Regulation (EC) No 6\/2002 on Community Designs – Detailed Provisions<\/title><\/p>\n<style>\n body { font-family: Arial, sans-serif; line-height: 1.6; margin: 20px; }\n h1, h2, h3 { color: #2F4F4F; }\n p { margin-bottom: 10px; }\n .article { margin-bottom: 20px; }\n <\/style>\n<p><\/head><\/p>\n<h3>Regulation (EC) No 6\/2002 on Community Designs<\/h3>\n<h4>Article 3(a) – Definition of Design<\/h4>\n<p><strong>Content:<\/strong> 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.”<br \/>\n<strong>Key Points:<\/strong><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Focuses on the visual aspects of a product.<\/li>\n<li>Encompasses both the product and its ornamentation.<\/li>\n<li>Includes various features such as lines, contours, colors, shape, texture, and materials.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h4>Article 25(1)(a) – Grounds for Invalidity<\/h4>\n<p><strong>Content:<\/strong> A Community design may be declared invalid if it does not comply with the definition provided in Article 3(a).<br \/>\n<strong>Key Points:<\/strong><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Invalidity can be based on non-conformity with the fundamental definition of a design.<\/li>\n<li>Focuses on the design\u2019s appearance, ensuring it meets the criteria set out in Article 3(a).<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h4>Article 25(1)(b) – Additional Grounds for Invalidity<\/h4>\n<p><strong>Content:<\/strong> A Community design may also be declared invalid if it lacks individual character or novelty, as outlined in Articles 4 to 6.<br \/>\n<strong>Key Points:<\/strong><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Beyond Article 3(a), designs must possess individual character and novelty.<\/li>\n<li>These additional criteria are detailed in Articles 4 (author), 5 (not explicitly referenced in the judgment), and 6 (third-party rights).<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h4>Article 25(2) – Conditions for Invoking Grounds for Invalidity<\/h4>\n<p><strong>Content:<\/strong> Outlines the procedural and evidentiary requirements for declaring a design invalid under the grounds specified in Article 25(1).<br \/>\n<strong>Key Points:<\/strong><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Specifies the need for sufficient evidence to support claims of invalidity.<\/li>\n<li>Details the burden of proof resting on the party seeking invalidation.<\/li>\n<li>Ensures that invalidity declarations are based on objective and verifiable criteria.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h4>Article 25(3) – Procedural Aspects<\/h4>\n<p><strong>Content:<\/strong> Describes the procedural framework within which invalidity proceedings must be conducted.<br \/>\n<strong>Key Points:<\/strong><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Establishes the jurisdiction and authority responsible for invalidity declarations.<\/li>\n<li>Sets timelines and procedural steps for initiating and conducting invalidity actions.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h4>Article 25(4) – Remedies and Consequences<\/h4>\n<p><strong>Content:<\/strong> Details the remedies available upon declaration of invalidity, including the removal of the design from the register.<br \/>\n<strong>Key Points:<\/strong><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Specifies the consequences of a design being declared invalid.<\/li>\n<li>Includes the revocation of protection and potential restitution to third parties.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h4>Article 36(1)(c) – Representation of the Design<\/h4>\n<p><strong>Content:<\/strong> Requires that the application for a Community design include a representation of the design that is suitable for reproduction.<br \/>\n<strong>Key Points:<\/strong><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Mandates clear and accurate visual representations.<\/li>\n<li>Options for representation include photographs, technical drawings, or computer-generated images.<\/li>\n<li>Ensures that the design can be understood and evaluated based on its representations.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h4>Article 36(1)(c) – Interpretation and Unicity of Design<\/h4>\n<p><strong>Content:<\/strong> Emphasizes that the representation must allow the design to be clearly identified, ensuring unicity across all submitted views.<br \/>\n<strong>Key Points:<\/strong><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>All views submitted must be consistent and not contradictory.<\/li>\n<li>A design must appear as a single, unified product across all representations.<\/li>\n<li>Inconsistencies in views can lead to invalidity due to lack of unicity.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h4>Article 4 – Number of Views and Representation<\/h4>\n<p><strong>Content:<\/strong> Limits the number of views submitted in a design application and outlines acceptable forms of representation.<br \/>\n<strong>Key Points:<\/strong><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>May not contain more than seven views.<\/li>\n<li>Allows for various perspectives, including different angles and scales.<\/li>\n<li>Ensures that all necessary views are included to fully represent the design.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h4>Article 61(5) – Time Limits for Actions<\/h4>\n<p><strong>Content:<\/strong> Sets the time frame within which an action against a decision of the Board of Appeal must be filed.<br \/>\n<strong>Key Points:<\/strong><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Actions must be brought within two months of notification of the decision.<\/li>\n<li>Includes provisions for extending time limits due to distance or other specified factors.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h4>Article 60 – Procedural Time Limits<\/h4>\n<p><strong>Content:<\/strong> Governs the calculation and extension of procedural time limits for actions brought before the General Court.