Linak v EUIPO (Community design- Order) [2019] EUECJ C-820/18P_CO (19 June 2019)

Linak v EUIPO (Community design- Order) [2019] EUECJ C-820/18P_CO (19 June 2019)

The appeal was dismissed because the General Court correctly applied Article 6 of Regulation No 6/2002, properly identified the relevant informed user, considered all relevant views of the design, and did not impose an incorrect test for differences between designs. The appellant's arguments were in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded.

Citation
[2019] EUECJ C-820/18P_CO
Parties
Applicant: Linak A/S; Defendant at First Instance: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)
Jurisdiction
European Union
Judgment Date
19 June 2019
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Order on Appeal Under Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure
Outcome
Appeal dismissed as being, in part, manifestly inadmissible and, in part, manifestly unfounded.
Legal Topics
Community Design, Invalidity Proceedings, Individual Character of Design, Interpretation of Article 6 of Regulation No 6/2002
Intellectual Property Law European Union Law Community Design Invalidity Proceedings Individual Character of Design Interpretation of Article 6 of Regulation No 6/2002

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 2 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Linak A/S

Applicant

European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Defendant at First Instance

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Order on Appeal Under Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the General Court erred in interpreting Article 6 of Regulation No 6/2002 regarding the individual character of a Community design
  2. 2 Whether the relevant informed user was correctly identified
  3. 3 Whether all views of the design must be considered in assessing overall impression

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the General Court correctly applied Article 6 of Regulation No 6/2002, properly identified the relevant informed user, considered all relevant views of the design, and did not impose an incorrect test for differences between designs. The appellant's arguments were in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed as being, in part, manifestly inadmissible and, in part, manifestly unfounded.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed as being, in part, manifestly inadmissible and, in part, manifestly unfounded.
  • Linak A/S shall bear its own costs.