AutoCAD en getuigschrift kunnen niet ontwerperschap bewijzen

Gerecht EU 18 november 2015, IEF 15434; ECLI:EU:2015:T:868; T-813/14 (Tassen voor draagbare computers)
Modellenrecht. Nietigheidsgronden. Nieuwheid. Min Liu heeft in mei 2012 een modelrecht gedeponeerd voor een houder van draagbare computers. DSN Marketing start een nietigheidprocedure bij het OHIM: het model voldoet niet aan de nieuwheidseis uit artikel 5 GModVo. De nietigheid wordt toegewezen, waartegen in beroep wordt. Het Gerecht oordeelt dat een AutoCAD ontwerpen en een getuigschrift niet voldoende kunnen bewijzen dat Min Liu de ontwerper van het model is. De uitzondering van artikel 7(2) GModVo (openbaarmaking door ontwerper gedurende tijdsvak van 12 maanden vóór aanvraag) kan dan ook niet worden ingeroepen door aanvrager. Het beroep wordt afgewezen.

24. In the present case, the Board of Appeal held that the evidence submitted by the applicant was not sufficient to prove that he is the creator of the contested design.

25. In his written pleadings, the applicant claims that it has been proven that he is indeed the creator of the contested design. In support of his contentions, he refers to two items of proof: first, AutoCAD designs (computer-aided designs) and, second, an affidavit.

26. In that regard, it must be recalled that, according to settled case-law, in order to assess the probative value of a document, it is necessary to check the plausibility and truthfulness of the information which it contains. In that regard, account must be taken of, inter alia, the origin of the document, the circumstances of its preparation and to whom it is addressed, and whether it seems from the content to be sensible and reliable (see judgment of 15 December 2005 in BIC v OHIM (Shape of a lighter), T‑262/04, ECR, EU:T:2005:463, paragraph 78 and the case-law cited).

27. In the first place, with regard to the AutoCAD designs, the Board of Appeal took the view that any person with average computer skills could change the time and date settings of a computer and therefore save a file containing AutoCAD designs with a date chosen at will. Furthermore, the Board of Appeal pointed out that the applicant had not explained why he had waited, first, until 10 February 2011 to test a design that he claimed to have created on 2 February 2010, and, second, until 13 February 2011 to commission a designer to design the packaging of that design, although the first sales had already taken place. In addition, the Board of Appeal stated that the applicant had submitted the correspondence between himself and Targus, in which the latter claims that its design was created by a design team consisting of several of its employees and a design consultant during the second half of 2010, with the product being made available on the European market in March 2011. In that context, the Board of Appeal took the view that it seemed highly unlikely that the applicant had required slightly over 18 minutes to create the contested design, as was stated in the file containing the AutoCAD designs submitted by him. The applicant has merely stated before the Court, without adducing evidence capable of proving it, that the process of the creation of the contested design had started in August 2009 and that the 12-month period between the date of creation of this design and the first sales of rotating cases corresponding to the contested design is attributable to, in particular, the manufacture of several samples and the conducting of several series of tests. He has also stated that nothing proves that the date of the AutoCAD designs was modified, without disputing the Board of Appeal’s assessment that such a modification could have been made by any person with average computer skills. Furthermore, he has not challenged any of the other evidence admitted by the Board of Appeal although it is of such a kind as to cast a doubt over the plausibility and truthfulness of the information contained in those designs.

28. In the second place, with regard to the applicant’s affidavit, it is clear that the Board of Appeal did not take account of it. In his written pleadings, the applicant contends that such an affidavit is, however, capable of corroborating the accuracy of the other documents submitted.

29. In this regard, it must be pointed out that the particulars in an affidavit made by a person linked, in any manner whatsoever, to the company relying on it must, in any event, be supported by other evidence (see judgment of 11 December 2014 in Nanu-Nana Joachim Hoepp vOHIM — Vincci Hoteles (NAMMU), T‑498/13, EU:T:2014:1065, paragraph 38 and the case-law cited). It is, however, clear, as follows from paragraph 27 above, that the applicant has not demonstrated that the Board of Appeal erred in taking the view that the AutoCAD designs created by the applicant did not make it possible to establish that he was the genuine creator of the contested design and, consequently, to corroborate the content of that affidavit.

30. It follows from the foregoing that the Board of Appeal was fully entitled to take the view that the applicant had not proved that he is the creator of the contested design. Therefore, he is not justified in relying on the provisions of Article 7(2) of Regulation No 6/2002 and, consequently, in claiming that the disclosure of the Targus and Duragadget designs for a period of 12 months preceding the date of priority did not place in question the novelty of the contested design.