Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

|  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 12.10.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 337/3 |

---

Appeal brought on 11 July 2015 by Easy Sanitary Solutions BV against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 13 May 2015 in Case T-15/13 Group Nivelles v OHIM — Easy Sanitary Solutions (Shower drainage channel)

(Case C-361/15 P)

(2015/C 337/04)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Appellant: Easy Sanitary Solutions BV (represented by: F. Eijsvogels, advocaat)

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) and Group Nivelles BVBA

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | on the basis of the … grounds put forward and the accompanying explanations, set aside in part the judgment of the General Court of 13 May 2015 in Case T-15/13 and order the unsuccessful party to pay the costs. |

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

Ground 1

Part (a)

The General Court infringed Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation No 6/2002[(1)](#ntr1-C_2015337EN.01000301-E0001), in conjunction with Article 7(1) thereof, in holding that an earlier design which is incorporated in or applied to a product other than that to which a later design relates is in principle relevant to the assessment of the novelty, within the meaning of Article 5 of Regulation No 6/2002, of that later design and that the wording of the latter article would preclude a design from being regarded as new where an identical design has been previously made available to the public, irrespective of the product in which that earlier design has been incorporated or to which it has been applied. The finding of the General Court that the ‘sector concerned’, within the meaning of Article 7(1) of Regulation No 6/2002, is not limited to that of the product in which the contested design is intended to be incorporated or to which it is intended to be applied is incorrect in law.

Part (b)

The General Court infringed Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation No 6/2002, in conjunction with Article 5 thereof, in holding that a Community design cannot be regarded as new for the purposes of Article 5(1) of Regulation No 6/2002 if an identical design has been made available to the public before the dates mentioned in that provision, even if that older design was incorporated in or applied to a product other than the product or products indicated in the application pursuant to Article 36(2) of Regulation No 6/2002.

Part (c)

The General Court infringed Articles 10, 19 and 36(6) of Regulation No 6/2002 in finding that those articles imply that the holder of a registered design right can prevent third parties not having its consent from using on any sort of product the design which it holds and any design which does not produce on the informed user a different overall impression.

Ground 2

In taking the view that the limits of the review of legality had been exceeded, as it did in the last sentence of paragraph 137 of its judgment, the General Court infringed Article 61 of Regulation No 6/2002.

---

[Top](#document1)