Test

[:uk]On the Approval of Amendments to Certain Regulatory Legal Acts of the Ministry of Finance of Ukraine[:][:uk] Analysis of the Order of the Ministry of […]

[:uk]Some issues regarding the activities of the limited liability company "Kremenchuk TPP"[:][:uk] Analysis of the Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of […]

[:uk]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 – Registered Community design representing floor markings – Articles 3(a) and 25(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 – Unicity of the design – Consistency of views.Case T-25/23.[:][: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 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 f […]

[:uk]Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 23 October 2024.Keserű Művek Fegyvergyár Kft. v European Commission.Non-contractual liability – Control of the acquisition and possession of weapons – Implementing Directive (EU) 2019/69 – Causal link – Concept of ‘firearm’ – Concept of ‘alarm and signal weapons’.Case T-519/23.[:][:uk] Analysis of General Court Judgment in Case T‑519/23 Detailed Description of Provisions in the General Court Judgment (Case T‑519/23) 1. Legal Basis for the Action The applicant, Keserű Művek Fegyvergyár Kft., initiated the action under Article 268 TFEU and the second paragraph of Article 340 TFEU. The claim sought compensation for damages allegedly caused by the adoption of Commission Implementing Directive (EU) 2019/69, which pertains to technical specifications for alarm and signal weapons under Council Directive 91/477/EEC. 2. Definitions under Directive 2021/555 2.1. Definition of ‘Firearm’ According to Article 1(1)(1) of Directive 2021/555, a ‘firearm’ is defined as “any portable barreled weapon that expels, is designed to expel or may be converted to expel a shot, bullet or projectile by the action of a combustible propellant.” This definition explicitly excludes firearms for reasons listed in point III of Annex I to the directive. 2.2. Criteria for Conversion An object is regarded as capable of being converted to expel a projectile by a combustible propellant if: It has the appearance of a firearm; As a result of its construction or the material from which it is made, it can be converted. 2.3. Definition of ‘Alarm and Signal Weapons’ Article 1(1)(4) of Directive 2021/555 defines ‘alarm and signal weapons’ as devices equipped with a cartridge holder designed to fire only blanks, irritants, other active substances, or pyrotechnic signalling rounds. Additionally, these devices must not be convertible to expel a shot, bullet, or projectile using a combustible propellant. 3. Application of Directive 2021/555 to Implementing Directive 2019/69 Under Article 26 of Directive 2021/555, any reference to the repealed Council Directive 91/477/EEC is to be interpreted as a reference to Directive 2021/555. Therefore, Implementing Directive 2019/69 is assessed in the context of the updated legal framework established by Directive 2021/555. 4. Classification of the Keserű Weapon 4.1. Assessment as a Firearm The Court determined that the Keserű weapon is a portable barreled weapon capable of expelling rubber bullets using a combustible propellant. This categorizes it as a ‘firearm’ under Article 1(1)(1) of Directive 2021/555. 4.2. Exclusion from ‘Alarm and Signal Weapons’ The Keserű weapon does not meet the criteria for ‘alarm and signal weapons’ as defined in Article 1(1)(4) of Directive 2021/555 because: It is designed to fire rubber bullets, not solely blanks, irritants, or pyrotechnic rounds. It does not fulfill the condition of being non-convertible to expel projectiles using a combustible propellant. Additionally, it is not exclusively designed for alarm or signal purposes, further excluding it from this category. 5. Criteria for EU Non-Contractual Liability Under the second paragraph of Article 340 TFEU, the European Union may be held liable for non-contractual damage caused by its institutions or servants if the following conditions are met: Existence of a sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law intended to confer rights on individuals. Proof of damage suffered by the claimant. Existence of a direct causal link between the breach and the damage. All three conditions must be satisfied for liability to be established. 6. Court’s Analysis and Conclusion 6.1. Lack of Causal Link The Court found that Implementing Directive 2019/69 does not apply to the Keserű weapon as it does not qualify as an ‘alarm and signal weapon.’ Therefore, the directive could not have caused the alleged damage, failing the causal link requirement. 6.2. Classification Overrides National Jurisdiction The Court emphasized that the definitive interpretation of EU law rests with the Court itself, not national courts. Hence, prior national judgments classifying the Keserű weapon differently do not influence the Court’s classification under EU directives. 6.3. Conclusion on Liability Given the absence of a causal link between the directive and the alleged damage, the Court concluded that the European Union cannot be held liable under the claims presented by the applicant. 7. Final Judgment The General Court dismissed the action in its entirety and ordered the applicant, Keserű Művek Fegyvergyár Kft., to bear its own costs and pay the costs incurred by the European Union, as represented by the European Commission. The French Republic, as an intervenor, was […]