EUROPEAN UNION: Orgatex Case Evaluates Unicity of Design

The General Court (GC) has upheld the invalidation of a registered Community design (RCD) by Orgatex GmbH for “ground markings,” citing violations of the principle of unicity of design. This principle requires that all views submitted for an RCD depict a single, unified product. Insoluble inconsistencies in the views, such as variations in contours, shading, and details, led to the conclusion that the design represented at least two different products.

In its decision in case T-25/23 on October 23, 2024, the GC explained that the product’s appearance, as shown in the registered views, defines the design’s scope of protection. For reasons of legal certainty, the design must be clear and precise, enabling the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and third parties to identify the protected design unambiguously. Minor differences are acceptable only if they can logically be reconciled into a unitary design.

In the GC’s opinion, no such reconciliation was possible here. The assumption that views 1.1 and 1.2 depict the front face of the product, and views 1.3 and 1.4 show the rear face, was both logical and plausible. However, the GC identified significant inconsistencies—such as contour lines visible in view 1.2 but absent in view 1.1, and differing color gradations between views 1.3 and 1.4—that could not be reconciled into a coherent design. Even under the alternative interpretation that views 1.2, 1.3, and 1.4 all show the rear face, the differences in frame shading resulted in further irreconcilable discrepancies.

The GC rejected Orgatex’s push for a “principle of interpretation favorable to the holder,” emphasizing that invalidity proceedings require strict scrutiny to ensure sound administration and legal certainty. The GC also concluded that EUIPO’s initial examination did not bind EUIPO’s Board of Appeal or the GC.

Additionally, the GC dismissed the relevance of real-life product images, stating that invalidity proceedings must assess only the design as registered. Real-life images may illustrate conclusions but cannot resolve inconsistencies in the registered views.

In design applications, less is sometimes more. Clear and concise representations minimize the risk of invalidation.

With the entry into force of Regulation No. 2024/2822 on EU designs, an applicant will now be able to include a video file, a CAD file, or a 3D image with its application for registration. Moreover, the applicant will be able to correct “immaterial details” of the application. These new ways of representing the designs or amending the application may help applicants to reduce the lack of clarity and precision.

View 1.1	View 1.2
View 1.3	View 1.4

Although every effort has been made to verify the accuracy of this article, readers are urged to check independently on matters of specific concern or interest. Law & Practice updates are published without comment from INTA except where it has taken an official position.

© 2025 International Trademark Association