<br \/>\n<strong>Key Points:<\/strong><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Extends time limits by 10 days to account for distance.<\/li>\n<li>Ensures fairness in accommodating parties located in different jurisdictions.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h4>Article 85(1) – Presumption of Validity<\/h4>\n<p><strong>Content:<\/strong> Establishes a presumption of validity for registered Community designs in infringement proceedings.<br \/>\n<strong>Key Points:<\/strong><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Shifts the burden of proving invalidity onto the party challenging the design.<\/li>\n<li>Ensures that designs are protected unless proven otherwise.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h4>Article 47(1) – Rejection of Application<\/h4>\n<p><strong>Content:<\/strong> Outlines the grounds and procedures for rejecting a design application that does not meet the required criteria.<br \/>\n<strong>Key Points:<\/strong><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Designs failing to meet Article 3(a)’s definition can be rejected.<\/li>\n<li>Requires applicants to remedy any shortcomings within a prescribed period to avoid rejection.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h4>Article 11(3) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2245\/2002<\/h4>\n<p><strong>Content:<\/strong> Defines the implementation measures for rejection of design applications based on non-compliance with Article 3(a).<br \/>\n<strong>Key Points:<\/strong><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Provides specific procedural steps following a failure to comply with design definitions.<\/li>\n<li>Ensures consistency in the application of rejection grounds across cases.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h4>Article 85(1) and Article 24(1)<\/h4>\n<p><strong>Content:<\/strong> Discusses the interaction between presumption of validity and the grounds for invalidity in Community design law.<br \/>\n<strong>Key Points:<\/strong><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Presumption of validity applies primarily in infringement cases.<\/li>\n<li>Strict and specific criteria must be met to declare a design invalid.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h4>Article 4(2) of Regulation No 2245\/2002<\/h4>\n<p><strong>Content:<\/strong> Limits the number of views in a design application and stipulates that defects related to this requirement result in rejection if not remedied.<br \/>\n<strong>Key Points:<\/strong><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Applications may not contain more than seven views.<\/li>\n<li>Non-compliance without timely correction leads to rejection under Articles 45(2)(b) and 46(3).<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h4>Article 1(1)(c) of Regulation No 2245\/2002<\/h4>\n<p><strong>Content:<\/strong> Specifies that an application for a registered Community design must include a suitable representation of the design.<br \/>\n<strong>Key Points:<\/strong><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Emphasizes the necessity for clear reproductive representations.<\/li>\n<li>Supports the detailed requirements outlined in Article 36(1)(c).<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h4>Article 134(1) – Allocation of Costs<\/h4>\n<p><strong>Content:<\/strong> Dictates that the unsuccessful party in a legal action must bear the costs incurred by the successful party.<br \/>\n<strong>Key Points:<\/strong><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Encourages parties to carefully consider the merits of their actions.<\/li>\n<li>Ensures that winning parties are compensated for legal expenses.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>[:]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>[:uk] Regulation (EC) No 6\/2002 on Community Designs – Detailed Provisions 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…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_bbp_topic_count":0,"_bbp_reply_count":0,"_bbp_total_topic_count":0,"_bbp_total_reply_count":0,"_bbp_voice_count":0,"_bbp_anonymous_reply_count":0,"_bbp_topic_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_reply_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_forum_subforum_count":0,"pmpro_default_level":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[42,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-875","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-eu-legislation-important","category-eu-legislation-general-en","pmpro-has-access"],"acf":{"patreon-level":"0"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/875","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=875"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/875\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1169,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/875\/revisions\/1169"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=875"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=875"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=875"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}

{"id":875,"date":"2024-10-24T10:12:02","date_gmt":"2024-10-24T07:12:02","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/2024\/10\/judgment-of-the-general-court-sixth-chamber-of-23-october-2024-orgatex-gmbh-co-kg-v-european-union-intellectual-property-office-community-design-invalidity-proceedings-registe\/"},"modified":"2024-10-30T16:36:16","modified_gmt":"2024-10-30T14:36:16","slug":"judgment-of-the-general-court-sixth-chamber-of-23-october-2024-orgatex-gmbh-co-kg-v-european-union-intellectual-property-office-community-design-invalidity-proceedings-registe","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/2024\/10\/judgment-of-the-general-court-sixth-chamber-of-23-october-2024-orgatex-gmbh-co-kg-v-european-union-intellectual-property-office-community-design-invalidity-proceedings-registe\/","title":{"rendered":"[:uk]Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 23 October 2024.Orgatex GmbH & Co. KG v European Union Intellectual Property Office.Community design \u2013 Invalidity proceedings \u2013 Registered Community design representing floor markings \u2013 Articles 3(a) and 25(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 6\/2002 \u2013 Unicity of the design \u2013 Consistency of views.Case T-25\/23.[:]"},"content":{"rendered":"

