The judgment of the General Court of the European Union on 12 March 2025 (T-66/24, Lidl v. EUIPO) sheds light on the extent of application of Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 and the interpretation of the “grace period” as applicable to Community models disclosed by an author.
In this case, Lidl sought to annul the registration of an LED lightbulb registered by Liquidleds, invoking an earlier disclosure.
The Court upheld the EUIPO’s decision, however, confirming that this disclosure did not affect the individual nature of the design, as it had taken place within the twelve-month grace period provided for by the law, and had been carried out by the successor in title of the rights holder.
One of the key points of the resolution is that strict identity between the previously disclosed design and the registered one is not required so long as both generate the same overall impression on an informed user. This interpretation provides designers with some flexibility, who may make specific commercial adjustments to their products after testing them on the market.
Furthermore, the Court also ruled on the burden of proof, establishing that the party invoking the exception of Article 7(2) must demonstrate that the requirements are met; notwithstanding, this does not prevent the other party from making allegations or providing evidence to refute this application. In this case, Lidl failed to adequately challenge the evidence presented by the intervener.
This decision provides legal certainty by confirming that the grace period allows the modification of a design before registration, without the fear of losing protection, and clarifies who has responsibility of the burden of proof in nullity proceedings.
Link to the decision: click here
Copyright © 2025 All rights reserved