Order of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 15 December 2021

1. Community designsSurrender and invalidityApplication for a declaration of invalidity based on the existence of an earlier designEarlier designs relied on subsequent to the filing of the application for a declaration of invalidityNot included

(Council Regulation No 6/2002, Arts 52(2) and 63(2); Commission Regulation No 2245/2002, Art. 28(1)(b)(i)(v) and (vi))

(see paras 30-32)

2. Community designsProcedural provisionsExamination of the facts of EUIPO’s own motionFacts and evidence not submitted in timeAccount takenEarlier designs relied on subsequent to the filing of the application for a declaration of invalidityNot included

(Council Regulation No 6/2002, Art. 63(2))

(see paras 33, 34)

3. Community designsGrounds for invalidityNo individual characterPrevious disclosure of identical designProof of the disclosure

(Council Regulation No 6/2002, Art. 7(1))

(see paras 40, 42, 43)

4. Community designsProcedural provisionsDecisions of EUIPOObservance of the rights of the defenceScope of the principle

(Council Regulation No 6/2002, Art. 62, second sentence)

(see paras 49, 52)

5. Community designsProcedural provisionsStatement of reasons for decisionsFirst sentence of Article 62 of Regulation No 6/2002Scope identical to that of Article 296 TFEURecourse by the Board of Appeal to implicit reasoningWhether permissibleConditions

(Art. 296 TFEU; Council Regulation No 6/2002, Art. 62, first sentence)

(see paras 57, 58)

6. Community designsGrounds for invalidityNo individual characterDesign not giving the informed user a different overall impression from that produced by the earlier designCriteria for assessmentCreative licence

(Council Regulation No 6/2002, Arts 6 and 25(1)(b))

(see paras 68, 70-73)

7. Community designsGrounds for invalidityNo individual characterDesign not giving the informed user a different overall impression from that produced by the earlier designRepresentation of a shoe

(Council Regulation No 6/2002, Arts 6(1) and 25(1)(b))

(see paras 78, 85, 105-108)

8. Community designsGrounds for invalidityNo individual characterDesign not giving the informed user a different overall impression from that produced by the earlier designSaturation of the state of the artRelevance

(Council Regulation No 6/2002, Arts 6(1) and 25(1)(b))

(see paras 80, 82, 84)

9. Community designsGrounds for invalidityNo individual characterDesign not giving the informed user a different overall impression from that produced by the earlier designGlobal assessment of all the elements of the earlier design

(Council Regulation No 6/2002, Arts 6(1) and 25(1)(b))

(see paras 86, 87)

10. Community designsConditions for protectionOverlap of the conditions of novelty and individual character

(Council Regulation No 6/2002, Arts 5 and 6)

(see paras 112-114, 116, 118)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 September 2020 (Case R 1648/2019-3), relating to invalidity proceedings between Legero Schuhfabrik and Rieker Schuh.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.

2. Legero Schuhfabrik GmbH shall pay the costs.