Joined Cases C-397/16 and C-435/16: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 20 December 2017 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Corte d'appello di Milano, Bundesgerichtshof — Italy, Germany) — Acacia Srl v Pneusgarda Srl, in insolvency, Audi AG (C-397/16), Acacia Srl, Rolando D’Amato v Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG (C-435/16) (References for a preliminary ruling — Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 — Community designs — Article 110(1) — No protection — ‘Repair’ clause — Concept of ‘component part of a complex product’ — Repair of the complex product so as to restore its original appearance — Measures to be adopted by the user for the purposes of relying on the ‘repair’ clause — Replica car wheel rim identical to the original wheel rim design)
Date: 2017-12-20
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: designs and models, maintenance, motor vehicle, vehicle parts








C_2018072EN.01001801.xml










26.2.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 72/18





Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 20 December 2017 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Corte d'appello di Milano, Bundesgerichtshof — Italy, Germany) — Acacia Srl v Pneusgarda Srl, in insolvency, Audi AG (C-397/16), Acacia Srl, Rolando D’Amato v Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG (C-435/16)
(Joined Cases C-397/16 and C-435/16) (1)

((References for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 - Community designs - Article 110(1) - No protection - ‘Repair’ clause - Concept of ‘component part of a complex product’ - Repair of the complex product so as to restore its original appearance - Measures to be adopted by the user for the purposes of relying on the ‘repair’ clause - Replica car wheel rim identical to the original wheel rim design))
(2018/C 072/23)
Languages of the case: German and Italian

Referring courts

Corte d'appello di Milano, Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Acacia Srl (C-397/16), Acacia Srl, Rolando D’Amato (C-435/16)

Defendants: Pneusgarda Srl, in insolvency, Audi AG (C-397/16), Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG (C-435/16)

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Article 110(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 of 12 December 2001 on Community designs must be interpreted as meaning that the ‘repair’ clause in it does not make the exclusion of protection as a Community design for a design which constitutes a component part of a complex product which is used for the purpose of the repair of that complex product so as to restore its original appearance subject to the condition that the protected design is dependent upon the appearance of the complex product.










2.


Article 110(1) of Regulation No 6/2002 must be interpreted as meaning that the ‘repair’ clause in it makes the exclusion of protection as a Community design for a design which constitutes a component part of a complex product which is used for the purpose of the repair of that complex product so as to restore its original appearance subject to the condition that the replacement part must have an identical visual appearance to that of the part which was originally incorporated into the complex product when it was placed on the market.










3.


Article 110(1) of Regulation No 6/2002 must be interpreted as meaning that, in order to rely on the ‘repair’ clause contained in that provision, the manufacturer or seller of a component part of a complex product are under a duty of diligence as regards compliance by downstream users with the conditions laid down in that provision.






(1)  OJ C 371, 10.10.2016.