do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-57/16: Judgment of the General Court of 18 July 2017 — Chanel v EUIPO — Jing Zhou and Golden Rose 999 (Ornamentation) (Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Registered Community design representing ornamentation — Earlier design — Ground for invalidity — No individual character — Product at issue — Degree of freedom of the designer — No different overall impression — Article 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002)
Date: 2017-07-18
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: designs and models








C_2017283EN.01003702.xml










28.8.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 283/37





Judgment of the General Court of 18 July 2017 — Chanel v EUIPO — Jing Zhou and Golden Rose 999 (Ornamentation)
(Case T-57/16) (1)

((Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Registered Community design representing ornamentation - Earlier design - Ground for invalidity - No individual character - Product at issue - Degree of freedom of the designer - No different overall impression - Article 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002))
(2017/C 283/56)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Chanel SAS (Neuilly-sur-Seine, France) (represented by: C. Sueiras Villalobos, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: E. Zaera Cuadrado, acting as Agent)

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Li Jing Zhou (Fuenlabrada, Spain) and Golden Rose 999 Srl (Rome, Italy)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 November 2015 (Case R 2346/2014-3), relating to invalidity proceedings between, on the one hand, Chanel and, on the other hand, Mr Li Jing Zhou and Golden Rose 999.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 18 November 2015 (Case R 2346/2014-3);










2.


Dismisses the action as to the remainder;










3.


Orders EUIPO to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 118, 4.4.2016.