The matter at hand

The matter concerns a request for a preliminary ruling on the interpretation of Articles 32(2) and 33(2) of the Community Design RegulationCouncil Regulation [EC] No 6/2002 of 12 December 2001 on Community designs.

By its first question, the referring German court asked whether Article 33(2) must be interpreted as meaning that the holder of a license which has not been entered in the Register cannot bring proceedings alleging infringement of a Community design.

By its second question, the referring court asked whether Article 32(3) must be interpreted as meaning that the licensee can claim damages for its own loss in infringement proceedings initiated  by the licensee himself. The referring court had doubts about this, because Article 32(4) of the Community Design RegulationCouncil Regulation [EC] No 6/2002 of 12 December 2001 on Community designs provides that a licensee is entitled to intervene in an infringement action brought by the rightholder in order to obtain compensation for damage suffered by the licensee, but does not provide that the licensee can claim such compensation in an infringement action brought by the licensee.

The judgment of the ECJ

The first question was already answered in the affirmative in Hassan v Breiding (C-163/15).

Regarding the second question, the ECJ rules that the licensee can indeed claim damages for its own loss in infringement proceedings brought by the licensee (paragraph 32). According to the ECJ, the system would lack coherence if the licensee could claim its own damages only by joining an action brought by the rightholder of the Community design, while he may act alone in an infringement action (paragraph 30).