Gemeenschapsmodel – Beroep ingesteld door de houder van gemeenschapsmodel nr. 15126330003 (fauteuils) en strekkende tot vernietiging van beslissing R 969/20113 van de derde kamer van beroep van het BHIM van 27 april 2012 houdende vernietiging van de beslissing van de nietigheidsafdeling tot afwijzing van de door Gandia Blasco SA ingestelde vordering tot nietigverklaring.
Het beroep wordt afgewezen. Het BHIM heeft terecht geoordeeld dat het betwiste model van een fauteuil (van Sachi) geen eigen karakter had.
61 The Board of Appeal did not err, therefore, in concluding that the contested design did not have individual character within the meaning of Article 6 of Regulation No 6/2002.
63 In addition, it is appropriate to point out that, by its first and second heads of claim, the intervener contends, in essence, that the Court should dismiss the action. The intervener contends that the designs at issue are identical within the meaning of Article 5 of Regulation No 6/2002, on the ground that their features differ only in immaterial details. It must be held that, by those arguments, the intervener is disputing the Board of Appeal’s finding that the designs at issue are not identical and that it is contending that the Board of Appeal ought to have granted its application for a declaration of invalidity on the basis of Article 5 of Regulation No 6/2002 for the contested design’s lack of novelty. In so far as those arguments are to be understood as an independent plea in law based on Article 134(2) of the Rules of Procedure, it should be pointed out that that plea is incompatible with the form of order sought by the intervener and must be rejected, since the intervener has not applied for the annulment or alteration of the contested decision under Article 134(3) of the Rules of Procedure (see judgment of 21 October 2008 in Case T 95/07 Aventis Pharma v OHIM – Nycomed (PRAZOL), paragraph 34, and the case-law cited).
Lees het arrest hier.
IEPT20140204, GEU, Sachi Premium Outdoor Furniture v BHIM
