Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

[**Avis juridique important**](../../../editorial/legal_notice.htm)

*|*

# 61981J0144

**Judgment of the Court of 14 September 1982. - Keurkoop BV v Nancy Kean Gifts BV. - Reference for a preliminary ruling: Gerechtshof 's-Gravenhage - Netherlands. - Protection of industrial and commercial property - Designs - Free movement of similar products. - Case 144/81.** 
  
*European Court reports 1982 Page 02853  
 Spanish special edition Page 00907  
 Swedish special edition Page 00491  
 Finnish special edition Page 00515*

  

[Summary](#SM)  
[Parties](#I1)  
[Subject of the case](#I2)  
[Grounds](#MO)  
[Decision on costs](#CO)  
[Operative part](#DI)

## Keywords

  
*1 . FREE MOVEMENT OF GOODS - INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL PROPERTY - DESIGNS - PROTECTION - APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 36 OF THE TREATY

( EEC TREATY , ART . 36 )

2 . FREE MOVEMENT OF GOODS - INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL PROPERTY - DESIGNS - PROTECTION - CONDITIONS AND PROCEDURES - EXCLUSIVE RIGHT ACQUIRED BY VIRTUE OF THE FIRST FILING OF THE DESIGN - DETERMINATION BY NATIONAL LAW

( EEC TREATY , ART . 36 )

3 . COMPETITION - AGREEMENTS - DESIGNS - EXERCISE OF RIGHT - CONDITIONS FOR PROHIBITION

( EEC TREATY , ART . 85 ( 1 ))

4 . FREE MOVEMENT OF GOODS - INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL PROPERTY - DESIGNS - PROTECTION - OBJECTION TO THE IMPORTATION FROM A MEMBE STATE OF PRODUCTS IDENTICAL TO A DESIGN FILED IN ANOTHER MEMBER STATE - CONDITIONS - LIMITS

( EEC TREATY , ART . 36 )*

## Summary

  
*1 . THE PROTECTION OF DESIGNS COMES UNDER THE PROTECTION OF INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL PROPERTY WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLE 36 INASMUCH AS ITS AIM TO DEFINE EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS WHICH ARE CHARACTERISTIC OF THAT PROPERTY .

2 . IN THE ABSENCE OF COMMUNITY STANDARDIZATION OR A HARMONIZATION OF LAWS THE DETERMINATION OF THE CONDITIONS AND PROCEDURES UNDER WHICH PROTECTION OF DESIGNS IS GRANTED IS A MATTER FOR THE NATIONAL RULES OF EACH MEMBER STATE .

IN ITS PRESENT STATE COMMUNITY LAW DOES NOT PRECLUDE THE ADOPTION OF NATIONAL PROVISIONS TO THE EFFECT THAT THE PERSON WHO FIRST FILES THE DESIGN ACQUIRES THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO IT WITHOUT ITS BEING NECESSARY TO INQUIRE WHETHER THAT PERSON IS ALSO THE AUTHOR OF THE DESIGN OR A PERSON ENTITLED UNDER HIM AND WITHOUT THOSE CONCERNED BEING ENTITLED TO ALLEGE THAT THE PERSON FILING THE DESIGN IS NOT THE AUTHOR , THE PERSON COMMISSIONING HIM OR HIS EMPLOYER .

3 . ALTHOUGH A RIGHT TO A DESIGN , AS A LEGAL ENTITY , DOES NOT AS SUCH FALL WITHIN THE CLASS OF AGREEMENTS OR CONCERTED PRACTICES ENVISAGED BY ARTICLE 85 ( 1 ), THE EXERCISE OF THAT RIGHT MAY BE SUBJECT TO THE PROHIBITIONS CONTAINED IN THE TREATY WHEN IT IS THE PURPOSE , THE MEANS OR THE RESULT OF AN AGREEMENT , DECISION OR CONCERTED PRACTICE .

4 . THE PROPRIETOR OF A RIGHT TO A DESIGN ACQUIRED UNDER THE LEGISLATION OF A MEMBER STATE MAY PREVENT THE IMPORTATION OF PRODUCTS FROM ANOTHER MEMBER STATE WHICH ARE IDENTICAL IN APPEARANCE TO THE DESIGN WHICH HAS BEEN FILED , PROVIDED THAT THE PRODUCTS IN QUESTION HAVE NOT BEEN PUT INTO CIRCULATION IN THE OTHER MEMBER STATE BY , OR WITH THE CONSENT OF , THE PROPRIETOR OF THE RIGHT OR A PERSON LEGALLY OR ECONOMICALLY DEPENDENT ON HIM , THAT AS BETWEEN THE NATURAL OR LEGAL PERSONS IN QUESTION THERE IS NO KIND OF AGREEMENT OR CONCERTED PRACTICE IN RESTRAINT OF COMPETITION AND FINALLY THAT THE RESPECTIVE RIGHTS OF THE PROPRIETORS TO THE RIGHT TO THE DESIGN IN THE VARIOUS MEMBER STATES WERE CREATED INDEPENDENTLY OF ONE ANOTHER .*

## Parties

[Top](#document1)