62023TJ0025_RES
Case T‑25/23
Orgatex GmbH & Co. KG
v
European Union Intellectual Property Office
Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 23 October 2024
(Community design – Invalidity proceedings – Registered Community design representing floor markings – Articles 3(a) and 25(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 – Unicity of the design – Consistency of views)
Community designs – Requirements for protection – Representation meeting the definition of a design – Assessment criteria – Consideration of the representation filed at the time of the application for registration
(Council Regulation No 6/2002, Art. 3(a))
(see paragraphs 34, 41, 101)
Community designs – Application for registration – Conditions – Representation of the design suitable for reproduction – Concept – Filing of several views of the same design – Admissibility – Conditions – Requirement of unicity – Consistency of views
(Council Regulation No 6/2002, Art. 36(1); Commission Regulation No 2245/2002, Arts. 1(1)(c) and 4(2))
(see paragraphs 36-40, 43)
Community designs – Surrender and invalidity – Application for a declaration of invalidity – Examination of the application – Principle of interpretation favourable to the proprietor of the design – Absence
(Council Regulation No 6/2002)
(see paragraphs 48-52)
Community designs – Grounds for invalidity – Representation that does not meet the definition of a design – Representation of floor markings
(Council Regulation No 6/2002, Arts. 3(a) and 25(1)(a))
(see paragraphs 63, 69, 70, 80, 83, 115, 116)
Résumé
Hearing an application for a declaration of invalidity, which it rejects, the General Court rules on the novel issue of the consistency of views in the light of the requirement of unicity of a design. It also clarifies the absence of a principle of interpretation favourable to the registration of a Community design in invalidity proceedings.
Orgatex GmbH & Co. KG, the applicant, is the holder of a Community design representing floor markings. Mr L. Longton applied to the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) for a declaration of invalidity of that design, which was rejected by the Cancellation Division.
However, the Board of Appeal annulled the decision of the Cancellation Division and declared the contested design invalid, holding that it had been registered in breach of Article 3(a) of Regulation No 6/2002, (
1
) as the four views filed were inconclusive and presented at least two different designs.
Findings of the Court
In the first place, the Court points out that the examination of a design under Article 3(a) of Regulation No 6/2002 must be carried out on the basis of the representation entered in the register, which determines the subject matter and scope of protection. Observations made by the applicant or holder during the proceedings can therefore only be taken into account if they are apparent from the representation of the design. Therefore, it will examine whether the views that make up the representation as a whole show the appearance of a single or unitary product, namely whether there is unicity in the design.
In that regard, the Court notes that the requirement that the views be consistent implies that all the views show the appearance of one and the same product, so that they enable one and the same design to be clearly identified. Inconsistencies or contradictions between the views filed may lead to the conclusion that the representation shows different products. That is particularly the case where the views constitute different embodiments or versions of the same concept, or where the use of lines to identify the design or the use of exclusions of certain features is not consistent overall. Indeed, there can be no unicity of design if the views are insolubly inconsistent or insurmountably contradictory, because the appearance of a single product cannot be determined and, consequently, the representation does not allow a single design to be clearly identified. Conversely, the unicity of the design may be established despite minor discrepancies between the views, strictly to the extent that those views can be reconciled in the sense of a unitary design. That being the case, the Court points out that the EUIPO authorities are not obliged to consider all the possible combinations between the views provided by the applicant in the application for registration, but only those combinations which seem logical and plausible in the light of common experience.
In the second place, the Court observes that there is nothing in Regulation No 6/2002 which requires a principle of interpretation favourable to the applicant for, or holder of, a Community design and infers from that that there is no such principle in invalidity proceedings.
In the third place, the Court notes that the assumption that views 1.1 and 1.2 of the contested design show the front face and views 1.3 and 1.4 the rear face, each with a top view and a perspective view, seems logical and plausible in the light of common experience. Those views are insolubly inconsistent and do not show a unitary design, with the result that the contested design has been entered in the EUIPO register in breach of Article 3(a) of Regulation No 6/2002.
Lastly, the Court examined the hypothesis put forward by the applicant as being more favourable to it, according to which view 1.1 shows the front face and views 1.2, 1.3 and 1.4 the rear face of the contested design. First, it states that EUIPO was not obliged to consider such a hypothesis. Such a hypothesis is hardly logical or plausible in the light of common experience, since, unless there are special circumstances which have not been demonstrated and are not present in the present case, it seems illogical and implausible to show a single view of the front face and three views of the rear face. Secondly, it notes that that hypothesis also leads to insoluble inconsistencies between the views and stresses that those inconsistencies cannot be overcome by a comparison with products allegedly on the market. While the products marketed corresponding to a design may be taken into account in assessing the overall impression, in the present case it is not a question of assessing whether two conflicting designs produce the same overall impression on the informed user, but of determining whether a design is unique on the basis of the representation recorded in the register.
In the light of those considerations, the Court concludes that, even assuming the hypothesis put forward by the applicant, there are insurmountable contradictions or insoluble inconsistencies between the views and that, consequently, they do not represent a unitary design.
(
1
)	Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 of 12 December 2001 on Community designs (OJ 2002 L 3, p. 1).