Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

Provisional text

JUDGMENT OF THE GENERAL COURT (Eighth Chamber)

3 September 2025 ([\*](#Footnote*))

( European Union design – Invalidity proceedings – Registered EU design representing a speed variator – Ground for invalidity – No individual character – Visible features of a component part of a complex product – Concepts of ‘normal use’ and ‘visibility’ – Article 4(2) and (3) and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 – Burden of proof )

In Case T‑331/24,

**Juan Costa Pujadas,** residing in L’Ametlla del Vallès (Spain), represented by R. Guerras Mazón and C. Pérez Serres, lawyers,

applicant,

v

**European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO),** represented by E. Nicolás Gómez, acting as Agent,

defendant,

the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court, being

**Yasunimotor, SL,** established in Canovelles (Spain), represented by E. Sugrañes Coca, lawyer,

THE GENERAL COURT (Eighth Chamber),

composed of A. Kornezov (Rapporteur), President, G. De Baere and D. Petrlík, Judges,

Registrar: H. Eriksson, Administrator,

having regard to the written part of the procedure,

further to the hearing on 8 May 2025,

gives the following

**Judgment**([1](#Footnote1))

1        By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant, Juan Costa Pujadas, seeks the annulment of the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 19 April 2024 (Case R 1315/2023-3) (‘the contested decision’).

**Background to the dispute**

2        On 19 January 2022, the intervener, Yasunimotor, SL, filed with EUIPO an application for a declaration of invalidity of the EU design registered following an application filed on 25 May 2005, which is represented in the following views:

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| Image not found1.1 | Image not found1.2 |
| Image not found1.3 | Image not found1.4 |
| Image not found1.5 | Image not found1.6 |
| Image not found1.7 | |  |
|  | |  |

3        The product to which the design, in respect of which a declaration of invalidity was sought, is intended to be applied is in Classes 12-11 and 12-16 of the Locarno Agreement of 8 October 1968 establishing an International Classification for Industrial Designs, as amended, and corresponded to the following description: ‘Motorcycles’.

4        The ground relied on in support of the application for a declaration of invalidity was that set out in Article 25(1)(a) and (b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 of 12 December 2001 on European Union designs (OJ 2002 L 3, p. 1), in the version prior to the entry into force of Regulation (EU) 2024/2822 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2024 (OJ L, 2024/2822), read in conjunction with Article 4(2) and Article 8(1) of that same regulation.

5        The application for a declaration of invalidity was based on a lack of novelty and individual character of the contested design, in particular on account of the component part to which that design is applied which, once applied, would not remain visible during normal use of that product.

6        On 26 April 2023, the Invalidity Division upheld the application for a declaration of invalidity.

7        On 23 June 2023, the applicant filed a notice of appeal with EUIPO against the Invalidity Division’s decision.

8        By the contested decision, the Board of Appeal dismissed the appeal on the ground that the applicant had not provided convincing evidence that could impugn the Invalidity Division’s findings that the part of the speed variator, which is the subject of the contested design, once incorporated into the complex product, is not clearly visible during the product’s normal use, as required by Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation No 6/2002, in its previous version, read in conjunction with Article 4(2) of that regulation.

**Forms of order sought**

9        The applicant claims that the Court should:

–        annul the contested decision;

–        order EUIPO and the intervener to pay the costs.

10      EUIPO contends that the Court should:

–        dismiss the action;

–        order the applicant to pay the costs in the event that a hearing is convened.

11      The intervener contends that the Court should:

–        dismiss the action;

–        order the applicant to pay the costs.

**Law**

…

***The third complaint, alleging errors of law and of assessment relating to the visibility requirement laid down in Article 4(2) of Regulation** **No 6****/2002***

56      In the contested decision, as regards the internal mounting of the speed variator, the Board of Appeal stated that although the contested design, applied to the speed variator mounted in an internal mounting position, is partially visible in certain images, in particular illustration 6, that variator was not, however, clearly visible during normal use of the motorcycle, given that it was covered by the fixed conical plate, which is not part of the contested design.

