#62025TJ0580EU court upholds invalidation of a registered door design after finding an earlier online design was properly disclosed
AI-generated summary for informational purposes only. Not legal advice. See the original source for the authoritative text.
This judgment confirms that an EU design can be invalidated when an earlier design was posted online before the filing date and the evidence is credible enough. The court accepted a website screenshot and a Wayback Machine archive as enough proof that the earlier door design had been made public. For businesses, the practical message is simple: online postings can destroy design novelty, even if the proof comes from archived web pages rather than notarized records. Companies filing or challenging EU designs should keep dated records of publication, and they should be ready to test the reliability of any archived internet evidence used against them.
AI-generated summary. May contain errors. Refer to official sources for legal decisions.
Key Changes
- The court accepted archived web evidence as enough to prove an earlier design was disclosed to the public.
- It rejected the argument that evidence must be notarized or officially certified to count.
- It confirmed that online publication can count as prior disclosure for EU design invalidity cases.
Obligations
What this law requires
Under Article 7(1) of Regulation No 6/2002, a design is treated as made available to the public if it has been published, exhibited, used in trade, or otherwise disclosed before the filing date or priority date, unless the disclosure could not reasonably have become known in the normal course of business to the relevant specialist circles in the EU.
An applicant for a declaration of invalidity must provide evidence showing that the contested EU design does not meet the novelty or individual-character requirements, including proof that an earlier design was actually disclosed before the relevant filing or priority date.
Parties disputing disclosure must prove to the required legal standard that the earlier disclosure could not reasonably have become known in the normal course of business to the specialist circles in the EU sector concerned.
EUIPO must assess all evidence submitted for disclosure, and may accept internet-based evidence such as website screenshots and Wayback Machine archives if the evidence is sufficiently cogent, consistent, reliable, and factually accurate.
A party alleging manipulation of archived website evidence must identify concrete facts showing falsification, contradictions, or obvious inconsistencies; abstract allegations that online content could be altered are not enough to discredit the evidence.