- 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-395/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 15 July 2016 — DOCERAM GmbH v CeramTec GmbH
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62016CN0395
62016CN0395
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
14.11.2016
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 419/26
(Case C-395/16)
(2016/C 419/35)
Language of the case: German
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: DOCERAM GmbH
Defendant: CeramTec GmbH
Questions referred
1.Does a technical function that precludes protection within the meaning of Article 8(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 of 12 December 2001 on Community designs also exist if the design effect is of no significance for the product design, but the (technical) functionality is the sole factor that dictates the design?
2.If the Court answers Question 1 in the affirmative: From which point of view is it to be assessed whether the individual design features of a product have been chosen solely on the basis of considerations of functionality? Is an ‘objective observer’ required and, if so, how is such an observer to be defined?
Language of the case: German.
* * *
(1) OJ 2002 L 3, p. 1.