[Editor's note] Like most countries and regions in the world, The rulings of the Court of Justice of the European Union have important guiding significance and predictive value for understanding the legal norms of the European Union. Esabaril (ELZABURU) At the beginning of each year, typical cases of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the previous year are summarized and published, And a brief review of each case, In order to help customers and partners to understand the EU intellectual property norms. Given the importance of Chinese customers and partners, We try to publish the Chinese version of typical cases on a weekly basis, It is convenient for Chinese partners to learn the latest information in a timely manner. 　　

[background] 　　

2010 years 11 month 19 day, Zhejiang Zhongneng Industry Group Co. LTD (Hereinafter referred to as "China Energy Group" ) Apply to the EU Intellectual Property Office for registration of a Community design ( "motorcycle, mopeds" Registration number: 001783655-0002, Priority date 2010 years 7 month 13 day, The appearance is shown in Figure 1) . Figure 1　　2014 years 11 month 6 day, Piaggio & C. SpA (Hereinafter referred to as "Piaggio" ) Reference first "Vespa LX" Model motorcycle (As shown in Figure 2) , Apply to declare the aforesaid registered design invalid. Piaggio claim, Since the 2005 Year on, "Vespa LX" Always act as (unregistered) the "Three-dimensional trademark" It is used in Italy, And the prior appearance is protected by Italian and French copyright laws. Figure 2　　2015 years 6 month 23 day, The European Intellectual Property Office's Invalidation Division made the ruling, It is believed that although the appearance design of China Energy Group has novelty (new) , However, it lacks the uniqueness of design registration requirements (individual character) , The design in question is therefore ruled invalid. The nullification Department was not correct in its ruling Piaggio Two other invalid reasons presented (Infringement of the prior unregistered trademark right, copyright——Translator's note) Make analysis. 　　

2015 years 7 month 27 day, China Energy Group appealed. 2018 years 1 month 19 day, The Third Appeal Panel of the European Intellectual Property Office ruled in favor of China Energy Group's appeal, Reverse the previous nullification decision, The appearance design at issue is determined to be unique, And the basis of the other two invalid claims made by the applicant for invalidation is analyzed, Reject all. 　　

2018 years 3 month 30 day, Piaggio Appeal against the conclusion of the Third Appeal Board, To the EU General Court of Justice (General Court) appeal, There are three reasons: The conclusion of the appeal board violates "Community Design Regulation of the European Council (The first (EC) 6/2002 No) " The first 25 article (1) paragraph (b) , (c) and (f) The provisions of. (The first 25 Article is a provision on the grounds of invalidity of a Community design, Among them (1) paragraph (b) The provision does not have novelty, The appearance design of uniqueness and other requirements is invalid; (c) It's about following a court decision, The right holder does not have the provisions of the Ordinance 14 The qualifications of the obligee stipulated in the Article; (f) Invalidates unauthorized use of the appearance of another person's protected work. ——Translator's note) 　　

[conclusion] 　　

The general Court ruled against it Piaggio All three of the above grounds of appeal. 　　

On the first ground of appeal, Judgment emphasis, Piaggio There is no merit in challenging the findings of the Appeal Board that the design in question is novel. 　　

In addition, Judgment point, When examining the uniqueness of the disputed design, In support of his claim, Piaggio reference "Vespa LX" Scooter as existing design. The General Court agreed with the EU Intellectual Property Office's conclusion, It is believed that the appearance design of China Energy Group is mainly broken lines, while Piaggio References to existing designs (Vespa LX) It is based on rounded corners. Therefore, The average user can detect the difference between the appearance of a reference and the appearance of a dispute. 　　

The judgment also affirms what the Appeal Board emphasized in its decision, The average user can feel the difference between the referenced appearance and the disputed appearance, And these differences are enough to affect the average user's overall impression of the two designs. 　　

For the second ground of appeal, The general court held that, The disputed design does not infringe the prior trademark right——2005 It has been used in Italy since 2000 Vespa LX Unregistered 3D trademark on a scooter. The reason for its judgment is, The overall image displayed by the previous trademark, Unlike goods with a disputed appearance. The average consumer of motorcycle goods usually has a higher than ordinary level of attention, Before making a purchase decision, Particular attention will be paid to the style of scooter, Lines and shapes, etc, Be aware that there are many differences between the prior trademark and the disputed appearance. 　　

For the third ground of appeal, The general courts agree Vespa LX Pedal motorcycle as a work by Italy and France copyright law protection (Emphasizing the work "round, Feminine and retro features" ) fact, However, it does not agree that the design in question used the above works without authorization. 　　

[comment] 　　

The General Court's decision emphasizes that in filing a petition for invalidation, The importance of submitting drawings and replicas of existing designs and supporting materials that counter the uniqueness of the registered design. The ruling also stated that, A particular element of the prior appearance design cannot be found in the disputed appearance only, That is to say, it lacks uniqueness. 　　

There is one other thing worth noting, The case was settled in the same judgment, References the same existing design, They are not unique in appearance, Infringement of unregistered trademark rights, And infringement of a protected work, The issue requiring that the appearance in dispute be deemed invalid. 　　

compile: Liu Dan, Esabarry Legal Counsel　　source: Esabaril (ELZABURU) Intellectual property rights