62024TJ0554_INF
Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 29 October 2025 –Ningbo Vasa Intelligent Technology v EUIPO – Electronic Controls (Warning lights)
(Case T‑554/24)
(EU design – Invalidity proceedings – EU design representing warning lights – Ground for invalidity – Non-compliance with requirements for protection – Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002, in the version prior to Regulation (EU) 2024/2822 – No individual character – Article 6 of Regulation No 6/2002 – Proof of disclosure of the earlier design – Article 7(1) of Regulation No 6/2002 – Evidence submitted for the first time before the Board of Appeal – Indication and reproduction of the earlier designs – Discretion of the Board of Appeal – Article 63(2) of Regulation No 6/2002 – Obligation to state reasons – Article 62 of Regulation No 6/2002, in its earlier version)
1.
EU designs – Procedural provisions – Examination of the facts of EUIPO’s own motion – Facts and evidence not submitted in due time – Account taken – Earlier design produced after the filing of the application for a declaration of invalidity – Not included
(Council Regulation No 6/2002, Art. 63(2); Commission Regulation No 2245/2002, Art. 28(1)(b)(i) and (vi))
(see paragraphs 19, 22-25)
2.
EU designs – Surrender and invalidity – Application for a declaration of invalidity based on the existence of an earlier design – Burden of proof – Requirements relating to the reproduction of the earlier design
(Council Regulation No 6/2002, Art. 63(2); Commission Regulation No 2245/2002, Art. 28(1)(b)(i) and (vi))
(see paragraph 21)
3.
EU 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 paragraphs 26, 27)
4.
EU 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(1)(b) and (2), and 25(1)(b))
(see paragraphs 46, 48, 71)
5.
EU 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 – Definition
(Council Regulation No 6/2002, Arts 6(1) and 25(1)(b))
(see paragraphs 53, 54)
6.
EU 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 warning lights
(Council Regulation No 6/2002, Arts 6(1) and 25(1)(b))
(see paragraphs 56, 58, 75, 77, 79, 80, 82)
7.
EU 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 68, 69)
8.
EU designs – Grounds for invalidity – No individual character – Design not giving the informed user a different overall impression from that produced by the earlier design – Determination of the overall impression having regard to the manner of use of the product – Impact of the visible features of the product on the ease with which it can be used
(Council Regulation No 6/2002, Arts 6(1) and 25(1)(b))
(see paragraph 70)
Operative part
The Court:
1.
Dismisses the action;
2.
Orders Ningbo Vasa Intelligent Technology Co. Ltd to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Electronic Controls Co.;
3.
Orders the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) to bear its own costs.