Uitspraken

1.1.

Het verloop van de procedure blijkt uit:

• -

  de dagvaarding met producties 1-44;

• -

  de conclusie van antwoord tevens overlegging producties, met producties 1-27;

• -

  de akte houdende overlegging reactieve producties van Senz, met producties 45-49;

• -

  de conclusie van repliek, tevens akte houdende wijziging van eis;

• -

  de conclusie van dupliek tevens antwoord wijziging van eis;

• -

  de akte houdende overlegging productie 28 van Impliva;

• -

  de akte houdende overlegging producties 29-34 van Impliva met aanvullende kostenstaat;

• -

  de email/brief van Senz d.d. 26 april 2016 met een aangepaste kostenopgave;

• -

  de mondelinge behandeling d.d. 28 april 2016;

• -

  de pleitnota van Senz;

• -

  de pleitnota van Impliva.

1.2.

Ten slotte is vonnis bepaald.

2.1.

Senz is producent van stormparaplu’s. Zij heeft een paraplu ontworpen onder de naam Senz Original. Hieronder is een afbeelding van het betreffende product geplaatst.

2.2.

Naast deze Senz Original is door Senz de Senz Mini ontworpen, een kleinere, opvouwbare variant van de Senz Original, met een vergelijkbare vormgeving:

2.3.

Senz Technologies heeft de vormgeving van de Senz Original en de Senz Mini als gemeenschapsmodel geregistreerd onder de volgende nummers:

00579032-0001 met registratiedatum 25 augustus 2006 en de volgende afbeeldingen:

00579032-0002 met registratiedatum 25 augustus 2006 en de volgende afbeeldingen:

2.4.

De Senz Original en de Senz Mini worden op de markt gebracht door Senz Umbrellas in de volgende kleuren:

2.5.

Impliva is eveneens producent van paraplu’s. Impliva heeft The Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (OHIM) verzocht de hiervoor genoemde modelrechten van Senz nietig te verklaren. Impliva deed daarbij een beroep op US 5505221 (in de uitspraken wel aangeduid met 'the earlier patent'), gepubliceerd op 9 april 1996, waarbij onder meer de volgende figuren horen:

2.6.

In de daarop volgende procedure heeft uiteindelijk het Gerecht van Eerste Aanleg van de EU op 21 mei 2015 (T-22/13 en T-23/13) beslist dat het verzoek van Impliva dient te worden afgewezen. Het Gerecht overwoog onder meer het volgende:

24 Regarding the first argument put forward by the applicant, to the effect that a design has nothing to do with patents, it should first of all be borne in mind that the definition laid down in Article 3(a) of Regulation No 6/2002, under which a design is defined as 'the appearance of the whole or a part of a product resulting from the features of, in particular, the lines, contours, colours, shape, texture and/or materials of the product itself and/or its ornamentation'. As rightly pointed out by OHIM at the hearing, it is only 'the appearance' as such which is the decisive criterion for there to be a design within the meaning of Regulation No 6/2002 and not the legal form under which that appearance is protected. The fact that the earlier right relied on by the intervener is a patent is therefore of no import in the present case, so long as that patent has the required characteristics of a design as laid down in Article 3(a) of Regulation No 6/2002. The earlier patent covers the umbrella designated by it as resulting from the features of its lines, contours, angles and shape. Therefore, the earlier patent contains not only the technical description of an asymmetrical umbrella but also its appearance. It is accordingly a design within the meaning of Article 3(a) of Regulation No 6/2002 on which the intervener could rightly rely as an earlier design within the meaning of Article 7(1) thereof. The applicant's argument in that regard must therefore be rejected.

25 As to the other arguments put forward by the applicant as part of its first plea in law, it should be remembered that Article 7(1) of Regulation No 6/2002 provides that '[f]or the purpose of applying Articles 5 and 6, a design shall be deemed to have been made available to the public if it has been published following registration or otherwise, or exhibited, used in trade or otherwise disclosed, before the date referred to in Articles 5(l)(a) and 6(l)(a) or in Articles 5(1)(b) and 6( 1)(b), as the case may be, except where these events could not reasonably have become known in the normal course of business to the circles specialised in the sector concerned, operating within the Community'.

26 A design is therefore deemed to have been made available once the party relying thereon has proven the events constituting disclosure. In order to refute that presumption, the party challenging the disclosure must establish to the requisite legal standard that the circumstances of the case could reasonably prevent those facts from becoming known in the normal course of business to the circles specialised in the sector concerned.

