IP case law Court of Justice

Art. 6 CDR : Individual character

1. A design shall be considered to have individual character if the overall impression it produces on the informed user differs from the overall impression produced on such a user by any design which has been made available to the public:
(a) in the case of an unregistered Community design, before the date on which the design for which protection is claimed has first been made available to the public;
(b) in the case of a registered Community design, before the date of filing the application for registration or, if a priority is claimed, the date of priority.
2. In assessing individual character, the degree of freedom of the designer in developing the design shall be taken into consideration.
(see also Art. 5 CDD)

1 pending referral

Referral C-323/24 (Deity Shoes, 2 May 2024)


1 preliminary ruling

Judgment of 19 Jun 2014, C-345/13 (Karen Millen Fashions )

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.

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.

3 appeals

Order of 30 Jan 2018, C-538/17 (Murphy v EUIPO)


Judgment of 21 Sep 2017, C-361/15 (Easy Sanitary Solutions v Group Nivelles)


Judgment of 18 Oct 2012, C-101/11 (Herbert Neuman)



Disclaimer