57      In order to reach the conclusion referred to in paragraph 56 above, the Board of Appeal stated that although the component part of a complex product does not have to be permanently visible during normal use of that product, it must nevertheless be visible ‘as a whole’ at some point in time. Accordingly, it found that the Invalidity Division had correctly concluded that, from the usual side view of the motorcycle, the speed variator corresponding to the contested design, in an internal mounting position, was practically invisible to an external observer. As regards the additional views available, the Board of Appeal noted that the speed variator was only partially visible and that the applicant had not demonstrated that at some point in time in the normal use of the motorcycle it was possible to see that variator ‘in its entirety’.

58      Furthermore, endorsing the Invalidity Division’s findings, the Board of Appeal also noted that the applicant had not demonstrated that it was possible to perceive with sufficient clarity and detail the contours and other aesthetic characteristics of that variator in order to assess, for example, its individual character. It added that the evidence merely confirmed that other mechanical elements which were not part of the contested design, such as the fixed conical plate, prevented the part of the speed variator to which the contested design was applied from being seen with sufficient clarity.

59      The Board of Appeal therefore concluded that the applicant had not provided sufficient evidence to impugn the Invalidity Division’s finding that the contested design, applied to a speed variator in an internal mounting position, did not meet the visibility requirement under Article 4(2) of Regulation No 6/2002 during normal use of the motorcycle.

60      First, the applicant submits that the Board of Appeal erred in law in its interpretation of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 6/2002 in finding that the speed variator had to be visible in its entirety at some point in time. He submits that even partial visibility of the contested design at a given time in its use is capable of satisfying the requirement of visibility laid down in Article 4(2) of Regulation No 6/2002.

61      Second, the applicant disputes the Board of Appeal’s assessment of the visibility of the contested design where a racing motorcycle has a speed variator in an internal mounting position, in so far as the Board of Appeal took into account only the side view angle, whereas, during normal use of that motorcycle, the user or external observer is not restricted to that angle of view. The ‘oblique’ angle of view, used during the inspection of the motorcycle, is also common and allows the speed variator to be seen more clearly.

62      EUIPO supports the interpretation of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 6/2002 put forward by the applicant. The visibility requirement may, in EUIPO’s view, be satisfied even if the EU design is not visible in its entirety, but only partially, during the use of the complex product or only at some point in time. EUIPO is of the view, however, that that error has no bearing on the lawfulness of the contested decision, since the Board of Appeal also correctly found that it was not possible to distinguish with sufficient clarity and detail the visible parts of the contested design, when applied to a speed variator in an internal mounting position, for the purposes of assessing, for example, its individual character. Consequently, EUIPO contends that, for that reason, the Board of Appeal correctly concluded that the visibility requirement under Article 4(2) of Regulation No 6/2002 was not, in any event, satisfied.

63      The intervener contends that when a motorcycle is equipped with a speed variator in an internal mounting position, the body of that variator is facing the interior, with the result that it is not sufficiently visible, although it is not entirely hidden. It disputes the applicant’s argument that visibility can be improved with an oblique angle of view. Even in that case, visibility would remain minimal, making it impossible to obtain an overall impression of the speed variator. As regards the question whether Article 4(2) of Regulation No 6/2002 requires full visibility of the EU design, the intervener contends that that provision requires visibility during a certain period of time in its normal use, so that all the essential features of that design can be assessed and an overall impression of the design can be obtained.

64      In the first place, it is necessary to examine whether, as the applicant and EUIPO submit, the Board of Appeal erred in law in finding, in paragraph 65 of the contested decision, that the component part to which the contested design is intended to be applied must be visible ‘as a whole’ at some point in time, during the normal use of the complex product.

