Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
(Community design – Invalidity proceedings – Community design representing a building panel – Earlier design representing a panel for a noise-reduction wall – Ground for invalidity – No individual character – Sector concerned – Informed user – Degree of freedom of the designer – No different overall impression – Relevance of goods actually marketed – Article 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002)
Eternit, established in Kapelle-op-den-Bos (Belgium), represented by J. Muyldermans and P. Maeyaert, lawyers,
European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), represented by J. Ivanauskas and V. Ruzek, acting as Agents,
the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court, being
Eternit Österreich GmbH, established in Vöcklabruck (Austria), represented by M. Prohaska-Marchried, lawyer,
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
[2023] ECHR 69
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.