62023TJ1065_INF
Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 15 January 2025 –ADS L. Kowalik, B. Włodarczyk v EUIPO – ESSAtech (Accessory for wireless remote controls)
(Case T-1065/23)
(Community design – Invalidity proceedings – Registered Community design representing an accessory for a wireless remote control – Ground for invalidity – Characteristics of the appearance of a product dictated exclusively by its technical function – Article 8(1) and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 – Facts relied on or evidence adduced for the first time before the Board of Appeal – Article 63(2) of Regulation No 6/2002 and Article 27(4) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625 – Rights of the defence – Article 62 of Regulation No 6/2002 – Principle of sound administration – Article 41(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights – Obligation to state reasons – Article 41(2)(c) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights)
1.
Community designs – Procedural provisions – Examination of the facts by the Office of its own motion – Facts and evidence not submitted in due time – Account taken – Discretion of the Board of Appeal – Limits
(Council Regulation No 6/2002, Art. 63(2); Commission Delegated Regulation 2018/625, Art. 27(4))
(see paragraphs 26-30, 35, 37-39, 57)
2.
Community designs – Appeals procedure – Appeal brought against a decision taken by a department of EUIPO – Examination by the Board of Appeal – Scope – Examination of EUIPO’s own motion of pleas relating to essential procedural requirements – Whether permissible
(Council Regulation No 6/2002, Art. 60(1); Commission Delegated Regulation 2018/625, Art. 27(2))
(see paragraphs 40, 41, 56)
3.
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)
(see paragraphs 45-47, 65)
4.
EU law – Principles – Principle of good administration – Scope
(Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 41)
(see paragraph 60)
5.
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 – Existence of alternative designs – Irrelevant
(Council Regulation No 6/2002, recital 10 and Arts 8(1) and 25(1)(b))
(see paragraphs 73, 80-82)
6.
Community designs – Grounds for invalidity – Designs dictated by their technical function – Representation of an accessory for a wireless remote control
(Council Regulation No 6/2002, Arts 8(1) and 25(1)(b))
(see paragraphs 87, 99, 104)
7.
Community designs – Grounds for invalidity – Conflict with an earlier design – 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 and 25(1)(d))
(see paragraph 103)
8.
Community designs – Surrender and invalidity – Application for a declaration of invalidity – Examination of the application – Designs dictated by their technical function – Burden of proof
(Council Regulation No 6/2002, Arts 8(1), 25(1)(b) and 63(1))
(see paragraphs 108, 109)
Operative part
The Court:
1.
Dismisses the action;
2.
Orders ADS L. Kowalik, B. Włodarczyk s.c. to pay the costs.