Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

|  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 12.7.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 278/53 |

---

Action brought on 15 May 2021 — Domator24.com Paweł Nowak v EUIPO — Siwek and Didyk (Chairs)

(Case T-256/21)

(2021/C 278/73)

Language in which the application was lodged: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Domator24.com Paweł Nowak (Zielona Góra, Poland) (represented by: T. Gawliczek, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Piotr Siwek (Gdańsk, Poland) and Sebastian Didyk (Gdańsk)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the design at issue: Applicant in the proceedings before the General Court

Design at issue: European Union design No 3 304 021-0001 (chairs)

Proceedings before EUIPO: Invalidity proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 March 2021 in Case R 1275/2020-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | annul the contested decision; |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | order the unsuccessful party to pay the costs incurred by the applicant in the proceedings before the General Court of the European Union and — pursuant to Article 190(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court — any costs necessarily incurred by the applicant for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO; |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | in the event of intervention in the proceedings by other parties, order those parties to bear their own costs. |

Pleas in law relied on

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | Infringement of Article 25(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002, read in conjunction with Article 7(1) thereof, through an assumption that the design lacked individual character at the date of filing; |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | Infringement of Article 25(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002, read in conjunction with Article 7(1) thereof, through an assumption that the earlier design relied on as evidence in the present case could reasonably have become known in the normal course of business to the circles specialised in the gaming sector; |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | Infringement of the rules relating to the burden of proof; |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | Infringement of the principle of free evaluation of evidence; |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | Infringement of Article 25(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002, read in conjunction with Article 6(1)(b) and (2) thereof; |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | Infringement of Article 25(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002, read in conjunction with Article 6(1)(b) thereof. |

---

[Top](#document1)