27 Moreover, the presumption provided for in Article 7(1) of Regulation No 6/2002 applies irrespective of where the events constituting disclosure took place, since it can be seen from the wording of the first sentence of Article 7(1) of Regulation No 6/2002 that it is not absolutely necessary, for the purpose of applying Articles 5 and 6 of that regulation, for the events constituting disclosure to have taken place within the European Union in order for a design to be deemed to have been made available to the public (judgment of 13 February 2014 in H. Gautzsch Groβhandel, C-479/12, ECR, EU:C:2014:75, paragraph 33).

(…)

39 In the light of all the foregoing, the conclusion is therefore that the applicant has failed to establish sufficiently that the circumstances of the present case prevented the circles specialised in the sector concerned from learning of the publication of the earlier patent on the USPTO website and thereby learn of the patent. Accordingly, the Board of Appeal did not err in finding that the earlier patent had been made available within the meaning of Article 7(1) of Regulation No 612002. The first plea in law relied on by the applicant must therefore be rejected in its entirety.

(…)

41 The Board of Appeal defined the informed user as someone wishing to use an umbrella, who needs to purchase one and who has become informed on the subject. The umbrella will be used in accordance with its purpose, which is to protect the user from rain and inclement weather.

(…)

46 The conclusion, therefore, is that the definition of the informed user adopted by the Board of Appeal is, rightly, not challenged by the applicant.

54 The Board of Appeal held that there was 'some degree of design freedom' in the overall shape or size of the canopy and considerable design freedom in terms of the possibilities for varying patterns and colours.

55 All parties to the present proceedings consider, as they confirmed at the hearing, that in the present case the designer is limited by technical constraints arising from the wind-resistance function of umbrellas, which places limits on the designer's degree of freedom.

56 According to the case-law, the designer's degree of freedom is established by, inter alia, the constraints of the features imposed by the technical function of the product or an element thereof, or by statutory requirements applicable to the product. Those constraints result in a standardisation of certain features, which will thus be common to the designs applied to the product concerned (judgments of 9 September 2011 in Kwang Yang Motor v OHIM- Honda Giken Kogyo (Internal combustion engine), T-I1108, EU:T:2011:447, paragraph 32, and of 25 April 2013 in Bell & Ross v OHIM - KIN (Wristwatch case), T-80/10, EU:T:2013:214, paragraph 112).

57 Therefore, the greater the designer's freedom in developing a design, the less likely it is that minor differences between the designs at issue will be sufficient to produce different overall impressions on an informed user. Conversely, the more restricted the designer's freedom in developing a design, the more likely it is that minor differences between the designs at issue will be sufficient to produce different overall impressions on an informed user. Therefore, if the designer enjoys a high degree of freedom in developing a design, that reinforces the conclusion that designs that do not have significant differences produce the same overall impression on an informed user (judgments in Internal combustion engine, cited in paragraph 56 above, EU:T:2011:447, paragraph 33, and Wristwatch case, cited in paragraph 56 above, EU:T:2013:214, paragraph 113).

58 In the present case, it must be observed, firstly, that an umbrella must necessarily have a shaft, a canopy resting on at least three ribs, a handle and eye savers. Although it is true that the umbrella designs may come in unlimited varieties according to the colours and patterns used for the canopy, those design features have no bearing on the comparison of the umbrella covered by the earlier patent and the umbrellas covered by the contested designs. However, the possibilities for varying the shape of the canopy, which in turn necessarily affects the number of ribs, are rather limited in that the designer may opt for a rectangular, polyangular, round, asymmetrical or atypical shape, such as a heart or star shape, whilst accommodating functional constraints arising from the fact that the canopy must ensure sufficient protection against rain. The designer may also vary the threedimensional appearance of the canopy to give it a cupola or more flat, conical or pyramidal shape. As regards, inter alia, the handle, the eye savers, the ribs and the shaft, the possibilities for variation are limited, principally because their appearances are to a large extent dictated by the functionality of an umbrella. By contrast, the umbrellas covered by the contested designs are umbrellas intended to be highly wind-resistant. As explained by the parties at the hearing, this windresistant function, which the umbrellas covered by the contested designs must perform, places limitations subsequently on the possibilities for varying inter alia the shape and depth of the canopy, ribs and eye savers.

59 Accordingly, the conclusion is that the degree of freedom of the designer in the present case is limited, with the result that, in accordance with the case-law cited in paragraph 57 above, even minor differences between the earlier patent and the contested designs suffice to produce different overall impressions on the informed user.

(…)

86 In order to determine whether the contested designs have individual character in relation to the earlier patent, account must be taken of the comparisons made of different views, the degree of attention shown by the informed user and the degree of freedom of the designer in the development of the design.

87 As regards the informed user, the definition provided by the Board of Appeal, according to which the informed user is someone wishing to use an umbrella, who needs to purchase one and who has become informed on the subject, has been accepted. The informed user also knows the different models of umbrella and their usual features and shows a relatively high level of attention in respect of the products concerned.

