CJEU clarifies when an unregistered Community design is valid

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Gardens, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

CJEU clarifies when an unregistered Community design is valid

The Court of Justice of the EU has ruled that in infringement cases, an unregistered Community design must be presumed to be valid if its holder indicates what elements give it its individual character

The Court was ruling in a dispute between clothing retailers Karen Millen Fashions and Dunnes Stores. Dunnes has already acknowledged that it ordered manufacturers to make copies of two items of clothing sold by Karen Millen stores (a blue and brown striped shirt and a black knit top). It began selling them in its own stores Ireland in 2006.

Karen Millen sued, requesting an injunction and damages. In response, Dunnes argued that Karen Millen does not hold an unregistered Community design for the two items of clothing on the grounds that they lack individual character within the meaning of Regulation No 6/2002 and that Karen Millen is required to prove, as a matter of fact, that the garments have individual character.

The dispute made its way to the Irish Supreme Court, which referred two questions to the CJEU.

Yesterday the Court ruled that the individual character of an unregistered Community design must be assessed by reference not to a combination of features drawn from a number of earlier designs, but by one or more individual designs made available to the public previously.

It said that assessment cannot be conducted by reference to a combination of features taken in isolation and drawn from a number of earlier designs.

The Court added that in infringement actions, EU law establishes a presumption of validity of unregistered Community designs so that the right holder of an unregistered Community design is not required to prove that it has individual character. Instead, the right holder only needs to indicate what constitutes the individual character of that design. The defendant may, however, contest the validity of the disputed design.

The dispute will now move back to the Irish courts for a final decision in the case.

You can read more about protecting design rights in an article by lawyers from Baker & McKenzie in Managing IP’s May issue.

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Brian Paul Gearing brings technical depth, litigation expertise, and experience with Japanese business culture to Pillsbury’s IP practice
News of InterDigital suing Amazon in the US and CMS IndusLaw challenging Indian rules on foreign firms were also among the top talking points
IP lawyers at three firms reflect on how courts across Australia have reacted to AI use in litigation, and explain why they support measured use of the technology
AJ Park’s owner, IPH, announced earlier this week that Steve Mitchell will take the reins of the New Zealand-based firm in January
Chris Adamson and Milli Bouri of Adamson & Partners join us to discuss IP market trends and what law firm and in-house clients are looking for
Noemi Parrotta, chair of the European subcommittee within INTA's International Amicus Committee, explains why the General Court’s decision in the Iceland case could make it impossible to protect country names as trademarks
Inès Garlantezec, who became principal of the firm’s Luxembourg office earlier this year, discusses what's been keeping her busy, including settling a long-running case
In the sixth episode of a podcast series celebrating the tenth anniversary of IP Inclusive, we discuss IP Futures, a network for early-career stage IP professionals
Rachel Cohen has reunited with her former colleagues to strengthen Weil’s IP litigation and strategy work
McKool Smith’s Jennifer Truelove explains how a joint effort between her firm and Irell & Manella secured a win for their client against Samsung
Gift this article