Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

[Keywords](#IX)
  
[Subject of the case](#I2)
  
[Operative part](#DI)

## Keywords

Community designs — Procedural provisions — Statement of reasons for decisions — Article 62, first sentence, 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) (see paras 37, 38)

2. Community designs — Appeals procedure — Action against a decision by an OHIM body — Examination by the Board of Appeal — Scope (Council Regulation No 6/2002, Art. 60(1)) (see paras 43-47)

3. Community trade mark — Appeals procedure — Action before the EU judicature — Condition of admissibility — Grounds of appeal directed only against decisions of the Boards of Appeal (Council Regulation No 6/2002, Art. 61) (see para. 55)

4. Community designs — Ground for invalidity — No individual character — Informed user — Concept (Council Regulation No 6/2002, Arts 6(1), and 25(1)(b)) (see paras 100-104)

5. Community designs — Ground for invalidity — No individual character — Design not producing on a well-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 107, 111-113)

6. Community designs — Ground for invalidity — No individual character — Design not producing on a well-informed user a different overall impression from that produced by the earlier design — Representation of a wristwatch case (Council Regulation No 6/2002, Arts 6(1), and 25(1)(b)) (see paras 110, 125, 137-139, 159)

7. Judicial proceedings — Costs — Intellectual property litigation — Recoverable costs — Costs necessarily incurred by the parties for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 136(2)) (see para. 164)

## Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of OHIM of 9 December 2009 (Case R 1285/2008-3), relating to invalidity proceedings between Klockgrossisten i Norden AB and Bell & Ross BV.

## Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Bell & Ross BV to pay the costs, including those incurred by KIN AB in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

[Top](#document1)

Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 25 April 2013 — Bell & Ross v OHIM — KIN (Wristwatch case)

(Case T-80/10)

‛Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Registered Community design or model representing a wristwatch case — Earlier design — Ground for invalidity — Lack of individual character — Overall impression not different — Informed user — Degree of freedom of the designer — Articles 4, 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 — Related to a counterclaim for a declaration of invalidity — Community design court — Article 91 of Regulation No 6/2002’

| 1. | Community designs — Procedural provisions — Statement of reasons for decisions — Article 62, first sentence, 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) (see paras 37, 38) |

| 2. | Community designs — Appeals procedure — Action against a decision by an OHIM body — Examination by the Board of Appeal — Scope (Council Regulation No 6/2002, Art. 60(1)) (see paras 43-47) |

| 3. | Community trade mark — Appeals procedure — Action before the EU judicature — Condition of admissibility — Grounds of appeal directed only against decisions of the Boards of Appeal (Council Regulation No 6/2002, Art. 61) (see para. 55) |

| 4. | Community designs — Ground for invalidity — No individual character — Informed user — Concept (Council Regulation No 6/2002, Arts 6(1), and 25(1)(b)) (see paras 100-104) |

| 5. | Community designs — Ground for invalidity — No individual character — Design not producing on a well-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 107, 111-113) |

| 6. | Community designs — Ground for invalidity — No individual character — Design not producing on a well-informed user a different overall impression from that produced by the earlier design — Representation of a wristwatch case (Council Regulation No 6/2002, Arts 6(1), and 25(1)(b)) (see paras 110, 125, 137-139, 159) |

| 7. | Judicial proceedings — Costs — Intellectual property litigation — Recoverable costs — Costs necessarily incurred by the parties for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 136(2)) (see para. 164) |

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of OHIM of 9 December 2009 (Case R 1285/2008-3), relating to invalidity proceedings between Klockgrossisten i Norden AB and Bell & Ross BV.

Operative part

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |

| 2. | Orders Bell & Ross BV to pay the costs, including those incurred by KIN AB in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal. |

[Top](#document2)