65      In that regard, it should be borne in mind that, in accordance with Article 4(1) of Regulation No 6/2002, in the version prior to the entry into force of Regulation 2024/2822, an EU design is to be protected only to the extent that it is new and has individual character. In addition, and as has been recalled in paragraph 14 above, it is apparent from Article 4(2) of that regulation that an EU design applied to a product which constitutes a component part of a complex product is considered to be new and to have individual character only to the extent that, first, the component part, once it has been incorporated into the complex product, remains visible during normal use of that product (Article 4(2)(a) of that regulation) and, second, those visible features of the component part fulfil in themselves the requirements as to novelty and individual character (Article 4(2)(b) of that regulation). Those are two cumulative requirements, as the use of the conjunction ‘and’ demonstrates. Accordingly, it is apparent from a combined reading of those two requirements that, in order for such an EU design to be protected, the component part to which it is applied must be visible during normal use of the complex product at issue, without, however, its being necessary for that component part to be fully visible.

66      Indeed, it is only the ‘visible features’ of the component part to which that EU design is applied that must, ‘in themselves’, satisfy the requirements of novelty and individual character. It follows that the invisible features of that component part are not taken into account when assessing the novel and individual character of the EU design at issue and, consequently, cannot be protected under Regulation No 6/2002.

67      Partial visibility of the component part at issue, once applied to the complex product, during normal use of that product, does not therefore exclude protection of the visible features of that design, provided that they fulfil, in themselves, the requirements as to novelty and individual character.

68      The interpretation that the component part must be visible ‘in its entirety’ at some point in time in the normal use of the product at issue risks rendering Article 4(2)(b) of Regulation No 6/2002 meaningless, which does not refer to all the features of the component part, but only to its visible features, which implies that its other features may remain invisible.

69      That conclusion is supported by recital 12 of Regulation No 6/2002, which states that ‘protection should not be extended to those component parts which are not visible during normal use of a product, nor to those features of such part which are not visible when that part is mounted, or which would not, in themselves, fulfil the requirements as to novelty and individual character. Therefore, those features of design which are excluded from protection for these reasons should not be taken into consideration for the purpose of assessing whether other features of the design fulfil the requirements for protection’.

70      Recital 12 of Regulation No 6/2002 therefore clearly envisages a situation in which only certain features of a component part are visible during normal use of a product and where those features may be protected, provided that they fulfil, in themselves, the requirements of novelty and individual character.

71      Similarly, the Court has already held that the limitation of the legal protection of designs to the visible features of the component part concerned is explained by the fact that the appearance of that component part derives exclusively from those features. Such an interpretation is supported by the broad logic of Regulation No 6/2002 and by the objective pursued by Article 4(2) of that regulation. Indeed, the protection of designs under that regulation applies only to the features which determine the appearance of the whole or part of a product (see, to that effect and by analogy, judgment of 16 February 2023, *Monz Handelsgesellschaft International*, C‑472/21, EU:C:2023:105, paragraphs 42 and 43).

72      The Board of Appeal therefore erred in law in finding, in paragraph 65 of the contested decision, that the speed variator to which the contested design was applied had to be visible ‘as a whole’ at some point in time during normal use of the complex product to which that variator is applied and, in paragraph 67 of that decision, that the applicant had not demonstrated that, at some point in time during the normal use of the motorcycle, it was possible to distinguish ‘in its entirety’ the speed variator, in an internal mounting position, to which the contested design was applied.

73      In the second place, it is necessary to examine whether that error of law renders the contested decision unlawful.

74      Such an error of law may entail the annulment of the contested decision only if it had an influence on the conclusion reached by the Board of Appeal (see, to that effect, judgment of 3 June 2015, *Giovanni Cosmetics* v *OHIM* – *Vasconcelos & Gonçalves (GIOVANNI GALLI)*, T‑559/13, EU:T:2015:353, paragraph 135 (not published and the case-law cited)).

