Representation of a design for which registration is sought requires to clearly identify that design
06-07-2018 Print this page
Article 36(1)(c) of the Community Designs Regulation requires the representation of a design for which registration is sought to clearly identify that design.
Appeal against the judgment of the General Court of 9 February 2017, in which it was considered that EUIPO had rightly refused registration of two models for 'beakers' from class 07.01, because it was not possible to establish on the basis of the designs whether protection was requested for the beaker, the bottle or a combination of both. The appeal is dismissed. According to Jägermeister, the Court misinterpreted Article 36(1) of the Community Designs Regulation.
The Court of Justice of the EU rules that the analysis of the wording of Article 36(1)(c) leads to the conclusion that the representation of the design for which registration is sought must enable that design to be clearly identified. The literal interpretation of Article 36(1)(c) of the Community Designs Regulation is confirmed by the teleological interpretation of that provision, which must contribute to the proper functioning of the system of registration of designs. Accordingly, the function of the graphic representation requirement is, in particular, to define the design itself in order to determine the precise subject of the protection afforded by the registered design to its proprietor. It follows that the Community design system arising from the Community Designs Regulation confirms the interpretation that results from the wording of Article 36(1)(c) of that regulation by requiring that the representation of a design for which registration is sought makes it possible to identify that design clearly. Finally, the interpretation is also confirmed by the contextual analysis of that provision.
IPPT20180705, CJEU, Jägermeister v EUIPO
