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

Price hikes at ‘big law’ firms are pushing some clients toward boutiques that offer predictable fees, specialised expertise, and a model built around prioritising IP
The Australian side, in particular, can benefit by capitalising on its independent status to bring in more work from Western countries while still working with its former Chinese partner
Koen Bijvank of Brinkhof and Johannes Heselberger of Bardehle Pagenberg discuss the Amgen v Sanofi case and why it will be cited frequently
View the official winners of the 2025 Social Impact EMEA Awards
King & Wood Mallesons will break into two entities, 14 years after a merger between a Chinese and an Australian firm created the combined outfit
Teams from Shakespeare Martineau and DWF will take centre stage in a dispute concerning the registrability of dairy terminology in plant-based products
Senem Kayahan, attorney and founder at PatentSe, discusses how she divides prosecution tasks, and reveals the importance of empathetic client advice
The association’s Australian group has filed a formal complaint against the choice of venue, citing Dubai as an unsafe environment for the LGBTQIA+ community
Firm says appointment of Nick McDonald will boost its expertise in cross-border disputes, including at the Unified Patent Court
In the final episode of a podcast series celebrating the tenth anniversary of IP Inclusive, we discuss the IP Inclusive Charter and the senior leaders’ pledge
Gift this article