Judgments of the CJEU in Gautzsch and the General Court in Senz
35. The third of those principles has since been confirmed by the CJEU: it is not necessary for an ‘event’ of art.7(1) to have taken place in the EU in order to give effect to the presumption that the design has been made available to the public when assessing novelty under art.5(1)(a). The presumption remains subject, of course, to the two exceptions. The CJEU’s ruling was in H. Gautzsch Großhandel GmbH & Co KG v Münchener Boulevard Möbel Joseph Duna GmbH (Case C-479/12) EU:C:2014:75, [2014] RPC 28, at [33]; see also the judgment of the General Court in Senz Technologies BV v OHIM (Joined Cases T-22/13 and T-23/13) EU:T:2015:310, [2015] ECDR 19 at [26]-[28].
- Introduction
- The Regulation
- Article 1 Community design
- Article 4 Requirements for protection
- Article 5 Novelty
- Article 7 Disclosure
- Article 11 Commencement and term of protection of the unregistered Community design
- Article 110(a)
- The effect of the Regulation on its face
- Judgments of courts in Germany
- Judgments of the CJEU in Gautzsch and the General Court in Senz
- The remaining issues of law
- Textbook commentary
- The arguments in the present case
- Discussion
- Should there be a reference to the CJEU?
- Questions to be referred