88 The designer's degree of freedom has been held to be limited.

89 The comparison of the umbrella covered by the earlier patent with the umbrellas covered by the contested designs has shown that all the umbrellas are asymmetrical in appearance in that their shafts are positioned off-centre in relation to their canopies.

90 As to the comparison of the different views of the umbrella covered by the earlier patent and the umbrellas covered by the contested designs, it has been found that the overhead views are different, that the views from underneath, which can be taken into account only in so far as they can be deduced from the other views, comprise the same differences and that the lateral views, in terms of the lateral view of the earlier patent in so far as it can be deduced from the cross-intersection (Fig. 3), comprise significant differences.

91 The umbrella covered by the earlier patent has a flat surface in the middle and is characterised by curved lateral contours resting on a regular octagon, whereas the design contested in Case T-22/13 has an irregular pyramidal shape and the design contested in Case T-23/13 has a quasi-pyramidal shape with slightly bent lateral contours marked by ribs made up of straight parts. The umbrellas covered by the contested designs are also resting on an elongated, irregular octagon.

92 The umbrella covered by the earlier patent has curved ribs, whereas the design contested in Case T-22/13 has straight ribs and the design contested in Case T-23/13 has two ribs in the back made up of three straight parts bent towards the back and six ribs made up of two straight parts bent towards the front or towards the sides.

93 In the light of those observations, the conclusion is that it is the canopy shapes which characterise the overall impressions produced by the earlier patent and by the contested designs and which gives each of the umbrellas examined a very specific and, therefore, individual character within the meaning of Article 6(1) of Regulation No 6/2002.

95 First of all, as regards the comparison between the situation in the present case and the situation where someone who has never seen an aircraft before and for the first time sees a Concorde and an Airbus A 380, the conclusion is that a user faced for the first time with an asymmetrical umbrella cannot be likened to the user described by OHIM. The appearance of an asymmetrical umbrella may be regarded as innovative or even original, but it is not so striking that a user would lose sight of all the other remarkable features of the umbrella. Moreover, if OHIM's line of argument were to be followed, it would lead to a situation where the proprietor of the first design registered for a new product could prevent protection of any subsequent design concerning the same category of products on the sole ground that the new and unusual character of the design of the first model no longer allows for identification and perception of differences in subsequent models or, to put it another way, that the first design protected precludes, for the duration of its protection, any future design concerning the same type of product. It goes without saying that such a position is completely untenable. Contrary to OHIM's submission, nor is support for the approach it advocates to be drawn from the judgment of 13 November 2012 in Antrax It v OHIM - THe (Radiators for heating) (T-83111 and T-84111, ECR, EU:T:2012:592), in which the Court of Justice stated, in paragraph 89, that a possible saturation of the state of the art, deriving from the alleged existence of other designs for thermosiphons or radiators which have the same overall features as the designs at issue, was relevant, in so far as it could be capable of making the informed user more attentive to the differences in the internal proportions of those different designs. There is nothing in that case-law to support the position that a user confronted with two new and unusual designs, which in the present case have significant differences, is no longer able to perceive those differences solely because one of the characteristic features of those designs is the same for both.

96 Secondly, as to the argument put forward a number of times by OHIM and the intervener, to the effect that the off-centre positioning in relation to the canopy is the dominant feature of the earlier patent and the contested designs, with the result that it dominates the informed user's perception, it must be observed that the off-centre positioning is perceived strongly only if the comparison is made only with a more usual type of umbrella model, that is to say, a symmetrical umbrella. By contrast, when two asymmetrical umbrellas are to be compared, the mere fact that they both are asymmetrical does not preclude the overall impression produced by the umbrellas from being different.

97 Thirdly, the fact that the user views the umbrella inter alia from underneath is also irrelevant to the assessment of the individual character of the contested designs. In attaching greater weight to the perception of the umbrellas from the perspective of underneath, the Board of Appeal disregards the fact that the designs are rights protecting the appearance as it results from specific designs and not perspectives which have not been reproduced in those designs. Moreover, if decisive weight were to be attached to the perspective during use for the assessment of the perception of an appearance by the user, all the objects which the user puts on (such as clothing), wears (such as hats, bonnets, glasses or helmets) or on or in which the user may habitually find himself or herself (such as bicycles), are, in principle, devoid of individual character because they have no distinctive appearance when used (glasses, helmets, hats) or a barely perceptible appearance and similar contours (bicycles, clothing). Clearly such a consequence does not reflect the reality in which the user makes his or her decision to purchase and decision to use these types of objects, which in most cases is based on their design. Moreover, even if the user sees certain products from only a limited perspective when using them, he or she will be aware of all the other perspectives at the time of use.