75      It should be noted, as EUIPO contends, that the Board of Appeal also found, endorsing the Invalidity Division’s analysis, that, even taking into account the partial visibility of the speed variator in an internal mounting position, it was not possible to distinguish with sufficient clarity and detail the contours and other aesthetic features of the contested design for the purposes of examining their novelty and individual character.

76      In that regard, it is apparent from the case-law that it is necessary for the part of the product or the component part of the complex product protected to be visible and defined by features which constitute its particular appearance, namely by lines, contours, colours, shapes or a particular texture. That presupposes that the appearance of that part of the product or that component part of a complex product is capable, in itself, of producing an overall impression and cannot be completely lost in the product as a whole (judgment of 28 October 2021, *Ferrari*, C‑123/20, EU:C:2021:889, paragraph 50).

77      As the applicant conceded at the hearing, from a side view, the speed variator in an internal mounting position is practically invisible, in that it is covered by the fixed conical plate, which is not part of the contested design, as the Board of Appeal noted in paragraph 66 of the contested decision. The applicant also confirmed that, from an ‘oblique’ angle of view, for example when the user inspects the motorcycle before starting it up, the visibility of the speed variator in an internal mounting position is only partial.

78      In that regard, it is necessary, first of all, to reject the applicant’s argument that the Board of Appeal merely took into consideration the side view of the motorcycle in order to assess the visibility of the speed variator, whereas there are other angles of view, in particular the oblique view, making it possible to identify that speed variator more precisely.

79      It is true that the Court of Justice has held that the visibility of a component part applied to the complex product had to be assessed from the perspective of the end user of that product as well as from that of an external observer (judgment of 16 February 2023, *Monz Handelsgesellschaft International*, C‑472/21, EU:C:2023:105, paragraphs 46 and 56), with the result that, as the applicant correctly submits, different angles of view may, depending on the case, be relevant in determining the degree of visibility of such a component part during normal use of the complex product to which it is applied.

80      However, first, it must be stated that the Board of Appeal took into account the additional angles of view referred to by the applicant, as is expressly stated in paragraph 67 of the contested decision.

81      Second, the fact remains that the evidence provided by the applicant does not demonstrate, either from a side view or from an oblique view, that the contours and other visible features of the speed variator in an internal mounting position are distinguishable, during the normal use of a racing motorcycle, with sufficient clarity and detail to enable the assessment of their novelty and individual character.

82      Indeed, the evidence submitted, in particular illustrations 3 and 6, which show an internal mounting of the component part at issue, do not make it possible to distinguish the features of the contested design which constitute its particular appearance, as required by the case-law cited in paragraph 76 above. In actual fact, the visible parts of the speed variator in an internal mounting position are completely lost in the product as a whole and are not capable, in themselves, of producing an overall impression.

83      Therefore, the Board of Appeal concluded, without making an error of assessment, that the visible parts of the speed variator in the internal mounting position did not enable the contours and other features of the contested design to be distinguished with sufficient clarity and detail, with the result that the visibility requirement referred to in Article 4(2) of Regulation No 6/2002 was not fulfilled.

84      The error in the interpretation of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 6/2002 made by the Board of Appeal, noted in paragraph 72 above, therefore has no bearing on the conclusion reached by it in the contested decision.

85      Consequently, the applicant’s third complaint must be rejected as unfounded and, as a result, the single plea in law, and the action in its entirety, must be dismissed.

…

On those grounds,

THE GENERAL COURT (Eighth Chamber)

hereby:

1.      **Dismisses the action;**

2.      **Orders Mr Juan Costa Pujadas to pay the costs.**

|  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Kornezov | De Baere | Petrlík |

Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 3 September 2025.

[Signatures]

---

[\*](#Footref*)      Language of the case: Spanish.

---

[1](#Footref1)      Only the paragraphs of the present judgment which the Court considers it appropriate to publish are reproduced here.

[Top](#document1)