There must be a sufficiently clear description of a design including clarity and precision. This was the issue with the application put forward by JÃ¤germeister when attempting to register a shot glass.
There was difficulty in the application from the outset, when JÃ¤germeister included their bottle in the image alongside the shot glass, which was deemed as invalid and they were told they had two months to amend their application so that both the bottle and shot glass be divided in to two applications.
JÃ¤germeister proclaimed that no protection was being asked for the bottle, so they proposed to set out the indication of the goods as follows: ÂDrinking beakers (which is another word for shot glass) as receptacles for a bottle which is part of those beakersÂ. The EUIPO determined that despite these claims JÃ¤germeister had not complied with the instructions to amend the application and that, in accordance with Article 46(2) of the Community Designs Regulation (“CDR”), the Application was not to be regarded as valid. As the deficiencies had not been remedied within two months, the Application could not be dealt with as a registered Community design application (Article 10(2) of the Implementing Regulations).
Naturally, JÃ¤germeister appealed against this decision, but it was ruled that it wasnÂt possible to determine from the two designs whether protection was being sought for the beaker, for the bottle, or for a combination of the two. This meant it was now down to the CJEU General Court to decide.
Quite simply, the General Court found that due to the deficiencies in the original Application remaining, and filing time issues that couldnÂt be justified, there wasnÂt really a case. This resulted in JÃ¤germeister being ordered to pay various costs because they were the unsuccessful party in the case.
We shall keep our eyes peeled for an update on the next stage of this on-going saga, after it was publicised that JÃ¤germeister have appealed again, now to the EU Court of Justice.