Case C-479/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany), lodged on 25 October 2012 — H. Gautzsch Großhandel GmbH & Co. KG v Münchener Boulevard Möbel Joseph Duna GmbH
Date: 2012-10-25
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: confidentiality, designs and models, dissemination of information, interpretation of the law, proof








C_2013032EN.01000301.xml










2.2.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 32/3





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany), lodged on 25 October 2012 — H. Gautzsch Großhandel GmbH & Co. KG v Münchener Boulevard Möbel Joseph Duna GmbH
(Case C-479/12)
2013/C 32/03
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Defendant and appellant on a point of law: H. Gautzsch Großhandel GmbH & Co. KG

Applicant and respondent on a point of law: Münchener Boulevard Möbel Joseph Duna GmbH

Questions referred







1.


Is Article 11(2) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 (1) to be interpreted as meaning that, in the normal course of business, a design could reasonably have become known to the circles specialised in the sector concerned, operating within the European Union, in the case where images of the design were distributed to traders?










2.


Is the first sentence of Article 7(1) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 to be interpreted as meaning that a design could not reasonably have become known in the normal course of business to the circles specialised in the sector concerned, operating within the European Union, even though it was disclosed to third parties without any explicit or implicit conditions of confidentiality, in the case where






(a)


it is made available to only one undertaking in the specialised circles,
or










(b)


it is exhibited in a showroom of an undertaking in China which lies outside the scope of normal market analysis?














3.








(a)


Is Article 19(2) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 to be interpreted as meaning that the holder of an unregistered Community design bears the burden of proving that the contested use results from copying the protected design?










(b)


If Question 3(a) is answered in the affirmative:
Is the burden of proof reversed or is the burden of proof incumbent on the holder of the unregistered Community design eased if there are material similarities between the design and the contested use?














4.








(a)


Is the right to obtain an injunction prohibiting further infringement of an unregistered Community design, provided for in Article 19(2) and Article 89(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002, subject to limitation in time?










(b)


If Question 4(a) is answered in the affirmative:
Is the limitation in time governed by European Union law and, if so, by which provision?














5.








(a)


Is the right to obtain an injunction prohibiting further infringement of an unregistered Community design, provided for in Article 19(2) and Article 89(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002, subject to forfeiture?










(b)


If Question 5(a) is answered in the affirmative:
Is the forfeiture governed by European Union law and, if so, by which provision?














6.


Is Article 89(1)(d) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 to be interpreted as meaning that claims for destruction, disclosure of information and damages by reason of infringement of an unregistered Community design which are pursued in relation to the entirety of the European Union are subject to the law of the Member States in which the acts of infringement were committed?






(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 of 12 December 2001 on Community designs (OJ 2002 L 3, p. 1).