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
(Case T-306/16) (<span class="super note-tag">1</span>)
((Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Registered Community design representing a door handle - Earlier design - Ground for invalidity - No individual character - Degree of freedom of the designer - No different overall impression - Article 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 - Evidence submitted in support of the opposition after the expiry of the prescribed period - Production of evidence for the first time before the Board of Appeal - Discretion of the Board of Appeal - Article 63 of Regulation No 6/2002))
(2017/C 277/59)
Language of the case: English
Applicant: Gamet S.A. (Toruń, Poland) (represented by: A. Rolbiecka, lawyer)
Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Ivanauskas, acting as Agent)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Firma produkcyjno-handlowa ‘Metal-Bud II’ Robert Gubała (Świątniki Górne, Poland) (represented by: M. Mikosza, lawyer)
Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 17 March 2016 (Case R 2040/2014-3), relating to invalidity proceedings between Firma produkcyjno-handlowa ‘Metal-Bud II’ Robert Gubała and Gamet.
The Court:
1.Dismisses the action;
2.Orders Gamet S.A. to pay the costs.
(<span class="super">1</span>) OJ C 296, 16.8.2016.