[:uk]<\/p>\n

\n
\nRegulation (EC) No 6\/2002 on Community Designs – Detailed Provisions<\/title><\/p>\n<style>\n body { font-family: Arial, sans-serif; line-height: 1.6; margin: 20px; }\n h1, h2, h3 { color: #2F4F4F; }\n p { margin-bottom: 10px; }\n .article { margin-bottom: 20px; }\n <\/style>\n<p><\/head><\/p>\n<h3>Regulation (EC) No 6\/2002 on Community Designs<\/h3>\n<h4>Article 3(a) – Definition of Design<\/h4>\n<p><strong>Content:<\/strong> 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.”<br \/>\n<strong>Key Points:<\/strong><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Focuses on the visual aspects of a product.<\/li>\n<li>Encompasses both the product and its ornamentation.<\/li>\n<li>Includes various features such as lines, contours, colors, shape, texture, and materials.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h4>Article 25(1)(a) – Grounds for Invalidity<\/h4>\n<p><strong>Content:<\/strong> A Community design may be declared invalid if it does not comply with the definition provided in Article 3(a).<br \/>\n<strong>Key Points:<\/strong><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Invalidity can be based on non-conformity with the fundamental definition of a design.<\/li>\n<li>Focuses on the design\u2019s appearance, ensuring it meets the criteria set out in Article 3(a).<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h4>Article 25(1)(b) – Additional Grounds for Invalidity<\/h4>\n<p><strong>Content:<\/strong> A Community design may also be declared invalid if it lacks individual character or novelty, as outlined in Articles 4 to 6.<br \/>\n<strong>Key Points:<\/strong><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Beyond Article 3(a), designs must possess individual character and novelty.<\/li>\n<li>These additional criteria are detailed in Articles 4 (author), 5 (not explicitly referenced in the judgment), and 6 (third-party rights).<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h4>Article 25(2) – Conditions for Invoking Grounds for Invalidity<\/h4>\n<p><strong>Content:<\/strong> Outlines the procedural and evidentiary requirements for declaring a design invalid under the grounds specified in Article 25(1).<br \/>\n<strong>Key Points:<\/strong><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Specifies the need for sufficient evidence to support claims of invalidity.<\/li>\n<li>Details the burden of proof resting on the party seeking invalidation.<\/li>\n<li>Ensures that invalidity declarations are based on objective and verifiable criteria.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h4>Article 25(3) – Procedural Aspects<\/h4>\n<p><strong>Content:<\/strong> Describes the procedural framework within which invalidity proceedings must be conducted.<br \/>\n<strong>Key Points:<\/strong><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Establishes the jurisdiction and authority responsible for invalidity declarations.<\/li>\n<li>Sets timelines and procedural steps for initiating and conducting invalidity actions.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h4>Article 25(4) – Remedies and Consequences<\/h4>\n<p><strong>Content:<\/strong> Details the remedies available upon declaration of invalidity, including the removal of the design from the register.<br \/>\n<strong>Key Points:<\/strong><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Specifies the consequences of a design being declared invalid.<\/li>\n<li>Includes the revocation of protection and potential restitution to third parties.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h4>Article 36(1)(c) – Representation of the Design<\/h4>\n<p><strong>Content:<\/strong> Requires that the application for a Community design include a representation of the design that is suitable for reproduction.<br \/>\n<strong>Key Points:<\/strong><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Mandates clear and accurate visual representations.<\/li>\n<li>Options for representation include photographs, technical drawings, or computer-generated images.<\/li>\n<li>Ensures that the design can be understood and evaluated based on its representations.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h4>Article 36(1)(c) – Interpretation and Unicity of Design<\/h4>\n<p><strong>Content:<\/strong> Emphasizes that the representation must allow the design to be clearly identified, ensuring unicity across all submitted views.<br \/>\n<strong>Key Points:<\/strong><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>All views submitted must be consistent and not contradictory.<\/li>\n<li>A design must appear as a single, unified product across all representations.<\/li>\n<li>Inconsistencies in views can lead to invalidity due to lack of unicity.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h4>Article 4 – Number of Views and Representation<\/h4>\n<p><strong>Content:<\/strong> Limits the number of views submitted in a design application and outlines acceptable forms of representation.<br \/>\n<strong>Key Points:<\/strong><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>May not contain more than seven views.<\/li>\n<li>Allows for various perspectives, including different angles and scales.<\/li>\n<li>Ensures that all necessary views are included to fully represent the design.