Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

Judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 21 June 2018 –  
Haverkamp IP v EUIPO — Sissel (Foot mat)

(Case T‑227/16)

(Community design — Invalidity proceedings — International registration designating the European Union — Registered Community design representing a foot mat — Earlier design — Grounds for invalidity — No individual character — Informed user — Degree of freedom of the designer — Proof of saturation of the state of the art — No different overall impression — Article 5 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002- Article 63(1) of Regulation No 6/2002)

| 1. | Community designs—Ground 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(2) and 25(1)(b))  (see para. 22) |

| 2. | Community designs—Ground for invalidity—No individual character—Disclosure by the designer or his successor in title—Proof of the disclosure  (Council Regulation No 6/2002, Arts 6(1)(b), 7(1) and 65(1); Commission Regulation No 2245/2002, Art. 28(1)(b)(v) and (vi))  (see paras 25-28) |

| 3. | Community designs—Ground for invalidity—No individual character—Informed user—Meaning  (Council Regulation No 6/2002, Arts 6(1) and 25(1)(b))  (see paras 36, 37) |

| 4. | Community designs—Application for registration—Conditions—Indication of the goods  (Council Regulation No 6/2002, Art. 36(2) and (6))  (see paras 38, 39) |

| 5. | Community designs—Ground 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 foot mat  (Council Regulation No 6/2002, Arts 6(1) and 25(1)(b))  (see paras 40, 41, 51, 58, 59, 73-78) |

| 6. | Community designs—Procedural provisions—Examination of the facts of EUIPO’s own motion—Action for invalidity—Examination restricted to the submissions of the parties  (Council Regulation No 6/2002, Art. 63(1))  (see paras 49, 50) |

| 7. | Community designs—Ground 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—Creative licence  (Council Regulation No 6/2002, Arts 6(2) and 25(1)(b))  (see para. 54) |

| 8. | Community designs—Ground for invalidity—No individual character—Design not giving the informed user a different overall impression from that produced by the earlier design—Saturation of the state of the art—Relevance  (Council Regulation No 6/2002, Art. 6(1))  (see paras 63, 66) |

| 9. | Community designs—Ground 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 prior design  (Council Regulation No 6/2002, Art. 6(1) and 25(1)(b))  (see para. 72) |

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 February 2016 (Case R 2618/2014-3) concerning invalidity proceedings between Sissel and Mr Haverkamp.

Operative part

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |

| 2. | Orders Haverkamp IP GmbH to pay the costs. |

[Top](#document1)