CELEX: 62016CA0395
Language: en
Date: 2018-03-08 00:00:00
Title: Case C-395/16: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 8 March 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — DOCERAM GmbH v CeramTec GmbH (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Intellectual and industrial property — Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 — Community design — Article 8(1) — Features of appearance of a product solely dictated by its technical function — Criteria for assessment — Existence of alternative designs — Consideration of the point of view of an ‘objective observer’)

7.5.2018   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 161/8
            
         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 8 March 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — DOCERAM GmbH v CeramTec GmbH
   (Case C-395/16) (1)
   
   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Intellectual and industrial property - Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 - Community design - Article 8(1) - Features of appearance of a product solely dictated by its technical function - Criteria for assessment - Existence of alternative designs - Consideration of the point of view of an ‘objective observer’))
   (2018/C 161/08)
   Language of the case: German
   
      Referring court
   
   Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf
   
      Parties to the main proceedings
   
   
      Applicant: DOCERAM GmbH
   
      Defendant: CeramTec GmbH
   
      Operative part of the judgment
   
   
               (1)
            
            
               Article 8(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 of 12 December 2001 on Community designs must be interpreted as meaning that in order to determine whether the features of appearance of a product are exclusively dictated by its technical function, it must be established that the technical function is the only factor which determined those features, the existence of alternative designs not being decisive in that regard.
            
         
               (2)
            
            
               Article 8(1) of Regulation No 6/2002 must be interpreted as meaning that, in order to determine whether the relevant features of appearance of a product are solely dictated by its technical function, within the meaning of that provision, the national court must take account of all the objective circumstances relevant to each individual case. In that regard, there is no need to base those findings on the perception of an ‘objective observer’.
            
         
      (1)  OJ C 419, 14.11.2016.