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 2026

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

Cookies Settings

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

Hogan Lovells Cadwalader is taking a fresh strategic approach to pricing in its AI strategy. It could amplify calls for law firms to ditch the billable hour
Charles Harding plans to build a new team around life sciences oppositions and contentious work, drawing on his three decades developing a practice from scratch at D Young & Co
The firm reveals how its litigation strategies informed the arguments that took Masimo’s judgment past $818 million
The firm was rebuilding its IP practice through a string of patent hires and a Texas expansion, but its dissolution has put the newly built talent back into the market
AI can exploit longstanding gaps in copyright protection at remarkable speed, but EU law still provides tools to fight back, says Simon Hembt at Bird & Bird
The firm has tapped a local patent trio to establish a foothold in the market and broaden its national presence
New Asia-Pacific IP head Jonathan Chu is eyeing opportunities arising from Chinese technology licensing, overseas enforcement and increasingly IP-heavy cross-border deals
Europe’s largest intellectual property convention and trade fair is back: IP Service World 2026 takes place in Munich from November 23–25 – the 16th edition, with 1,400-plus attendees from 55-plus nations, 100-plus speakers, and 100-plus exhibitors. Three days. Two focused areas. One IP marketplace.
Mehmet Gün and Uğur Aktekin discuss four decades of change in Türkiye’s legal market, the firm’s commitment to independence and the challenge of building an institution that can outlast its founders
Boehringer Ingelheim has instructed a team from Kirkland, while Teva is being represented by Pinsent Masons
Gift this article