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h4>Article 61(5) – Time Limits for Actions<\/h4>\n<p><strong>Content:<\/strong> Sets the time frame within which an action against a decision of the Board of Appeal must be filed.<br \/>\n<strong>Key Points:<\/strong><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Actions must be brought within two months of notification of the decision.<\/li>\n<li>Includes provisions for extending time limits due to distance or other specified factors.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h4>Article 60 – Procedural Time Limits<\/h4>\n<p><strong>Content:<\/strong> Governs the calculation and extension of procedural time limits for actions brought before the General Court.<br \/>\n<strong>Key Points:<\/strong><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Extends time limits by 10 days to account for distance.<\/li>\n<li>Ensures fairness in accommodating parties located in different jurisdictions.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h4>Article 85(1) – Presumption of Validity<\/h4>\n<p><strong>Content:<\/strong> Establishes a presumption of validity for registered Community designs in infringement proceedings.<br \/>\n<strong>Key Points:<\/strong><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Shifts the burden of proving invalidity onto the party challenging the design.<\/li>\n<li>Ensures that designs are protected unless proven otherwise.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h4>Article 47(1) – Rejection of Application<\/h4>\n<p><strong>Content:<\/strong> Outlines the grounds and procedures for rejecting a design application that does not meet the required criteria.<br \/>\n<strong>Key Points:<\/strong><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Designs failing to meet Article 3(a)’s definition can be rejected.<\/li>\n<li>Requires applicants to remedy any shortcomings within a prescribed period to avoid rejection.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h4>Article 11(3) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2245\/2002<\/h4>\n<p><strong>Content:<\/strong> Defines the implementation measures for rejection of design applications based on non-compliance with Article 3(a).<br \/>\n<strong>Key Points:<\/strong><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Provides specific procedural steps following a failure to comply with design definitions.<\/li>\n<li>Ensures consistency in the application of rejection grounds across cases.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h4>Article 85(1) and Article 24(1)<\/h4>\n<p><strong>Content:<\/strong> Discusses the interaction between presumption of validity and the grounds for invalidity in Community design law.<br \/>\n<strong>Key Points:<\/strong><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Presumption of validity applies primarily in infringement cases.<\/li>\n<li>Strict and specific criteria must be met to declare a design invalid.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h4>Article 4(2) of Regulation No 2245\/2002<\/h4>\n<p><strong>Content:<\/strong> Limits the number of views in a design application and stipulates that defects related to this requirement result in rejection if not remedied.<br \/>\n<strong>Key Points:<\/strong><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Applications may not contain more than seven views.<\/li>\n<li>Non-compliance without timely correction leads to rejection under Articles 45(2)(b) and 46(3).<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h4>Article 1(1)(c) of Regulation No 2245\/2002<\/h4>\n<p><strong>Content:<\/strong> Specifies that an application for a registered Community design must include a suitable representation of the design.<br \/>\n<strong>Key Points:<\/strong><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Emphasizes the necessity for clear reproductive representations.<\/li>\n<li>Supports the detailed requirements outlined in Article 36(1)(c).<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h4>Article 134(1) – Allocation of Costs<\/h4>\n<p><strong>Content:<\/strong> Dictates that the unsuccessful party in a legal action must bear the costs incurred by the successful party.<br \/>\n<strong>Key Points:<\/strong><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Encourages parties to carefully consider the merits of their actions.<\/li>\n<li>Ensures that winning parties are compensated for legal expenses.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>[:]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>[:uk] Regulation (EC) No 6\/2002 on Community Designs – Detailed Provisions 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…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_bbp_topic_count":0,"_bbp_reply_count":0,"_bbp_total_topic_count":0,"_bbp_total_reply_count":0,"_bbp_voice_count":0,"_bbp_anonymous_reply_count":0,"_bbp_topic_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_reply_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_forum_subforum_count":0,"pmpro_default_level":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[42,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-875","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-eu-legislation-important","category-eu-legislation-general-en","pmpro-has-access"],"acf":{"patreon-level":"0"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/875","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=875"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/875\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1169,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/875\/revisions\/1169"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=875"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=875"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=875"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}