[:uk]
Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 on Community Designs
Article 3(a) – Definition of Design
Content: This article defines a “design” as “the appearance of the whole or a part of a product resulting from the features of, in particular, the lines, contours, colours, shape, texture and/or materials of the product itself and/or its ornamentation.”
Key Points:
- Focuses on the visual aspects of a product.
- Encompasses both the product and its ornamentation.
- Includes various features such as lines, contours, colors, shape, texture, and materials.
Article 25(1)(a) – Grounds for Invalidity
Content: A Community design may be declared invalid if it does not comply with the definition provided in Article 3(a).
Key Points:
- Invalidity can be based on non-conformity with the fundamental definition of a design.
- Focuses on the design’s appearance, ensuring it meets the criteria set out in Article 3(a).
Article 25(1)(b) – Additional Grounds for Invalidity
Content: A Community design may also be declared invalid if it lacks individual character or novelty, as outlined in Articles 4 to 6.
Key Points:
- Beyond Article 3(a), designs must possess individual character and novelty.
- These additional criteria are detailed in Articles 4 (author), 5 (not explicitly referenced in the judgment), and 6 (third-party rights).
Article 25(2) – Conditions for Invoking Grounds for Invalidity
Content: Outlines the procedural and evidentiary requirements for declaring a design invalid under the grounds specified in Article 25(1).
Key Points:
- Specifies the need for sufficient evidence to support claims of invalidity.
- Details the burden of proof resting on the party seeking invalidation.
- Ensures that invalidity declarations are based on objective and verifiable criteria.
Article 25(3) – Procedural Aspects
Content: Describes the procedural framework within which invalidity proceedings must be conducted.
Key Points:
- Establishes the jurisdiction and authority responsible for invalidity declarations.
- Sets timelines and procedural steps for initiating and conducting invalidity actions.
Article 25(4) – Remedies and Consequences
Content: Details the remedies available upon declaration of invalidity, including the removal of the design from the register.
Key Points:
- Specifies the consequences of a design being declared invalid.
- Includes the revocation of protection and potential restitution to third parties.
Article 36(1)(c) – Representation of the Design
Content: Requires that the application for a Community design include a representation of the design that is suitable for reproduction.
Key Points:
- Mandates clear and accurate visual representations.
- Options for representation include photographs, technical drawings, or computer-generated images.
- Ensures that the design can be understood and evaluated based on its representations.
Article 36(1)(c) – Interpretation and Unicity of Design
Content: Emphasizes that the representation must allow the design to be clearly identified, ensuring unicity across all submitted views.
Key Points:
- All views submitted must be consistent and not contradictory.
- A design must appear as a single, unified product across all representations.
- Inconsistencies in views can lead to invalidity due to lack of unicity.
Article 4 – Number of Views and Representation
Content: Limits the number of views submitted in a design application and outlines acceptable forms of representation.
Key Points:
- May not contain more than seven views.
- Allows for various perspectives, including different angles and scales.
- Ensures that all necessary views are included to fully represent the design.
Article 61(5) – Time Limits for Actions
Content: Sets the time frame within which an action against a decision of the Board of Appeal must be filed.
Key Points:
- Actions must be brought within two months of notification of the decision.
- Includes provisions for extending time limits due to distance or other specified factors.
Article 60 – Procedural Time Limits
Content: Governs the calculation and extension of procedural time limits for actions brought before the General Court.
Key Points:
- Extends time limits by 10 days to account for distance.
- Ensures fairness in accommodating parties located in different jurisdictions.
Article 85(1) – Presumption of Validity
Content: Establishes a presumption of validity for registered Community designs in infringement proceedings.
Key Points:
- Shifts the burden of proving invalidity onto the party challenging the design.
- Ensures that designs are protected unless proven otherwise.
Article 47(1) – Rejection of Application
Content: Outlines the grounds and procedures for rejecting a design application that does not meet the required criteria.
Key Points:
- Designs failing to meet Article 3(a)’s definition can be rejected.
- Requires applicants to remedy any shortcomings within a prescribed period to avoid rejection.
Article 11(3) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2245/2002
Content: Defines the implementation measures for rejection of design applications based on non-compliance with Article 3(a).
Key Points:
- Provides specific procedural steps following a failure to comply with design definitions.
- Ensures consistency in the application of rejection grounds across cases.
Article 85(1) and Article 24(1)
Content: Discusses the interaction between presumption of validity and the grounds for invalidity in Community design law.
Key Points:
- Presumption of validity applies primarily in infringement cases.
- Strict and specific criteria must be met to declare a design invalid.
Article 4(2) of Regulation No 2245/2002
Content: Limits the number of views in a design application and stipulates that defects related to this requirement result in rejection if not remedied.
Key Points:
- Applications may not contain more than seven views.
- Non-compliance without timely correction leads to rejection under Articles 45(2)(b) and 46(3).
Article 1(1)(c) of Regulation No 2245/2002
Content: Specifies that an application for a registered Community design must include a suitable representation of the design.
Key Points:
- Emphasizes the necessity for clear reproductive representations.
- Supports the detailed requirements outlined in Article 36(1)(c).
Article 134(1) – Allocation of Costs
Content: Dictates that the unsuccessful party in a legal action must bear the costs incurred by the successful party.
Key Points:
- Encourages parties to carefully consider the merits of their actions.
- Ensures that winning parties are compensated for legal expenses.
[:]
