Skip to content

GlobalLawDBby GenieAI

Laws Search Sanctions Map Data Developers

Search the text of the law

Log in Get an API key

Laws Search Sanctions Map Data Developers

Log in Get an API key

The Global Law Database. Free to read, built for people and AI agents.

Explore

All laws
Search the text
Sanctions
Map of connections
Compare UK and EU

Developers

AI agents (MCP)
REST API
Bulk data
API keys

Coverage

United Kingdom
European Union
United States
Canada
Australia
France
Germany
Netherlands
Spain
Austria
Norway
Finland
Switzerland
Ireland

GlobalLawDB is made by GenieAI, London. It is not legal advice: check the official text before relying on it. Text comes from official publishers under their licences, listed on the Data page.

ThemeMatch my systemLightDark

European Union
DOCERAM GmbH v CeramTec GmbH (C-395/16)
Consideration of the questions referred
The first question
25

DOCERAM GmbH v CeramTec GmbH (C-395/16)

Judgment of 8 Mar 2018law://eu/cjeu/2016/c-395-16/para_25@2026-11-11

25It follows that, under the system laid down by Regulation No 6/2002, appearance is the decisive factor for a design (judgment of 21 September 2017, Easy Sanitary Solutions and EUIPO v Group Nivelles, C‑361/15 P and C‑405/15 P, EU:C:2017:720, paragraph 62).

Source: EUR-Lex, © European Union, 1998-2026. Reuse authorised under Decision 2011/833/EU.

Key facts

Court: Court of Justice · Second Chamber
Case: C-395/16 · ECLI:EU:C:2018:172
Decided: 8 Mar 2018
Procedure: Preliminary reference · referred by the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf (Higher Regional Court, Düsseldorf, Germany)
Applicant: DOCERAM GmbH
Defendant: CeramTec GmbH
Rapporteur: E. Jarašiūnas
Advocate General: H. Saugmandsgaard Øe
Bench: 5 judges
M. Ilešič, K. Lenaerts, A. Rosas, C. Toader, E. Jarašiūnas
Language: German
Official: CURIA · EUR-Lex 62016CJ0395

Topics

Designs General and final provisions

History · 1 version

8 Mar 2018Reading

Connections

Interprets 1: Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 of 12 December 2001 on Community designs
Cited by 23: Empreinte v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-437/25); DJO LLC v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-1102/23); EveMotion GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-54/24); Spin Master Toys UK Ltd v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-1170/23); Spin Master Toys UK Ltd v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-1173/23); Spin Master Toys UK Ltd v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-1172/23); Spin Master Toys UK Ltd v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-1171/23)2 provisions; Delta-Sport Handelskontor GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-1061/23); Delta-Sport Handelskontor GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-1060/23); ADS L. Kowalik, B. Włodarczyk s.c. v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-1065/23); ADS L. Kowalik, B. Włodarczyk s.c. v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-1064/23); Lidl Digital International GmbH & Co. KG v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-464/23); Orgatex GmbH & Co. KG v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-25/23)2 provisions; Puma SE v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-757/22); Tinnus Enterprises LLC v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-577/21); Tinnus Enterprises LLC v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-576/21); Tinnus Enterprises LLC v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-575/21); Tinnus Enterprises LLC v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-535/21); Tinnus Enterprises LLC v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-555/21); Tinnus Enterprises LLC v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-505/21); Tinnus Enterprises LLC v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-588/21); Tinnus Enterprises LLC v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-578/21); Papierfabriek Doetinchem B.V. v Sprick GmbH Bielefelder Papier- und Wellpappenwerk & Co (C-684/21)
Cites 6: Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 of 12 December 2001 on Community designs; Directive 98/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 1998 on the legal protection of designs; Easy Sanitary Solutions BV and European Union Intellectual Property Office v Group Nivelles (C-361/15 P, C-405/15 P)2 provisions; A Oy (C-33/11); DOCERAM GmbH v CeramTec GmbH (C-395/16); Heike Schottelius v Falk Seifert (C-247/16)