62018TJ0074_RES
Case T‑74/18
Visi/one GmbH
v
European Union Intellectual Property Office
Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber), 13 June 2019
(Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Registered Community design representing a display holder for vehicles — Earlier design — Proof of disclosure — Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 — Ground for invalidity — Lack of individual character — Informed user — Degree of freedom of the designer — Lack of different overall impression — Article 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation No 6/2002)
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 paragraphs 21-24)
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 paragraph 49)
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 — Recourse by the Board of Appeal to implicit reasoning — Permissible — Conditions
(Art. 296 TFEU; Council Regulation No 6/2002, Art. 62, first sentence)
(see paragraphs 57, 58)
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
(Council Regulation No 6/2002, Arts 6(1) and 25(1)(b))
(see paragraph 66)
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 paragraphs 69, 70, 72)
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(2) and 25(1)(b))
(see paragraphs 74-76, 79)
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 83, 84)
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 display holder for vehicles
(Council Regulation No 6/2002, Arts 6(1) and 25(1)(b))
(see paragraphs 88-93)
Judicial proceedings — Costs — Successful party ordered to pay part of its own costs
(Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Arts 134(1) and 135(1))
(see paragraphs 96, 97)
Résumé
In the judgment Visi/one v EUIPO — EasyFix (Display holder for vehicles) (T‑74/18), delivered on 13 June 2019, the Court dismissed the action seeking annulment of the decision whereby the Third Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) declared the invalidity, for lack of individual character, of a design intended to be incorporated in display holders for vehicles.
The Court stated that, in order to establish that an earlier design has been disclosed, it is necessary to carry out an analysis in two stages, consisting in examining, in the first place, whether the evidence submitted in the application for a declaration of invalidity shows, on the one hand, facts constituting disclosure of a design and, on the other hand, that that disclosure occurred earlier than the date of filing or priority of the design at issue and, in the second place, where the holder of the design at issue has claimed the contrary, whether those facts could reasonably have become known in the normal course of business to the circles specialised in the sector operating within the European Union, failing which a disclosure will be considered to have no effects and will not be taken into account.
In the present case, the Court found that, while it is regrettable that EUIPO’s administrative services communicated to the applicant the two catalogues produced in Annex B to the application for a declaration of invalidity with non-continuous numbering that did not correspond to the order of the pages of the original catalogues, such a circumstance cannot call into question the legality of the contested decision as regards proof of the constituent facts and the priority of the disclosure of the display holder for vehicles reproduced in paragraph 4 of the contested decision in connection with Annex B and, in particular, the probative value of those documents for the purpose of establishing the disclosure of the earlier design. Further, the applicant has not demonstrated or even claimed that the circumstances of the present case could reasonably prevent those facts from becoming known in the normal course of business to the circles specialised in the sector concerned, operating within the European Union. Given the absence of evidence to the contrary that would have made it possible to consider that those catalogues had not been distributed within those specialised circles, the Board of Appeal did not err when it concluded that there had been a disclosure of the earlier design.
As regards an informed user’s degree of knowledge and level of attention, it follows in particular from the case-law that, even if the relevant person has a certain degree of knowledge as regards the different designs that exist in the sector concerned and displays a relatively high level of attention and particular vigilance when he or she uses them, he or she is also not an expert or specialist, such as a sectoral expert [in patent law], capable of observing in detail the minimal differences that may exist between the designs at issue.
The Court also stated that the influence on individual character of the factor relating to the designer’s freedom in developing the design at issue varies according to a rule of inverse proportionality.