62023TJ0464_INF
Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 20 November 2024 –Lidl Digital International v EUIPO – Ningbo Hanyuan Lighting (Lamp)
(Case T‑464/23) (
1
)
(Community design – Invalidity proceedings – Registered Community design representing a lamp – Grounds for invalidity – Individual character – Article 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 – Duty to state reasons – Article 62 of Regulation No 6/2002)
1.
Community 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
(Art. 296 TFEU; Council Regulation No 6/2002, Art. 62, first sentence)
(see paragraphs 17, 18)
2.
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 21, 47, 48, 55, 63, 64, 69)
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 – Criteria for assessment
(Council Regulation No 6/2002, Arts 6(1) and 25(1)(b))
(see paragraph 29)
4.
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 – Sector concerned
(Council Regulation No 6/2002, Arts 6, 25(1)(b) and 36(2))
(see paragraph 30)
5.
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 31, 32)
6.
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 35, 36, 42)
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 – Representation of a lamp
(Council Regulation No 6/2002, Arts 6(1) and 25(1)(b))
(see paragraphs 45, 46, 60, 66-68, 72-75, 86-88, 97, 107, 115, 125)
8.
Community designs – Requirements for protection – 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, Art. 8(1))
(see paragraphs 58, 59)
9.
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, Arts 4 to 9 and 25(1)(b))
(see paragraphs 61, 62)
10.
Community designs – Requirements for protection – Design constituting a component part of a complex product – Component part having to remain visible during normal use of the product in order to be regarded as new and individual in character
(Council Regulation No 6/2002, Arts 3(c) and 4(2) and (3))
(see paragraph 71)
Operative part
The Court:
1.
Dismisses the action;
2.
Orders Lidl Digital International GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.
(
1
)	OJ C 329, 18.9.2023.