Order of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 15 December 2021 –
Legero Schuhfabrik v EUIPO – Rieker Schuh (Shoe)

(Case T‑683/20)

(Community design – Invalidity proceedings – Registered Community design representing a shoe – Earlier national and Community designs produced after the filing of the application for a declaration of invalidity – Article 28(1)(b)(v) of Regulation (EC) No 2245/2002 – Grounds for invalidity – Lack of novelty – No individual character – Degree of freedom of the designer – Lack of a different overall impression – Articles 5 and 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 – Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

1.      Community designs – Surrender and invalidity – Application for a declaration of invalidity based on the existence of an earlier design – Earlier designs relied on subsequent to the filing of the application for a declaration of invalidity – Not included

(Council Regulation No 6/2002, Arts 52(2) and 63(2); Commission Regulation No 2245/2002, Art. 28(1)(b)(i)(v) and (vi))

(see paras 30-32)

2.      Community designs – Procedural provisions – Examination of the facts of EUIPO’s own motion – Facts and evidence not submitted in time – Account taken – Earlier designs relied on subsequent to the filing of the application for a declaration of invalidity – Not included

(Council Regulation No 6/2002, Art. 63(2))

(see paras 33, 34)

3.      Community designs – Grounds for invalidity – No individual character – Previous disclosure of identical design – Proof of the disclosure

(Council Regulation No 6/2002, Art. 7(1))

(see paras 40, 42, 43)

4.      Community designs – Procedural provisions – Decisions of EUIPO – Observance of the rights of the defence – Scope of the principle

(Council Regulation No 6/2002, Art. 62, second sentence)

(see paras 49, 52)

5.      Community designs – Procedural provisions – Statement of reasons for decisions – First sentence of Article 62 of Regulation No 6/2002 – Scope identical to that of Article 296 TFEU – Recourse by the Board of Appeal to implicit reasoning – Whether permissible – Conditions

(Art. 296 TFEU; Council Regulation No 6/2002, Art. 62, first sentence)

(see paras 57, 58)

6.      Community designs – Grounds for invalidity – No individual character – Design not giving the informed user a different overall impression from that produced by the earlier design – Criteria for assessment – Creative licence

(Council Regulation No 6/2002, Arts 6 and 25(1)(b))

(see paras 68, 70-73)

7.      Community designs – Grounds for invalidity – No individual character – Design not giving the informed user a different overall impression from that produced by the earlier design – Representation of a shoe

(Council Regulation No 6/2002, Arts 6(1) and 25(1)(b))

(see paras 78, 85, 105-108)

8.      Community designs – Grounds for invalidity – No individual character – Design not giving the informed user a different overall impression from that produced by the earlier design – Saturation of the state of the art – Relevance

(Council Regulation No 6/2002, Arts 6(1) and 25(1)(b))

(see paras 80, 82, 84)

9.      Community designs – Grounds for invalidity – No individual character – Design not giving the informed user a different overall impression from that produced by the earlier design – Global assessment of all the elements of the earlier design

(Council Regulation No 6/2002, Arts 6(1) and 25(1)(b))

(see paras 86, 87)

10.    Community designs – Conditions for protection – Overlap of the conditions of novelty and individual character

(Council Regulation No 6/2002, Arts 5 and 6)

(see paras 112-114, 116, 118)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 September 2020 (Case R 1648/2019-3), relating to invalidity proceedings between Legero Schuhfabrik and Rieker Schuh.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.

2. Legero Schuhfabrik GmbH shall pay the costs.