CJEU clarifies when an unregistered Community design is valid
Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX
Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2024

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 ruledthat 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 ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Based on surveys covering more than 25,000 in-house lawyers, the series provides insights into what law firms must score highly on when pitching to in-house counsel
We provide a rundown of Managing IP’s news and analysis from the week, and review what’s been happening elsewhere in IP
Tony Nguyen, who returned to Fish & Richardson this month after a year travelling overseas, tells Managing IP how and why he took the plunge
Tom Treutler, who previously managed the Vietnamese office of Tilleke & Gibbins, has joined East IP
Counsel discuss upcoming AI and data privacy legislation and what they’ve learned since Chile joined the Madrid Protocol
INTA has postponed its planned Annual Meeting in Dubai, but the organisation should think carefully about whether it wants to go there at all
The firm has named its new managing director after its former Asia head resigned earlier this year
As law firms explore how best to support clients at the UPC, members of the UPCLA network believe they have found the best of both worlds
The Industry Patent Quality Charter hosted a conference in which it discussed the importance of granting high-quality patents
Julia Holden explains why, if she weren’t in IP, she would be directing and producing live English-language theatre
Gift this article