Consistency of EU Design Views: The Importance of Visual Unity

Aurilex • 27 November 2024

EU design views must be consistent to be valid. A recent decision of the General Court of the EU confirms this requirement.

A design, or model, is a creative expression intended to protect the appearance of an aesthetic product. It is specifically defined as the appearance of a product or a part of a product, characterized by visual elements inherent to the product itself or its ornamentation, as stipulated in Article 3 of Regulation No 6/2002. Like trademarks, designs and models are protected under intellectual property law, provided certain conditions are met. Article 4 of the same Regulation explicitly states that protection for a Community design or model is granted only if it is new and possesses an individual character. These criteria are essential validity standards for obtaining intellectual property protection.

 

However, the definition of a design or model in Article 3 implicitly establishes a preliminary condition for protection. Analyzing the definition reveals that a design or model must correspond to a coherent and identifiable appearance of a single product. The consistency of views is considered as a fundamental requirement of design validity.

 

This principle was at the core of a case addressed by the General Court of the European Union in its judgment of October 23, 2024[1]. The case involved the company Orgatex, holder of a Community design for floor markings, against the EUIPO and Mr. Longton, who filed a request for invalidity on the grounds that the design exhibited visual inconsistencies preventing the identification of a single product. This design contained 4 views.


The EUIPO Cancellation Division initially rejected Mr. Longton's request, finding no inconsistencies in the design. However, the Board of Appeal overturned this decision, declaring the design invalid. It determined that discrepancies between the elements in the views revealed significant differences, suggesting that several distinct products were represented. In particular, the Board of Appeal noted that the lines in views 1.2 and 1.4 had different shapes. Whereas the line was continuous in view 1.2, it was dotted in view 1.4. than those at the right-hand corners.


Ultimately, the General Court upheld the cancellation of Orgatex’s Community design due to its lack of consistency. The Court found that the visual inconsistencies between the submitted views prevented the identification of a single, coherent product. For example, view 1.1 does not show any contour lines between the framing elements. Nevertheless, those contour lines are clearly visible in view 1.2. Views 1.1 and 1.2 therefore present an insoluble inconsistency.


This failure violated the definition established in Article 3 of Regulation No 6/2002. The Court also rejected Orgatex’s argument that these inconsistencies should be interpreted in favor of the applicant. Moreover, the Court concluded that it was unnecessary to examine other validity criteria, such as novelty or individual character, since the failure to meet the consistency requirement was sufficient to invalidate the design.

 

This ruling is significant as it clarifies that the absence of a coherent and singular product appearance constitutes an obstacle to the validity of a design or model registration. Consequently, the decision imposes a higher level of diligence on applicants when preparing and submitting views for registration.



 
[1] General Court of the EU, 23 October 2024, T-25/23, Orgatex GmbH & Co.KG / EUIPO


Christine Chai, Managing Partner

Marco Mouchot Ribas, Trainee Lawyer

by Aurilex 16 April 2025
On April 16, 2025, Christine Chai, partner at Aurilex, was invited to speak at the seminar “ China–Europe Intellectual Property Protection in Practice: A Dual Perspective on Compliance and Risk Mitigation ,” jointly organized by Aurilex and Shanghai Sunhold Law Firm. The event brought together legal professionals from both Europe and China, offering in-depth analysis and practical guidance for companies navigating intellectual property (IP) protection across borders. As the representative speaker on European IP practice, Christine Chai delivered a detailed presentation covering the legal frameworks, registration strategies, and enforcement challenges businesses typically face when entering the European market. Navigating Dual Systems: EU-Wide vs. National IP Protections Christine highlighted the complexity of Europe’s IP system, which combines EU-wide mechanisms (such as EUTM and EPO filings) with country-specific rules. She emphasized the importance for businesses to align their IP strategies with this dual-layered structure. “For example,” she noted, “the actual use requirement under the EU Trademark Regulation means that companies must plan not only for registration but for active, timely use in the market.” Trade Fair Injunctions: A Real and Growing Risk Christine also warned Chinese companies about the increasing use of emergency injunctions during trade fairs in France and other EU countries. “There have been multiple cases where exhibitors faced injunctions on-site, resulting in booth closures and seizure of displayed goods. Without preemptive IP audits, companies expose themselves to serious operational disruptions,” she explained. The UPC: Centralization Comes with Strategy Shifts Addressing recent developments, Christine discussed the impact of the Unified Patent Court (UPC) on enforcement strategy in Europe. While the UPC offers streamlined litigation across multiple EU member states, it also requires companies to make deliberate choices between centralized and national enforcement routes. Joint Dialogue: Cross-Border Action Checklists During the joint dialogue session, Christine collaborated with the Chinese legal team to provide practical compliance checklists for cross-border business activities. She advised Chinese companies to: Conduct prior trademark and patent clearance in target EU countries; Evaluate whether to opt in or out of the UPC system; Prepare legal strategies in case of emergency injunctions or enforcement challenges. Likewise, she shared insights for European companies expanding into China, particularly on navigating local IP enforcement procedures and understanding the nuances of evidence collection in cases involving trade secrets. This seminar highlighted the increasing importance of IP compliance in cross-border business, especially as more Chinese companies “go global” and more European businesses expand into China. Aurilex remains committed to providing in-depth legal support tailored to the needs of international clients operating across jurisdictions.
by Aurilex 31 January 2025
Aurilex Recognized in WTR 1000: Leading Trademark Professional in 2025
by Aurilex 11 November 2024
The General Court clarifies the evidence requirement for trademark use in the EU trademark law in a recent judgement.
by Aurilex 26 July 2024
One hundred years ago, from May 4 to July 27, 1924, the eighth Olympiad of the modern era was held in Paris. Already at that time, the International Olympic Committee paid attention to the protection of the Olympic intellectual properties. Below is the trademark filed in 1924 for the Olympic Games in Paris.
by Aurilex 8 July 2024
The departing question of this legal issue is as follows: does a distillery company, which only fills labeled bottles provides by a third party, infringe the trademark of others, if it turns out that the label provided by the third party is a trademark infringement?
by Aurilex 13 May 2024
Lesson from M&M's: Attention by changing the brand!
designer's right, trademark right, trademark protection, intellecutal property in France
by Aurilex 21 April 2024
After the end of collaboration, can the company still use a designer's name as a trademark ?
artificial intelligence, EU AI Act
by Aurilex 1 April 2024
The New EU AI Act will bring changes for artificial intelligence companies coming into the European Union.
by Aurilex 22 March 2024
The EU has adopted new rules for designs.
More posts