Argo Development and Manufacturing v OHMI - Clapbanner (Representation d'articles publicitaires) (Judgment) [2015] EUECJ T-41/14 (28 January 2015)

Argo Development and Manufacturing v OHMI - Clapbanner (Representation d'articles publicitaires) (Judgment) [2015] EUECJ T-41/14 (28 January 2015)

The Board of Appeal did not err in finding that the contested design was new and had individual character, as the differences in the handles were not immaterial and produced a different overall impression on the informed user. The claim of bad faith registration is not a valid ground for invalidity under Article 25(1) of Regulation No 6/2002. All applicant's pleas are dismissed.

Citation
[2015] EUECJ T-41/14
Parties
Applicant: Argo Development and Manufacturing Ltd; Respondent: Clapbanner Ltd; Respondent: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
Jurisdiction
European Union
Judgment Date
28 January 2015
Procedural Posture
Action for Annulment of Board of Appeal Decision (community Design) / Judgment of the General Court (third Chamber), Final
Outcome
action dismissed
Legal Topics
Community Design, Novelty, Individual Character, Bad Faith Registration, Costs
Intellectual Property Law European Union Law Community Design Novelty Individual Character Bad Faith Registration Costs

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Argo Development and Manufacturing Ltd

Applicant

Clapbanner Ltd

Respondent

Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Action for Annulment of Board of Appeal Decision (community Design) / Judgment of the General Court (third Chamber), Final

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the contested design lacks novelty under Article 5 of Regulation No 6/2002
  2. 2 Whether the contested design lacks individual character under Article 6 of Regulation No 6/2002
  3. 3 Whether part of the handles in the contested design remains visible during normal use under Article 4 of Regulation No 6/2002

Ratio Decidendi

The Board of Appeal did not err in finding that the contested design was new and had individual character, as the differences in the handles were not immaterial and produced a different overall impression on the informed user. The claim of bad faith registration is not a valid ground for invalidity under Article 25(1) of Regulation No 6/2002. All applicant's pleas are dismissed.

Court Disposition

action dismissed

Orders

  • Action dismissed
  • Applicant (Argo Development and Manufacturing Ltd) to pay the costs incurred by OHIM