Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 29 November 2018 –  
Sata v EUIPO — Zhejiang Auarita Pneumatic Tools (Spray gun for paint)

(Case T‑651/17)

(Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Registered Community design representing a paint spray gun — Earlier Community designs — Ground for invalidity — Informed user — Designer’s degree of freedom — Individual character — Saturation of the state of the art — Article 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 — Expediency of oral proceedings — Article 64(1) of Regulation No 6/2002 — Duty to state reasons — Article 62 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 — Informed user — Meaning  (Council Regulation No 6/2002, Arts 6(1) and 25(1)(b))  (see paras 19, 20) |

| 2. | Community designs — Procedural provisions — Statement of reasons for decisions — First sentence of Article 62 of Regulation No 6/2002 — Scope identical to that of Article 296 TFEU — Recourse by the Board of Appeal to implicit reasoning — Lawfulness — Conditions  (Art. 296 TFEU; Council Regulation No 6/2002, Art. 62, first sentence)  (see paras 21, 22, 68) |

| 3. | 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 paras 31, 32) |

| 4. | 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, Arts 6(1) and 25(1)(b))  (see para. 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 spray gun for paint  (Council Regulation No 6/2002, Arts 6(1) and 25(1)(b))  (see paras 41, 42, 45, 47, 49) |

| 6. | 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)  (see para. 54) |

| 7. | Community designs — Appeals procedure — Recourse to the oral procedure — Discretion of the Office  (Council Regulation No 6/2002, Art. 64(1))  (see para. 63) |

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 July 2017 (Case R 914/2016-3), relating to invalidity proceedings between Zhejiang Auarita Pneumatic Tools and Sata.

Operative part

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |

| 2. | Orders Sata GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs. |

[Top](#document1)