Editor's note: 2003 years 11 month 28 day, Easy Sanitary Solutions The Company submits an application for Community design registration to the EU Intellectual Property Office, The design product is the shower head. 2009 years 9 month 3 day, I-Drain The Company makes an invalid application for the above registered design, The reason is that the design lacks novelty and uniqueness. What is the result? Please look down!

[background] 2003 years 11 month 28 day, Easy Sanitary Solutions company (Hereinafter referred to as "ESS company" ) Submit an application for the registration of a Community design to the EU Intellectual Property Office (Application number: 000107834-0025) , The design product is the shower head (As shown in Figure 1) . Figure 1 2009 years 9 month 3 day, I-Drain company (Nivelles NV Group company predecessor) Make an invalid application for the above registered design, The reason is that the design lacks novelty and uniqueness, Simultaneous submission Blücher Company catalog picture (As shown in Figure 2) As evidence. Figure 2 2010 years 9 month 23 day, Eu Intellectual Property Office invalidation Department found, ESS The company's registered exterior design includes a tablet, A collector and a drain siphon, (In normal use) The only visible part is the top of the slab. Due to the flat top design with Blücher A figure in the middle of the picture of the company catalog is consistent, Therefore, The invalid department determines that the design in dispute does not have novelty.

2010 years 10 month 15 day, ESS The company appealed against the above conclusion. The appeal panel of the European Intellectual Property Office reversed the finding, Consider the dispute registered design and Blücher The graphic design in the middle of the pictures in the company catalog is not exactly consistent, The difference is not insignificant, Therefore, it has novelty. 2013 years 1 month 7 day, Nivelles Group of companies to the EU General Court of Justice (General Court) Initiate a lawsuit, Request that the appeal Board decision be set aside.

2015 years 5 month 13 day, The European Union's General Court of Justice ruled No T-15/13 Number judgment, support Nivelles A claim by a group of companies, Rescind the decision of the Appeal Board that the design in question is novel. ESS company 2015 years 7 month 11 day (Case number: C-361/15 P) , Eu Intellectual Property Office in the same year 7 month 24 day (Case number: C-405/15 P) Respectively to the European Court of Justice on the decisions of the EU General Court (Court of Justice) appeal.

[conclusion] The EU Intellectual Property Office says, The General Court of the European Union requires the EU Intellectual Property Office to reconstruct the previous design product on the basis of evidence submitted by the applicant for the invalid procedure, Violation of the Community design invalidation procedure "Burden of proof and burden of proof" principle. The EU Intellectual Property Office also noted, The EU General Court ordered the EU Intellectual Property Office to consolidate the different design elements in the evidence submitted, Based on this, the overall appearance of the previous appearance design is obtained, It violates the Community norms for judging novelty in design. The European Court of Justice heard that, The General Court of the European Union requires the EU Intellectual Property Office to reconstruct previous design products based on evidence submitted by the applicant for invalid procedures, Based on this, the novelty of the disputed registered design is evaluated, Not in accordance with the law. simultaneously, European court of justice, Nivelles The Group Company did not submit the complete appearance of the referenced design products at the time of the invalid application, And this evidence is the key to judge whether the disputed registered design meets the novelty requirements. but, Given the other legal grounds for reaching this verdict, it is correct, The European Court of Justice did not overturn the decisions of the EU's general Court. ESS The company stated in the appeal, The General Court of the European Union determines the novelty of the posterior design, The prior design as a basis for comparison is actually applied to different products than the latter design, violate "Regulation of the Council of the European Union regulating the design of the Community (The first (EC) 6/2002 No) " Stipulation of. The European Court of Justice found no error in the decision of the EU General Court, Because of the evaluation of design novelty, It has nothing to do with the category of products actually used or applied in the prior design on which the comparison is based.

[comment] The European Court of Justice dismissed two appeals in the case (ESS The company appealed and the EU Intellectual Property Office appealed) , But it corrected an error in a decision by the EU's general Court, Clarified the concept of community appearance design. specifically, This judgment clarifies the burden of proof in the Community design invalidation procedure, That is, when the applicant fails to provide valid evidence, The EU Intellectual Property Office should not support the applicant's claim, Nor is there any obligation to determine autonomously which of the several designs submitted is relevant to the case. Therefore, In accordance with the judgment, An applicant claiming that a registered design is invalid should clearly indicate the prior design on which the claim is based, And provide evidentiary materials that can fully demonstrate the prior design.

compile: Liu Dan, The source of Aisabri Legal Counsel: Esabaril (ELZABURU)