98 Fourthly, the conclusion that the contested designs each have individual character in relation to the umbrella covered by the earlier patent is not contradictory with the judgment of 9 September 2011 in Kwang Yang Motor v ORIM - Honda Giken Kogyo (Combustion engine with the vent on the top) (T-lO/08, EU:T:2011:446) cited by the Board of Appeal in paragraph 19 of the contested decision. That case concerned a lawnmower. In paragraph 22 of that judgment the Court held that the user, standing behind the lawnmower, sees the engine from the top and therefore sees principally the upper side of the engine. It follows that the upper side of the engine determines the overall impression produced by the engine. Unlike products which the user can easily turn over and around and thus observe from any perspective, the engine of a lawnmower can be seen from another angle than from above only with difficulty. It goes without saying that the user will not engage in such behaviour when observing, purchasing or using a lawnmower. However, there is no reason to suppose that the informed user should not see an umbrella from above or the sides before making his or her purchasing decision.

99 Fifthly, as to the argument put forward inter alia by the intervener, with which OHIM also concurred in its final observations at the hearing, to the effect that the shape of the canopy is the result of aerodynamic constraints, which is why it cannot be taken into consideration, or only to a lesser degree, in the assessment of individual character of the umbrella covered by the earlier patent and the umbrellas covered by the contested designs, it must be borne in mind that, under Article 8(1) of Regulation No 6/2002, a design does not subsist in the features of a product's appearance which are solely dictated by its technical function.

2.7.

Eerder, in 2007, is door de voorzieningenrechter van deze rechtbank geoordeeld dat een destijds door Impliva ontworpen prototype van een stormparaplu inbreuk maakt op de modelrechten van Senz.

2.8.

In 2013 heeft Senz Impliva aangeschreven omdat bepaalde modellen paraplu’s die Impliva volgens Senz op de markt wilde brengen, naar de mening van Senz inbreuk maakten op haar modelrechten. Impliva is niet overgegaan tot het daadwerkelijk op de markt brengen van de desbetreffende producten.

2.9.

Recent heeft Impliva een model paraplu op de markt gebracht onder de naam Stormaxi. Een afbeelding daarvan is hieronder weergegeven.

2.10.

Naast de Stormaxi brengt Impliva ook nog een opvouwbare variant hiervan op de markt onder de naam Stormini (in dezelfde kleuren):

2.11.

Senz heeft Impliva bij brief van 14 januari 2016 schriftelijk gesommeerd het aanbieden van de Stormaxi en Stormini te staken en gestaakt te houden. Impliva heeft hierop niet gereageerd.

3.1.

3.2.

Senz stelt dat Impliva inbreuk maakt op haar intellectuele eigendomsrechten, althans zich schuldig maakt aan slaafse nabootsing van haar producten.

3.3.

Impliva voert verweer. Met haar huidige modellen, de Stormaxi en Stormini, is bewust gekozen voor een andere vormgeving dan de eerdere ontwerpen, die door Senz (en de voorzieningenrechter in 2007) inbreukmakend werden geacht. Impliva verwijst verder naar rapporten van deskundigen, waaruit blijkt dat de vorm van een asymmetrische aerodynamische stormparaplu merendeels bepaald wordt door technische vereisten. Dat deel van de door Senz gekozen vorm valt daarmee buiten de beschermingsomvang van het modellenrecht. Volgens Impliva is verder van belang dat zij, anders dan Senz, heeft gekozen voor een stormbestendige constructie die is gebaseerd op stijfheid van baleinen. Hierdoor is de vorm van haar product reeds voor een groot deel bepaald, wat het meest zichtbaar is in de ‘knik’ of ‘piramide’ in de top. Binnen deze begrenzing wijkt de vorm van de Stormaxi en de Stormini echter op een groot aantal punten af van de Senz Original en Senz Mini. De baleinen zijn anders gepositioneerd, wat onder meer tot gevolg heeft dat bij het ontwerp van Impliva het voorvlak in tweeën wordt gesplitst. Verder heeft de onderkant van het doek bij de paraplu’s van Senz een boogvorm, terwijl deze bij de ontwerpen van Impliva plat is. Ook neemt de breedte van de paraplu’s, naar de achterzijde toe bezien, bij de modellen van Senz gelijkmatiger af, terwijl deze bij de paraplu’s van Impliva breed blijft. Daarnaast zijn de modellen van Impliva minder hoog, waardoor de baleinen een minder steile hoek met de stok maken. Door deze en andere verschillen zal bij de geïnformeerde gebruiker niet dezelfde algemene indruk ontstaan. Van inbreuk op het modelrecht is daarom geen sprake.

3.4.

Op de stellingen van partijen wordt hierna, voor zover van belang, nader ingegaan.