7 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation No 6/2002 – Obligation to state reasons – Article 62 of Regulation No 6/2002)
1.
Community designs – Appeals procedure – Action before the EU judicature – Jurisdiction of the General Court – Review of the facts in the light of evidence produced for the first time before it – Not included
(Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 188; Council Regulation No 6/2002, Art. 61)
(see paragraph 14)
2.
Community designs – Procedural provisions – Statement of reasons for decisions – Article 62, first sentence, 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 paragraph 20)
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 – Representation of public toilets
(Council Regulation No 6/2002, Arts 6(1)(b) and 25(1)(b))
(see paragraphs 23, 35, 36, 51, 71, 78, 83-85)
4.
Community designs – Grounds for invalidity – 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, recital 10 and Art. 8(1))
(see paragraph 29)
5.
Community designs – Grounds for invalidity – No individual character – Previous disclosure of identical design – Proof of the disclosure
(Council Regulation No 6/2002, Arts 6(1)(b) and 7(1))
(see paragraphs 43-45)
6.
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, Art. 52(2))
(see paragraph 48)
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 – Criteria for assessment – Freedom of the designer
(Council Regulation No 6/2002, Arts 6(2) and 25(1)(b))
(see paragraphs 58, 65, 67, 81, 82)
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 – Global assessment of all the elements of the earlier design
(Council Regulation No 6/2002, Arts 6(1) and 25(1)(b))
(see paragraphs 76, 85)
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 – Informed user – Concept
(Council Regulation No 6/2002, Arts 6(1) and 25(1)(b))
(see paragraph 79)
Operative part
The Court:
1.
Dismisses the action;
2.
Orders Hamster Polska sp. z o.o. to pay the costs incurred in the proceedings before the General Court.