- Query in any language with multilingual search
- Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
- See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Similar Documents
Explore similar documents to your case.We Found Similar Cases for You
Case C-345/13: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 19 June 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court — Ireland) — Karen Millen Fashions Ltd v Dunnes Stores, Dunnes Stores (Limerick) Ltd (Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 — Community design — Article 6 — Individual character — Different overall impression — Article 85(2) — Unregistered Community design — Validity — Conditions — Burden of proof)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62013CA0345
62013CA0345
With us you find everything. Try it now!
I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!
Valentina R., lawyer
25.8.2014
Official Journal of the European Union
C 282/15
(Case C-345/13) (<span class="super">1</span>)
((Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 - Community design - Article 6 - Individual character - Different overall impression - Article 85(2) - Unregistered Community design - Validity - Conditions - Burden of proof))
2014/C 282/20
Language of the case: English
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: Karen Millen Fashions Ltd
Defendants: Dunnes Stores, Dunnes Stores (Limerick) Ltd
Operative part of the judgment
1.Article 6 of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 of 12 December 2001 on Community designs is to be interpreted as meaning that, in order for a design to be considered to have individual character, the overall impression which that design produces on the informed user must be different from that produced on such a user not by a combination of features taken in isolation and drawn from a number of earlier designs, but by one or more earlier designs, taken individually.
2.Article 85(2) of Regulation No 6/2002 must be interpreted as meaning that, in order for a Community design court to treat an unregistered Community design as valid, the right holder of that design is not required to prove that it has individual character within the meaning of Article 6 of that regulation, but need only indicate what constitutes the individual character of that design, that is to say, indicates what, in his view, are the element or elements of the design concerned which give it its individual character.
Language of the case: English
OJ C 260, 7.9.2013.